Petitioner was posted as Manager, Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited, Syed Wala Branch, on 9.6.2006 where he claimed to have made hecite efforts to achieve the target of recovery and took other steps for uplift of the Branch and resultantly Zonal Office awarded him the Appreciation Letter on 9.7.2007, Petitioner's wife is a government servant and is posted as Assistant Professor (Chemistry) at Government F.J. College for Women, Chuna Mandi Lahore, where the spouses are living with their three minor children. Petitioner has been transferred on 18.8.2007 to Mazafargarh contrary to the Wedlock Policy, without allowing him to complete his three years period of posting at one station.
Petitioner represented to the President of the Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited, against his unwarranted transfer but the same remained un-attended, leading to filing of instant constitutional petition. It was contended that petitioner has no other remedy of challenging his uncalled transfer to a far- flung area, away from his wife and children. It was further submitted that his representation to Respondent No, 2 has to be addressed but the same is being ignored just to give effect to the unwarranted transfer order which is out-come of party-fiction within the Bank. A direction in constitutional jurisdictional of this Court was prayed to be issued, in this behalf.
2. Having heard the case and perused the record, it became apparent that stance canvassed in this petition rested on disputed factual controversy, requiring determination through detailed inquiry/recording of evidence but such exercise cannot be undertaken while discharging jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of this country. These canons have already attained finality through consistent judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, right from the case of The Province of East Pakistan vs. Kshiti Dhar Roy and others (PLD 1964 SC 636) upto date, including the case of Muhammad Younas Khan and 12 others vs. Government of N.-W.F.P. through Secretar), Forest and Agriculture, Peshawar and others (1993 SCM R 618). Inspite of this constitutional handicap, it is obvious that Respondent No, 2 is a statutory functionary and his sphere of authority is fixed by a framework given by law, under which he is working. It is not imaginable that Respondent No, 2 will flout his statutory obligations by refusing to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law. This is the minimum that a citizen expects from a statutory functionary that any cause brought before him be expeditiously decide, one way or the other, according to the law applicable. Respondent No, 2 is accordingly directed to decide application of the petitioner already pending with him, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks. Till the time petitioner's departmental representation is decided by Respondent No, 2 i,e, till 10.9.2007, his transfer order shall not be given effect and after the date fixed, instant order will automatically lapse and decision of Respondent No, 2 will hold the field. With these observations, this writ petition is disposed of.