' Gul. MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-The petitioner was appointed as Sub. Divisional Officer by the West Pakistan Government in its Electricity Department on 6th August, 1957. On the promulgation of Water and Power Development Authority Act, the Governor in exercise of his powers under section 17 of the Act, issued a notification transferring all persons in the electricity department to WAPDA (hereinafter called the Authority) for service. All the assets and liabilities of the Department were also transferred to the Authority, with effect from 1st April, 1959. The petitioner continued serving the Authority till 5th July, 1977 when he was removed by the Chairman of the Authority.
2. The petitioner challenged the above order in Writ Petition No. 1639-S-77. It was duly accepted to hold that the order of the Authority was void ab initio as the petitioner who was an employee of the Provincial Government could not be removed from service by the Authority. PLD 1978 Lah.
738.
' On 29th December, 1979 the Central Legislature promulgated Ordinance LXXII of 1979 (PLD 1980 Cent. St. Page 47) and added Explanations I and II to section 17 (1-A) and subsection (1-C) to section 17. The President also enforced P.
0. 24 of 1979, by which the employees of the then West Pakistan in the Electricity and Irrigation Departments transferred to serve WAPDA, were allocated to various Provinces. Acting under the above provisions the Authority sent the petitioner to the Punjab Provincial Government on 3rd January, 1980. It is that order which is being challenged through the present writ petition.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel that as according to his terms and conditions he was required by the Provincial Government to serve the Authority, it had no power to revert the petitioner to Provincial Government without its concurrence or consultation. The learned counsel for the respondent however, submitted that the Explanations I and II to section 17 (1-A) referred to above do make it clear that even the employees of the Provincial Government serving in the Authority could be removed by the Authority and sent to the respective Provincial Governments.
The Provisions relied upon read as under :- "Explanation 1.-For purpose of this subsection, any person employed by or serving under the Authority includes a person referred to in the provisos to subsection (1).
"Explanation II.-Any person referred to in the provisos to subsection (1) who is removed or retired from service by the Authority under this subsection shall stand reverted to the Province to which he is allocated under the Province of West Pakistan (Dissolution) Order, 1970 (P.
0. No. 1 of 1970)."
5. It is admitted that according to para. 2 of P.
0. 24 of 1979 the petitioner had been rightly allocated to the Punjab Government. He was merely serving in WAPDA as it had been required under section 17 of the WAPDA Act. Thus even under the general law the petitioner could not compel the Authority to let him serve it if the Authority did not allow A that. The petitioner would then be entitled to revert to his own employer i.e. The Punjab Government. This general principle is however, expressly enacted in explanations I and II to provide that such person when removed or retired by the Authority shall stand reverted to the Province to which he is allocated.
61. This position is also supported by a judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 55 of 1979 (Jehanzeb Khan v. WAPDA). The relevant portion of the judgment reads as under "The appellant was on the date of dissolution of the West Pakistan serving at Tarbela. He is also a permanent resident of N.-W. F. P. It will, therefore, follow that on his compulsory retirement from service, by the Authority, he will stand reverted to the N.-W. F. P. Under the aforesaid amended law.
The appellant thus will be deemed to be a Civil Servant of N.-W. F. P. And he may, therefore, report to the Government and it is upto him to pursue his remedy before the Provincial Tribunal of N.-W. F, P. As a Civil Servant of that Province under the N.-W. F. P. Service Tribunals Act 1974."
' In view of the above, this petition has no merit and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.