Nasrullah Khan Achakzai, Chairman.--The appellant has filed this service appeal under Section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned order dated 10-06-2013, with a prayer to set-aside the same.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was serving as Senior Supervisor (B-14) in the office of DOLG Tambo from-11-01-2013. Respondent No, 2 has filed S.A.No, 18/2013 against the order dated 11-01-2013. The appellant contested that appeal. After hearing the appeal this Tribunal vide Judgment dated 05-04-2013 has dismissed the appeal of Respondent No, 2 and maintained order dated 11-01-2013. Respondent No, 2 is an influential person and on 10-06-2013 just after two
(2) months of the Judgment of this Tribunal he got another transfer order in his favour. Being aggrieved from the impugned order dated 10-06-2013, the appellant filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal on 26-06-2013.
3. On notice, Respondent No, 1 has filed his objections, wherein he stated that order dated 10-06- 2013 is lawful, issued with the approval of competent authority in line with Civil Servant Act, 1974, Section 4 states that every civil servant shall hold the office during the pleasure of Government of Balochistan and Section 10 states that every civil servant shall be liable to serve any where within or outside of the Province of Balochistan on any post under the Federal Government or any Provincial Government or Local Authority or a Corporation or Body setup or Established by any such Government. Respondent No, 2 is a senior Supervisor and his seniority position is at S.No,
12. The appellant did not file departmental appeal against the impugned order before submitting appeal before this Court. While the counsel of Respondent No, 2 Mr. Nadir Ali Chalgari stated on 17-09413 that his client J Respondent No, 2 has been posted on another post and Respondent No, 2 does not contest this appeal. Representative of Respondent No, 1 Mr.Iqbal Ahmed. Acting Superintendent of Local Government Department seconds the statement of counsel for Respondent No, 2 to the extent of his posting on another post.
4. We have heard learned counsel for appellant. Learned Additional Advocate General for Respondent No, 1 and counsel for Respondent No, 2, perused the record with their assistance, considered their respective contentions in the light of available record. We have noted that on 11- 01-2013 appellant being Senior Supervisor (B-14) was transferred from the post of Senior Supervisor Office of DOLG Wadh to the office of DOLG Tamboo as a Senior Supervisor. This order dated 11.01.2013 was challenged by Respondent No, 2 before this Tribunal through Service Appeal No, 18/2013. The appellant had contested that appeal. After hearing the parties this Tribunal vide Judgment dated 05.04.2013 had dismissed the appeal of Respondent No, 2 and had maintained the transfer order dated 11-01-2013. Later on, on 10-06-2013 once again within a period of about five (5) months the appellant being Senior Supervisor of B-15 had been transferred from the post of Senior Supervisor Office of DOLG Tamboo to the post of Supervisor (B-11) Office of DOLG Zehri. We have noted that the appellant had been penalized on two (2) counts first he had been transferred within a period of five
(5) months, second he had been transferred from the post of B-14 to the post of B-11. It seems that the authority become, annoyed with the appellant as to why he had contested Service Appeal No, 18/2013 filed by Respondent No,
2. It must be noted that approach to a Court of Law is the fundamental right of every citizen of Pakistan. The approach of any one to the Court of Law for redressal of his grievance guaranteed by Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. No doubt the competent authority has power to transfer any civil servant from one post to other but there are certain parameters for exercising that power i,e, normal period of two (2) or three (3) years if there is plausible reasons which will be convincing to a third person, the normal period can be deviated from but not in routine manner. Actually the posting transfers must not be in arbitrary manner. As in the present case the competent authority has not given any plausible reasons as to why and under which circumstances the appellant had been transferred from one post to other within a period of five (5) months and why while transferring appellant Judgment of this Tribunal dated 05-07-2013 and the principles of Anita Turab's case reported in PLD 2013 (SC) Page 195 had not been kept in mind.
5. Thus while in consideration of the above mentioned reasons we are of the opinion that the approach of competent authority is capricious and is based on consideration not in the public interest is not legally sustainable and as a consequence the impugned order dated 10.6.2013 is set- aside to the extent of appellant and Respondent No,
2. Appeal is allowed. With no order as to costs.
File after completion be consigned to record.