' Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, Assistant, working with District Livestock Officer, District Government, Lahore, has assailed the order dated 18-1-2003 passed by the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Lahore, whereby the appellant was transferred to Kasur with immediate effect and his representation was also rejected by respondent No,1 on 1-2- 2003 declining to interfere with the impugned order dated 18-1-2003.
2. Appellant was serving as Assistant with respondent No,3 and was adjusted against the said post on 1-7-2002 under the wedlock policy as his wife was working as a teacher in the Government Tahir Model Girls Middle School, Gulshan-e-Shalimar Scheme, Lahore, under the control of the Education Department. He was transferred to Kasur on 18-1-2003 by respondent No,1 allegedly on the pressure of an MPA who wanted to accommodate respondent No,4, transferred in the place of the appellant.
Appellant filed departmental representation before respondent No,1, who declined it on 1-2-2003, hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the transfer of the appellant to Kasur and that of respondent No,4 to Lahore in the plcace of the appellant was at the behest of an MPA who wanted his man (respondent No,4) to be posted at Lahore and the said exchange being as a result of ulterior consideration could not be allowed to prosper. It was next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he was posted at the present post on 1-7-2002 under the wedlock policy, which fact was not even adverted to, rather respondent No,1 rejected his representation without giving any reasons on the ground that he was junior to many others, a consideration totally alien to the transfer policy. In this manner it was stated that the transfer policy was grossly violated.
Learned District Attorney after being assisted by the departmental representative present with office file replied that the appellant had put in more than six years of service at Lahore and his transfer to the present post on 1-7-2002 was a result of devolution policy transferring powers to the Local Government, however, the stark fact remained that the appellant continuously served at Lahore for more than six years and a time had come whereby others had to be accommodated and he was to be shifted from Lahore. Learned counsel for respondent No,4 supported the impugned order and submitted that under section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, every civil servant was liable to serve anywhere in the province on any post established by the Government.
Therefore, appellant could have no grievance, if he was transferred due to the exigency of service for administrative reasons.
4. I have heard the respective counsels at length and perused the record.
5. After the transfer of the appellant to Kasur vide impugned order dated 18-1-2003, District Livestock Officer, city District Government, Lahore in the parawise comments submitted to the Appellate Authority on the representation of the appellant, made the following observations: ' The appeal of the official, in original, is forwarded as the contents of the appeal are based on facts. His transfer is premature as he was adjusted in this office w,e,f, 1-7-2002 under (Wedlock Policy) by the Director General (Ext), Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Punjab Lahore, vide Order No,12910-16 dated 17-8-2003.
' With reference to the discussion made with the honourable Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Punjab, Lahore, dated 18-1-2003, it is submitted that Mr. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq is the sole official who is dealing with Audit, Accounts and Budget matters and his transfer will affect the working of this office adversely.
' It is, therefore, requested that his appeal may please be considered favourably in the light of contents of appeal as well hardship of this office and his transfer orders may be cancelled.
However, some other junior most Assistant of this office be substituted for transfer at District Kasur, if it is unavoidable, please."
6. These observations indicate that not only the transfer of the appellant to the post which he was holding before his transfer to Kasur was under wedlock policy but the work of the appellant was also appreciated and request was made that the appeal be considered favourably not only on the ground of hardship but also in public interest. Respondent No,1 dismissed the representation of the appellant on 1-2-2003 on the ground that the appellant was junior most without giving any further reasons.
7. It is true section 9 ibid has an overriding effect on all circulars, notifications and policies. However, if any policy of the Government enunciated in its circular has to be deviated from good reasons have to be given. Undoubtedly, the policy of the Government is that spouses have to be allowed to work at the same station to avoid hardship. On the other hand, section 9 ordains that a Government servant can be transferred and posted anywhere in the Province on any post. There is no denying the prerogative of the Government as mandated in the provision of law quoted, however, the policy and the practice through various circulars and notifications have been made to mollify and temper with the mandate. The authority at the helm of the affairs in order to implement the mandate as provided in section 9 ibid has to give good reasons why the beneficial construction provided in the circular has to be done away with. Regretfully respondent No,1 has not at all given any reasons rather was swayed by factors totally divorced from the fact in issue.
Wedlock policy has been introduced and acted upon with a philosophy. If the husband in Government department is posted at one city and his wife posted, in another Government department, is working in a different city, it is definitely going to cause mental distress to both of them with the consequences which are not only injurious to them but to the public and Government exchequer. Respondent No,1 while rejecting departmental representation of the appellant did not consider these circumstances and failed to give any reasons that transfer to Kasur was essential in the administrative interest of the Government overriding the wedlock policy.
Similarly the transfer of respondent No,4 to Lahore was not indicated as to how the mutual exchange promotes the interest of the State. A policy made is to be implemented and any departure of the same has to be explained. Without giving good reasons the policy of the Government with respect to transfer would become redundant which is not wisdom in enacting it.
8. As a result of the discussion, appeal. Is accepted, orders dated 18-1-2003 and 1-2-2003 passed by respondent No,1 transferring the appellant to Kasur are set aside. Appellant shall be allowed to work as Assistant with respondent No,3. The case is remitted to respondent No,1 who shall apply his mind to the representation made by the appellant after hearing both the appellant and respondent No,4 whereafter through a speaking order dispose of the same within 60 days from the date he receives a copy of the judgment of this Tribunal.