' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 30-4-2009 whereby the Constitution Petition preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. The facts of the case have been mentioned elaborately in the judgment impugned, repetition whereof would be of no use.
3. Mr. Kamran Murtaza, learned Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of petitioner and contended that the legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been appreciated in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice. In order to support the said contention it is submitted that Volunteer Separation Scheme (VSS) has been misinterpreted and misconstrued, benefit whereof could have been granted to the petitioner. It is urged emphatically that the question of lien has not been adverted to properly and the petitioner having lien in PTCL cannot be deprived of the benefits accrued by introducing Volunteer- Separation Scheme (VSS) as the petitioner has got a permanent status with PTCL and, therefore, the Volunteer Separation Scheme (VSS) would be applicable in his case. It is also submitted that how 15 years service rendered by the petitioner could be thrown away.
4. We have carefully examined the above mentioned contentions as adduced on behalf of petitioner and perused the judgment impugned in the light of relevant record of the case with eminent assistance of Mr.Kamran Murtaza, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner. The petitioner had invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court with prayer "that his petition may be accepted and direction may kindly be given to respondents to entertain the claim of petitioner allowing financial benefits under the Scheme known as Volunteer Separation Scheme (VSS)". An in-depth scrutiny of record would reveal that petitioner himself at his own applied for the post of Assistant Engineer in Public Health Engineering Department, Govt. Of Balochistan through Public Service Commission in view of the better future prospects and selected and subsequently got himself relieved from PTCL. The learned Advocate Supreme Court was asked pointedly as to whether the petitioner was compelled to leave the post which the petitioner was holding and the reply of learned Advocate Supreme Court was that there was no such compulsion with the submission that petitioner could not have been deprived from benefit of Volunteer Separation Scheme (VSS). We are not persuaded to agree with such submission for the simple reason that the petitioner had left PTCL under Volunteer Separation Scheme (VSS) which was meant for serving employees of PTCL. Had the petitioner been in the service of PTCL the position would have been different. The petitioner was probably aggrieved due to non-promotion in PTCL but it is not the case of petitioner that he was either ignored or superseded and hence could not be promoted which compelled him to leave PTCL which was certainly due to bleak and remote chance for promotion. It must not be lost sight of that petitioner had joined PTCL being an unqualified Engineer and got higher qualification at the cost of PTCL which at least makes it abundant clear that atmosphere in PTCL remained congenial and petitioner himself had left PTCL and joined Public Heath Engineering Department.
5. We have also examined the question of lien as pressed into service time and again on behalf of the petitioner. The learned Advocate Supreme Court could not convince us that as to how the petitioner could have kept lien in PTCL after joining Public Health Engineering Department and that too through Public Service Commission. It is to be noted that "Lien" means the title of a civil servant to hold substantively a post on which he has been confirmed (Rule-2 (b) of Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules, 1993). There is no cavil to the proposition that an employee on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquires a lien on that post and ceases to hold any lien previously acquired on any other post (F.R.12-A). Learned Advocate Supreme Court had failed to point out any other rule to take a different view from the one mentioned hereinabove. It is well- settled by now that for the termination of lien of a permanent Civil Servant from his original Department three prerequisites had to be satisfied which are as under:--
(i) the Civil Servant concerned had joined other Department on regular basis;
(ii) the joining to other Department was result of his selection;
(iii) the selection was through a regular selection process.
' If the above mentioned conditions are satisfied and a Civil Servant had consented for such joining, he would have no claim about his lien in the previous Department after expiry of probationary period. In this regard we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Sajjad Hussain v. Secretary, Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 284), Muhammad Aslam v. Collector of Customs (1999 PLC (CS)
751). The case of petitioner has been examined on the touchstone of the criterion as mentioned hereinabove and we are of the considered view that lien cannot be retained in PTCL after joining the Public Health Engineering Department on regular basis through the Public Service Commission.
The Volunteer Separation Scheme (VSS) cannot be made applicable in the case of petitioner which admittedly and undisputedly was launched after his joining Public Health Engineering Department which otherwise could not be availed being a regular Government servant in Public Health Engineering Department. Learned Division Bench of High Court of Balochistan has examined the entire controversy with diligent application of mind in the judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- "We have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the perusal of record, it transpires that vide order dated 27th May, 2006, the petitioner was relieved from the department having joined the Provincial Government, and thus; by no stretch of imagination, it could be termed that he had a lien in the said department. Strange enough that how his lien is maintained when, he is appointed through Balochistan Public Service Commission by the Provincial Government. On relieving him from the said post of PTCL; he went out of the Cadre of said department, however; his service could be considered for the purpose of Pensionary benefits. The Volunteer Separation Scheme (VSS) was introduced after his joining the Provincial Government and was applicable to the existing employees, details whereof have been given in the aid separation scheme. For the sake of argument, even if the contention of petitioner is accepted and his separation scheme is allowed, it would create anomaly, as a retired person cannot hold a regular employment in either of the Government Department. Since the petitioner was selected and had joined the Provincial Government and having been relieved from the said department, as he was not in the list of employees serving in the PTCL. It was not incumbent upon the department to have replied with regard to Volunteer ' Separation Scheme (VSS), as he had lost the status of employee of the department."
6. It is well-settled by now that "the grant-of leave is a matter of discretion and not of right. Where petitioner was found to be not entitled to equitable relief under Art.199 he was also not entitled to grant of discretionary relief of leave to appeal. The Constitution does not impose any limitation as to the circumstances, which would justify or warrant the grant of leave to appeal." Ghulam Qadir v.
Multan Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. (PLD 1986 SC 1386), Dauran Khan v. Naseer Muhammad Khan (PLD 1964 SC 136), W.H. King v. Gaiendragadkar), AIR 1950 Bom. 380, Hayat Muhammad v. Election Authority (1985 SCMR 1909), Hayat Muhammad and 4 others v. Election Authority and others (1985 SCMR 1909), Jai Singh v. State (AIR 1952 A11.991), Jai Singh v. State (1952 Cri.L.Jour 1755).
7. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the petition being devoid of merit is, dismissed and leave refused.