ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J. - The Constitutional petition under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, has been filed by the petitioner, stating therein that he was appointed as Junior Agriculture Officer and he had joined on 23.5.1983, as Research Officer in BPS-17 in (LIM)
Lower Indus Water Management and Reclamation Project, WAPDA at Hyderabad, where he was performing his duties and some time later he alongwith other officers was declared surplus by the respondent No. 2 in the year 1999, from Water Wing and the authority decided to absorb him in administration cadre as Assistant Director, It is further stated in the petition that on declaration of surplus, the petitioner was sent to Islamabad Electric Supply Corporation vide order dated 4.11.2000.
Thereafter the petitioner was asked to exercise his option for permanent absorption in Administration cadre as Assistant Director, to which he opted. Thereafter the petitioner was posted as Assistant Director, Office of Chief Executive Officer, GENCO-II, TPS vide letter dated 23.01.2002. It is further stated in the petition that all of a sudden the petitioner received letter dated 23.12.2006 for his repatriation to his previous post from where he was declared as surplus. Being aggrieved with the said order, he preferred appeal through proper channel on 16.1.2007, which was turned down without sufficient reasons; as such he challenged his repatriation to his original post.
2. We have heard Mr. Abdul Rasheed Shah Advocate for petitioner and Mr. Shahid Hussain Qureshi for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contended that after exercise of option by the petitioner, he was permanently absorbed in the WAPDA as such; the order of his repatriation seems to be highly unjust, unequivocal and illegal as well as shocking to him which is contrary to law as such the order of his repatriation dated 23.12.2006 Annexure "E" may be declared as illegal, inoperative and void ab initio.
4. Mr. Shahid Hussain Qureshi learned counsel for respondents has contended that the petitioner was not permanently absorbed as such he could be repatriated at any time by the respondent No. 2, as such no illegality appears to have been committed by the respondent No. 2, while issuing order dated 23.12.2006 Annexure "E", and that at the most the petitioner may approach to the Federal Services Tribunal, in case, if he feels himself aggrieved against the afore-said order, as such this petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have, considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the material available before us.
6. The claim of the petitioner is that he was declared surplus in the Water Wing, therefore, he was given option for absorption in the Administration Wing of WAPDA and he opted for the same, therefore, he was permanently absorbed in the WAPDA vide office order dated 4.11.2000. A perusal of office order dated 4.11.2000, which has been heavily relied upon by petitioner shows that it was passed on approval of the competent authority for temporary attachment of the surplus scientific officers BPS-17 of Water Wing (Declared Surplus) with the office mentioned against their names till further orders and their pay will be continued to be charged to the authority over head (Surplus Pool) and by virtue of this order as many as 50 persons of the officer from Surplus Pool were accommodated and after the names of 50 officers, the condition attached to this order is mentioned at serial No. 2 to the effect that "these officers will remain in surplus list maintained by the Water Wing".
7. The initial order dated 4.11.2000, produced by the petitioner therefore shows, that the language applied in the said order is to the effect that they are temporarily attached and accommodated in WAPDA from Water Wing as surplus and they will be treated to be on surplus list maintained by the Water Wing. The said order dated 4.11.2000, is therefore, self-explanatory which shows temporary attachment of the petitioner with the respondent/Administration Wing of WAPDA and he was never declared or absorbed permanently by Administration Wing of the WAPDA, therefore, there is no evidence available on record to show that the petitioner was absorbed permanently by the respondents, as such he cannot clam his absorption with the Administration Wing of the WAPDA on permanent basis, hence absorbing authority has all the lawful rights, powers and authority to repatriate him from the department from where he was accommodated being surplus staff.
8. Admittedly the WAPDA is statutory body and is being governed with its on rules and regulations relating to the terms and conditions of the services of WAPDA employees and, in case, if the petitioner is claiming to be permanent employee of WAPDA Administration Wing, he has to approach to Federal Service Tribunal, who is the competent forum where the petitioner may agitate his grievance if any.
9. For all the afore-said reasons and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed in limine alongwith listed applications.