Transfer of Civil servant

2015 PLC(CS) 1215 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 10Balochistan Service Tribunal Act (V of 1974), S.4Notification No.SO-IV(H)4-6/2014/4235-350 dated 12-2-2015Circular No.SOR 1-5(59) S&GAD 5241-5341 dated 2-2-1998Circular No.SOR 1-5(59) S&GAD 2069-2170 dated 12-8-2006Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.9 & 35Transfer of civil servant

Appellants/Lady Doctors, who were serving in hospitals at place "Q" were transferred to hospitals in other places of the Province

Question of transfer/posting under S.10 of Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974, though fell within the domain of Authority, but such discretion must not be exercised in an arbitrary or fanciful manner

Such discretion, had to be exercised judiciously and in accordance with settled norms of justice, equity and fair play

Authority was duty bound that while exercising such discretion, requirement of job, nature of duties, requisites and capabilities, must be considered and there should be no extraneous considerations

Government had formulated a comprehensive policy by issuance of Circular No.SOR 1-5(59) S&GAD 5241-5341 dated 2-2-1989, to facilitate posting of serving husbands/wives at same station

Said circular followed by another Circular No. SOR 1-5(59) S&GAD 2069-2170 dated 12-8-2006, in pursuance whereof application of "Wedlock Policy" had been extended to the cases, where either of the spouses was employed in private sector

Said policy further provided that keeping in view the socio-economic problems and hardship faced by the husbands and wives due to posting at different stations of duty, Government through said circulars, issued instructions, guidelines to facilitate posting of husbands and wives at same station

Impugned notification whereby appellants were transferred, was violative of the 'Wedlock Policy' introduced through circulars

Notification in question was also violative of Arts.9 & 35 of the Constitution

If husband was posted at one city and his wife was posted in another one, that definitely would cause mental distress to both of them, with the consequences which were not only injurious to them and public exchequer, but could also impair their efficiency in discharge of official functions

Impugned notification, was set aside to the extent of appellants, in circumstances.

2014 PLC(CS) 914 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 4Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 212Constitutional petitionMaintainabilityAlternate remedyTerms and conditions of serviceTransfer of civil servantJurisdiction of Service TribunalScope

Civil servant can be transferred /posted by the competent authority to meet the administrative exigency, and a civil servant cannot raise any objection in that regard

If a civil servant was aggrieved by such transfer/posting then such dispute, which relates to terms and conditions of the employment, can be agitated before the forums provided under the statute upto Service Tribunal, and not by way of filing a constitutional petition

Constitution provides for creation of an independent forum i.e. Service Tribunal for resolution of disputes by civil servant and prohibits filing of constitutional petition

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

2014 PLC(CS) 473 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 199 & 224(1A)Constitutional petitionCivil serviceTransfer of civil servantCaretaker governmentFunctions and powersScopePetitioner/civil servant assailed his transfer by the order of caretaker government

Contention of civil servant/petitioner was that the Caretaker government was not empowered to order transfer of civil servant/petitioner

Validity

Caretaker Government (Prime Minister and Cabinet) was required to perform its functions to attend the day-to-day matters which were necessary to run the affairs of the State and also to watch the national interests in any eventuality in the absence of an elected government

Such government was not authorized to make decisions, appointment having effect on the working policies of the future government, which was likely to take-over after the elections and was not vested with the authority to take decisions concerning the affairs of the government, which were bound to pre-empt the scope and sphere of activity, powers and jurisdiction of an elected government

Caretaker government possessed limited powers and authority particularly in view of the fact that when it was appointed there was no National Assembly in place and thus the important aspect of accountability was absent

Impugned notification of transfer of civil servant was issued and passed by the caretaker government and the same was void and of no legal effect

Constitutional petition was allowed.

2013 PLC(CS) 831 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S. 9Transfer of civil servant

Authority had power to transfer a civil servant, and every civil servant was bound to serve under the Government, inside or out of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, wherever he was transferred, provided his terms and conditions of service were not adversely affected.

2011 PLC(CS) 782 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 5Punjab Civil Servants Act (XIII of 1974), S.9Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 212Constitutional petitionTransfer of civil servantTransfer of petitioners by competent authority, could not be declared to be without jurisdiction/authority

Not only the petitioners in the present case, were transferred on administrative grounds, but also enquiries were pending against them

Petitioners who had joined their new place of postings in compliance with impugned order had also been found guilty during two successive enquiries

During pendency of constitutional petition, inquiry was conducted by a Committee, comprising of four officers, wherein the allegation against the petitioners were found to be correct

Factual controversy regarding the correctness or otherwise of the allegations, levelled against the petitioners, could not be resolved by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction

Transfer and posting was an integral part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, which fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of Service Tribunal

Jurisdiction of High Court was ousted under Art.212 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition being not maintainable, was dismissed.

2003 PLC(CS) 1519 SERVICE-TRIBUNAL-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

Transfer of civil servant

Civil servant had challenged his transfer from post of Chief Officer Zila Council at place 'M' to post of Chief Corporation Officer Municipal Corporation at place 'G'

Contention of civil servant was that his transfer was premature as it was made within period of three months

Station of posting in Zila Council or Municipal Corporation was the same

Civil servant was mainly concerned about his frequent transfers

Validity

Transfer of civil servant was made in public interest and on administrative grounds and premature transfers were made of a number of members of Local Council servants on such ground and not of civil servant alone

Transfer order had not only been accepted by civil servant, but same had also been. implemented and civil servant had assumed the charge at place where he was transferred

Civil servant was estopped by his own conduct to agitate against his transfer.

2000 PLC(CS) 338 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)Transfer of civil servant-Interference by Service TribunalScope

Indiscriminate and repeated transfer orders and cancellation of such transfer orders of civil servants had been made by the Authorities irrespective of the consideration of public interest

Orders of transfer passed by Authorities indiscriminately without rhyme or reason were found to be mala fide, arbitrary, against the canons of justice, equity and fair play by Service Tribunal which were rightly cancelled

Leave to appeal against said orders of the Service Tribunal was declined by Supreme Court.

1999 PLC(CS) 214 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Transfer of civil servant

Civil servant had alleged that his transfer had been made under influence of politician who had no authority whatsoever in that respect and that order of his transfer was result of mala fide action and colourable exercise of Competent Authority which did not apply its independent mind

Authority was directed by High Court to look into the matter and pass appropriate order strictly in accordance with law.

1998 PLC(CS) 268 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 9Transfer of civil servant

Civil servants had no vested right to be posted at any particular place, but were liable to serve at any place in the Province and could be transferred from one place to the other in exigencies of service and for administrative reasons.