This appeal is directed against the orders dated 8.8.2005 whereby the appellant was repatriated to Directorate of BLPRI Kherimurat District Attock. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed an appeal against the orders of the Secretary before the Chief Secretary through proper channel. Instead of forwarding the appeal to the, competent authority the Directorate of Planning and Evaluation Lahore returned the appeal to the appellant vide letter dated 26.8.2005. The same was again resubmitted before the Chief Secretary on 6.9.2005 which was not decided within the stipulated period, hence the present appeal.
2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was serving in BLPRI Kherimurat District Attock. He submitted an application; copy at page 11, for his transfer to the Directorate of Planning and Evaluation on compassionate grounds and that in case he was transferred to the said Directorate he was not to claim seniority in the said Directorate. The application was allowed and under the orders of the Respondent No, 1 the appellant was transferred and posted as Senior Scale Stenographer against the existing vacancy in the Directorate of Planning and Development, L&DD Lahore vide order dated 7.11.1990, copy at page 15 of the appeal. One Muhammad Akram filed an appeal against the above said order of Mr. Zahid Hussain, appellant. The Director Planning and Evaluation vide letter dated 24.9.1990 reported that Muhammad Akram was not eligible for the post against BPS-15 and that Zahid Hussain was working satisfactorily. The said appeal was dismissed. Once again Muhammad Akram submitted a second appeal. The Respondent No, 1 vide letter dated 7.5.1991, copy at page 18, stated that Mr. Zahid Hussain appellant was transferred after obtaining NOC from P&E Directorate and the earlier appeal has already been turned down and there was no justification for second appeal. The Director General Extension vide letter dated 17.9.1991 directed the Director BLPRI Kherimurat to terminate the lien of Zahid Hussain from the above said office and to fill in the vacancy of Stenographer in BS-15 after observing codal formalities. Resultantly the lien was terminated vide order dated 26.9.1991. On 11.12.1991 the Respondent No, 1 sent a letter, copy at page 24 to the Director General Livestock and Diary Development that the transfer of Mr. Zahid Hussain from BLPRI Kherimurat to the Directorate Planning and Evaluation was ordered on his request with the consent of both the Directorates against the clear vacancy with the approval of the Secretary. As such his transfer was in order. It was further stated that after termination of his lien BLPRI Kherimurat he had required lien in the Directorate of Planning and Evaluation Cell. Against the vacancy caused by the transfer of the appellant Mr. Nasar-ul-Haseeb Tahir was appointed as Stenographer in BS-15 vide order dated 22.3.1995, copy at page 25 of the appeal. Once again Muhammad Akram filed a review petition which was dismissed by the Secretary concerned as per letter dated 19.12.1998, copy at page 26. In the meantime the appellant was granted selection grade BS-16 w,e,f, 13.11.1998 on the recommendations of Departmental Selection/Promotion Committee and he was appointed as Superintendent (BS-16) in the above said Directorate on current charge basis for a period of one year. In the meantime notification dated 13.4.2005 was issued by the Governor whereby service rules of Punjab Livestock and Diary Development (Planning & Evaluation Directorate) were amended. It provided that the promotion to the office of Superintendent be made at the rate of 50% by promotion on the basis of seniority cum fitness amongst the Assistants with five years experience and the rest of 50% by promotion amongst the Senior Scale Stenographer with at least five years experience. Ghulam Sarwar, Senior Most Assistant of the above said Directorate was appointed as Superintendent on the current charge basis for a period of one year vide order dated 2.7.2005. Without cancelling the lien of the appellant vide impugned order dated 8.8.2005 the appellant was repatriated to BLPRI Kherimurat.
3. In their parawise comments the only contention of the respondents was that the lien of the appellant has terminated from Kherimurat and he had acquired lien in the Directorate of Evaluation Cell of L&DD Punjab. At the same time it was maintained that the appellant was transferred from Kherimurat to Planning and Evaluation and was, not permanently absorbed. Rest of the delegations were in the same terms.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned District Attorney and have gone through the record. The learned counsel referred to the order of the Respondent No, 1 dated 7.5.1991, copy at page 18 which stated that the appellant was rightly transferred after obtaining NOC from both the Directorates. Similarly the Respondent No, 1 in his letter dated 11.12.1991 has specifically stated that the orders of the appellant transferring him -from Kherimurat to Planning and Evaluation Cell Lahore were passed against a clear vacancy with the approval of the Secretary and that after termination of his lien in the above said Directorate at. Kherimurat the appellant had acquired lien in the Planning and Evaluation Cell. This being so it was maintained that against the vacancy caused by the transfer of the appellant was filed by appointed Nasar-ul- Haseeb Tahir. There is no reason whatsoever mentioned in the impugned order as to why the appellant was repatriated to Kherimurat when he had no lien there. Lien acquired by the appellant in the Directorate of Planning and Evaluation was never cancelled. The learned counsel maintained that the impugned order was nothing but a bolt from the blue and no reason whatsoever has been mentioned in the impugned order. The appeal of the appellant was not decided within the stipulated period. The appellant was within his right to file an appeal before this Tribunal. The contention that the appellant was not permanently transferred to the Directorate of Planning & Evaluation was devoid of force and of no substance because as per the order dated 11.12.1991 mentioned earlier of the Respondent No, 1 the appellant had acquired lien in the said Directorate of Planning and Evaluation, Govt. of the Punjab. In the letter dated 3.2.2006 of the Director General L&DD Punjab it was specifically mentioned that the lien of Zahid Hussain from BLPRI Kherimurat was terminated on the direction of the higher authorities and he was absorbed in the Planning and Evaluation. Thereafter Nasar-ul-Haseeb Tahir was recruited against the post vacated by Zahid Hussain on his permanent absorption in the Directorate of Planning & Evaluation Punjab, Lahore.
The Director General recommended that the orders of repatriation of Mr. Zahid Hussain may be withdrawn.
5. The learned District Attorney has not been able to explain as to under what law after the termination of lien of the appellant from BLPRI Kherimurat and acquisition of lien in the office of Planning and Evaluation Lahore the appellant was repatriated to Kherimurat.
6. After hearing the arguments and going through the record and in view of the documentary evidence discussed above I feel no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the orders dated 8.8.2005 were arbitrary and without justification which are liable to be set aside. Resultantly the appeal is allowed and the orders dated 8:8.2005 of the Respondent No, 1 are set aside.