' DR. QAMMARUDDIN BOHRA, J.--- By this constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 9th September, 2006 issued by respondents Nos.1 and 2 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Karachi Airport to Moenjodaro Airport.
1. Precise facts for disposal of this petition are that on 2-2-1979 the petitioner was appointed as driver with respondent No,1 (Civil Aviation Authority) and was re-appointed as Specialist Vehicle Driver (SVD) in Group-4 vide Appointment Order No,CAA/24352/422/Rect., dated 12th November, 1983 and thereafter vide letter/memo. Dated 4th January, 1992 the petitioner was promoted from Group-4 to Group-5. The respondent No,1 vide impugned order, dated 9th September, 2006, transferred the petitioner from Karachi Airport to Moinjodaro Airport. Being aggrieved by such impugned transfer order the petitioner made representations before the concerned authorities of respondent No,1, but his grievance could not be redressed and consequently, he has approached this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
2. We have heard Mr. Z.U. Mujahid, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Faisal Kamal, Advocate for respondents Nos.1 and 2 and Ms. Soofia Saeed Shah Standing Counsel for respondent No,3 the Federation of Pakistan.
3. Mr. Z.U. Mujahid learned counsel for petitioner' argued that during service period of the petitioner, the petitioner remained posted at various places in different cities of Pakistan and had always remained obedient servant and obeyed all directions of the superior authorities and 'has been performing his duties diligently and honestly and there had been no complaint against him.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner next argued that despite the above the respondents vide impugned order, dated 9th September, 2006 had transferred the petitioner from Karachi Airport to Moinjodaro. Airport. ' He next' argued that the respondents on the one hand transferred the petitioners and posted him in different cities of Pakistan while on the other hand there are certain other drivers who have never been transferred since their appointment with respondent No,1 even for last twenty years. He argued that the petitioner is victim of discriminatory attitude of respondent and being rolling from one place to another and as such the impugned order is discriminatory in nature and illegal and is liable to be set aside.
5. He further contended that the petitioner's brother has recently died leaving behind one widow and two daughters who are being looked after by the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner had applied to the respondent No,1 for deferment of the impugned transfer order, but this aspect of the matter was also not taken into consideration by the respondent No, 1.
6. The learned counsel for petitioner next argued that the respondent No,1 being public functionary is legally bound to act justly, equitably and fairly and all the employees of respondent No,1 should be treated equally as guaranteed under the Constitution. The learned counsel lastly argued that the impugned action of the respondent No,1 is discriminatory in nature and prayed for setting aside the impugned transfer order.
7. In reply Mr. Faisal Kamal, Advocate for respondents Nos.1 and 2 argued that it is obligatory for an employee to join duty wherever he is transferred and the petitioner after his appointment was transferred to different cities of Pakistan as per transfer policy and the petitioner was never discriminated rather the respondents had been very considerate and sympathetic towards the petitioner despite his violations of orders and disobedience.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No,1 argued that on 9th February, 1998 the petitioner was transferred to Pangjur although he was relieved on 13th February, 1998 but he did not move and absented from duty and later on his transfer was cancelled on 1 1 th May, 1999 on humanitarian grounds, but the petitioner has deliberately concealed this fact. It is further averred by the learned counsel that on 3rd July, 2000 the petitioner was transferred from Karachi to Peshawar as per transfer policy, but his transfer was again cancelled on compassionate grounds on 13th October, 2000.
9. He next argued that in total service of twenty-seven years with respondent No,1, the petitioner has only served for four years outside the Karachi whereas his some of colleagues having equal length of service have served more than him outside Karachi.
10. As regards alleged discrimination, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 argued that the petitioner has been transferred as per posting/transfer policy on the basis of station seniority on completion of three years stay at family station to meet operational requirements along SVD employees. He further contended that SVD and MTD trades are sub-trades of main Auto trade and soon after creation of respondent No,1-CAA, a number of employees were appointed in higher groups for driving duties with VIPs on common vehicles as well as Dispatch Rider duties with nomenclature of SVD against establishment of SVD on the basis of experience only on light vehicles and were deployed at Headquarter CAA.
11. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 clarified that out of the list of SVDs given in para.9 of the petition, the employees mentioned at Serial Nos.1 to 4 and 6 belong to same category as of petitioner and they remained deployed as MT driver on VIP duties at headquarters as they do not have requisite experience on Specialist fire Vehicles during their deployment at locations. He further clarified that Messrs Mansoor Pasha and Syed Zulfiqar Ali did serve at locations but they are not sufficiently groomed on Specialist Fire Vehicles for deployments on operational SVD duties.
12. He further referred name of the seven employees in this regard and further provided details of further employees in the counter-affidavit. The learned counsel further contended that ten SVDs having the same length of service had undergone more transfers during the past service.
13. The learned counsel further argued that the petitioner has been transferred from JIAP Karachi to Moenjodaro Airport through impugned transfer order as per station seniority and to meet operational requirement after completion of three years and three months stay. At JIAP Karachi against prescribed tenure of three years at family station under paras.5 and 7 of CAAO 2-9 "transfer policy".
14. He next argued that the transfer of petitioner could not be given effect initially on the ground of marriages of his two daughters and subsequently on his verbal request on the ground of death of his brother and finally on the ground of hiring of service of his son Mr. Abid Rehman.
15. The learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2 lastly argued that the impugned transfer order> has been issued strictly in accordance with transfer policy of the respondent No,1 and denied the allegations of favouritism and discrimination being baseless. The learned counsel also argued that by filing the present petition on 6-12-2006 the transfer of the petitioner has been delayed till date and the petitioner has enjoyed this period also. The learned counsel on the basis of above arguments has prayed for dismissal of the petition.
16. Ms. Soofia Saeed Shah Standing Counsel for respondent No,3 the Federation of Pakistan, adopted the same arguments as advanced by learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 and 2.
17. We have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel and have carefully gone through the material placed on record and we are of the considered view that the petitioner was transferred from Karachi to Moenjodaro Airport after completion of prescribed tenure of three years to meet the urgent requirements due to shortage of SVDs. As such no discriminatory attitude has been adopted and his case has no relevance to other drivers/employees as they have no training/ experience for operation of specialist operational fire vehicles.
18. We are of the considered view that the allegation regarding discrimination, unjust and mala fide are misconceptions and there does not seem any misuse of powers by the respondents in the case of the petitioner. On the contrary the respondents have rightfully exercised their powers and in accordance with their existing transfer policy. Even otherwise, transfer is a part of service and petitioner is liable to serve at all Airports of Pakistan as per service requirement and the petitioner by filing this petition has also enjoyed the time from 12th September, 2006 till this date and avoided the joining the place where he has been transferred.
19. Hence, we do not find any merit in this petition and dismiss the same along with pending applications.