Mudassir Khalid Abbasi, J.: Through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the legality of order dated 24.11.2016 whereby services of the petitoner were surrendered/transferred from TMA, Okara to Commissioner , Sahiwal Division.
2. Precisely , the facts of the case are that petitioner was performing his duties as superintendent in TMA, Okara.
On 24.12.2016 services of the petitione r were surrendered and placed at the disposal of the Commissioner Sahiwal. Order is reproduced herein below:- "In view of the decision taken during District Intelligence Committee dated 16.11.2016 and subsequent minutes issued vide No.6238 alongwith reports of Intelligence Agencies regarding his anti-religious and provocative activities and his being a threat to law and order of the city, the services of Mr. Abdul Hameed Shad, Superintendent, TMA Okara are hereby surrendered and placed at the disposal of Commissioner , Sahiwal Division, Sahiwal with immediate effect. He is also relieved from his services from TMA Okara with immediate effect. He is directed to report worthy Commissioner , Sahiwal Division Sahiwal."
4. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is without lawful authority reason being that the Administrator TMA is not equipped with the powers to get the services of an employee of TMA, surrendered and placed at the disposal of Commissioner on the executive side. Contends that the posting and transfer is governed by the Punjab Local Councils Servants (Services) Rules, 1997 wherein Rule 3 provides that the member of service shall liable to be transferred to any post under the Local Council included in the grade or class to which the member belongs and servants of local councils may be transferred to any local council on their own request and in such a case they will be placed at the bottom of the Seniority list of the relevant service of the local council to which they are transferred. It is further argued that since the petitioner is a President of labour union of TMA workers, therefore, he has been victimized on account of political vendetta.
Learned counsel for the petitioner kept on arguing that the basis on which the impugned order was passed, on the factual side that petitioner is involved in anti-religious activities are baseless and there is no such track record of the petitioner that he was involved in such activities. Moreover , learned counsel for the petitioner has seriously alleged malafide on part of respondents.
5. On the other hand, learned AAG and counsel for TMA has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the petitioner 's counsel on the ground that the TMA was well within the powers to pass the impugned order . States that subsequent to the Punjab Local Councils Servants (Services) Rules, 1997, Punjab Local Governments District Service (Tehsil/T own Municipal Administra tion Cadre), Rules, 2005 were promulgated and in terms of Section 11, every member of the service shall be liable to serve anywhere in the province in any department, local authority or statutory body set up or established by the Government. He has referred to a notification dated 30.12.2016 wherein the employees of the departments were reverted to Provincial Government, who opted to stay in new Local Government shall continue to be part of Interim Schedule of Establishment of the respective local Government in which they have been posted. Argued that petitioner , in fact in pursuance to the impugned orders had joined office of the Commissioner , Sahiwal Division, therefore, he is estopped by his conduct. Further argued that impugned order was passed on credible information received by the security agencies that the petitioner is involved in anti- religious activities. Furthermore, remedy of appeal is available to the petitioner under the relevant law, therefore, this petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Critically important fundamental legal question involved in this case is that as to whether the impugned order was passed at the strength of some statutory provisions of law because all the subsequent questions involved in this case are depended upon jurisdictional point with reference to issuance of the impugned order .
8. At the first instance, it is to be ascertained as to which law was applicable and the time when the impugned order was passed to the employees of TMA. In this regard, there is a serious conflict between the parties regarding the applicability of different statutes. Stance taken by the petitioner is that no provision regarding the surrender of an employee has been provided and Rule 3 Punjab Local Councils Servants (Services) Rules, 1997 deals with the transfer. It would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provision i.e. Rule 3 in order to resolve the controversy herein below:- "Transfer 1) Members of the service shall be liable to transfer to any post under the Local Council included in the grade or class to which the member belongs.
2) Servants of Local Councils may be transferred from one Local Council to another Local Council to an equal post, grade or cadre on their own a request and in such a case they will be placed at the bottom of the Seniority List of the relevant service of the Local Council to which they are transferred. "
9. Stance taken by respondents is that in addition to the rules of Punjab Local Councils Servants (Services) Rules, 1997, Punjab Local Governments District Service (Tehsil/T own Municipal Administration Cadre), Rules, 2005 have been enacted and in terms of Section-1 1 of these Rules every member of service shall be liable to serve anywhere in the department which is reproduced herein below:-
11. Posting and Transfers. -Every member of the Service shall be liable to serve anywhere in the Province, in any department, local authority of statutory body set up or established by the Government: Provided that if he is required to serve in a post outside his Functional Unit, his terms and conditions of service as to his pay shall not be less favorable than those to which he would have been entitled if he had not been so required to serve.
10. It is settled principle of interpretation of statues that the statute which is later in time shall prevail. Reliance is placed on 2001 SCMR 1806 , PLD 2009 SC 217, 1993 SCMR 328 and PLD Lahore 201 1 SC 76.
11. Keeping in view the principle laid down in afore-cited judgments, Punjab Local Governments District Service (Tehsil/T own Municipal Administration Cadre), Rules, 2005 shall prevail whereby every member of the service shall be liable to serve anywhere in any department, local authority or statutory body. Stance taken by the petitioner that petitioner could not be transferred from one local council to another is nullified, therefore, impugned order was rightly passed whereby the petitioner was placed at the disposal of the Commissioner Sahiwal and subsequently was directed to report to the administrative Secretary of the department.
12. Another very important aspect of this case is that petitioner is estopped by his conduct as he himself has reported the office of the Commissioner Sahiwal on 28.11.2016 and subsequently joined the office of Secretary Local Government. Moreover, office of Secretary Local Government has further adjusted him against the vacant post of Assistant in District Pakpattan vide order dated 24.01.2017. Reliance is placed on "Iftikhar Ahmad and another v. Auditor General of Pakistan and others" (2006 SCMR 1529).
13. Appellant cannot claim to be posted at one place as a right, he has to serve anywhere against the post whom he transferred. Transfer and posting orders are made for administrative reasons, in public interest which normally cannot be interfered under the constituti onal jurisdiction, unless grave illegality or violation of statutory rule has been committed. It is for the administration to take appropriate decisions regarding the posting and transfer of an employee. Grounds of malafide and political pressure urged by the appellant relates to the factual aspect of the case which cannot be looked into by this Court. Impugned order is well-reasoned and is result of proper appreciation of law and facts of the case which does not call for any interference by this Court. Reliance is placed on "Zaka Ullah Bajwa v . Chief Secretary , Government of Punjab Lahore and 2 others" (2005 PSC 1250) .
What has been discussed above, I am not persuaded to interfere in the impugned order dated 24.11.2016, therefore, this petition does not succeed and is dismissed .