CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL, J.----Through this single judgment, I intend to decide the captioned writ petition along with connected W.P.No.1 1371/2013 and W.P.No. 7111/ 2014, as common questions of law and facts are involved in all these petitions.
2.Through this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.03.20 14, passed by General Manager (P&A), Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation ("PTDC ") whereby the permanent induction of the petitioner in National Highway Authority ("NHA ") has been cancelled/withdrawn, the order dated 08.05.2014, passed by the Assistant Director (Personal-I), NHA in respect of the pay and allowances of the petitioner (ex-Director Admin BS- 19 Punjab-South NHA Multan) and the petitioner was directed to join his parent department (PTDC), the order dated 16.05.2014, passed by General Manager (Punjab-South), NHA in respect of the pay and allowances of the petitioner and the order dated 19.05.2014, passed by the Dy. Director (Accounts), NHA in respect of the clearance certificate for issuance of Last Pay Certificate to the petitioner .
3. Brief facts of the ease are that the petitioner was appointed in PTDC in February , 1994 and promoted in BS-19 on 02.06.2009 vide Notification No. FNO 4(5)/2010 Roads dated 04.02.201 1. The services of the petitioner were placed at the disposal of the NHA on deputation basis for two years which was extended till 09.02.2014. The petitioner obtained NOC for absorption in NHA which was issued and the petitioner was allowed to permanently absorb in NHA on 02.03.2012 and finally on 06.08.2012, the petitioner was absorbed in NHA. The Executive Board Committee of NHA was convened who was requested to review its earlier order in respect of absorption of the petitioner in NHA. In the said meeting, it was recommended that the petitioner be repatriated to his parent department forthwith. The PTDC also requested the NHA to repatriate the petitioner through letter dated 13.03.2014 and on their request, the impugned orders were passed. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has permanently been absorbed in NHA, as such, the impugned orders/letters are illegal; that PTDC has been abolished through 18th amendment in the Constitution and the petitioner was rightly absorbed in NHA.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents raised objection that the writ petition is not maintainable; that the petitioner has no right to assail the order for repatriating the petitioner to PTDC; that the NHA as well as PTDC are ready to repatriate the petitioner , as such, no illegality has been committed by the respondent-departments.
6. Heard.
7.Admittedly the petitioner was appointed in the year 1994 in PTDC department which is still working and he was posted / transferred to the NHA on depu tation basis on 04.02.201 1 and his period was extended till 09.02.2014 whereafter , his deputation period was not further extended. The Committee of NHA Executive Board convened its meeting and decided the repatriation of the petitioner . Item No.16 of the proposal of agenda of the said meeting is reproduced as under: "Agenda Item 16 Withdrawal of Induction/Absorption of Syed Imran Qadir Gilani as Director (Admin, BS-19) in NHA Proposal 18.1 The NHA Executive Board is requested to review their earlier decision given in its 217th meeting held on June 4, 2012 to avoid the legal complications/implications. The office may be treated to be on deputation in NHA as before the decision of his absorption referred to above and he may be repatriated to his parent department forthwith."
8. The PTDC on 13.03.2014 and 16.06.2014 also requested the NHA Department to withdraw the permanent absorption of the petitioner in NHA and repatriate him to PTDC whereupon the permanent induction of the petitioner was withdrawn and he is no more an employee of NHA after expiry of period of deputation on 09.02.2014. The orders under challenge are in respect of repatriation of the petitioner and under the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere such like matter . The petitioner does not have any vested right to remain on the post as deputationist for an indefinite period or to get absorption in the other department. The parent department at any time without assigning any reason can pass orders in respect of repatriation of its employee. Reliance is placed on the case reported as S. Masood Abbas Rizvi v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 799 ). Relevant portion of the judgment (supra) is reproduced as under:- "4. We have heard the petitioner and have perused the record. It is settled princip le that a deputationist does not have any vested right to remain on the post as deputationist forever or for a stipulated period, he could be ordered to be repatriated to the parent Department at any time without assigning any reason. This issue was raised in the case of Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi v. C.D.A. Islamabad through Chairman and others (2010 SCMR 378) wherein this Court has held that a deputationist does not have vested right to continue for the stipulated period. We are of the considered view that petitioner being deputationist has no vested right to remain on a post as deputationist or otherwise and can be ordered to be repatriated and or relieved at any time. Moreover , in terms of section 2(b)(i) of Civil Servants Act, 1973 such person even looses his status as "Civil Servant" during the period he is on deputation. The parent Department of the petitioner is not obliged in law, to assign reasons for his repatriation. The learned High Court while dismissing the petition of the petitioner has rightly held that the parent Department of the petitioner was competent to issue the Notification dated 22nd July, 2013, for which the Department was not required to assign reasons as the petitioner was holding regular/ substantive post with the Department of Auditor -General of Pakistan".
Another reliance is placed on the case reported as Dr. Shafi ur Rehman Afridi v. C.D.A., Islamabad and others (2010 SCMR 378 ), relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under:- "8. We have also examined the controversy from another angle that as to whethe r the Constitutional petition was maintainable or otherwise? As mentioned hereinabove it is well settled by now that a civil servant has no vested right to complete the deputation period and matter relating to the terms and conditions of service, the Constitutional Jurisdiction as conferred upon High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot be invoked. In this regard reference can be made to the dictum laid down in the following cases:- Pakistan v. Moazzam Hussain Khan and another PLD 1959 SC 13, PLD 1964 (1W. P.) Lah. 376, Abdul Qayyurn v. Nasrullah Khan Draishak and others 1975 SCMR 320, Ala-ud-Din Akhtar v. Government of Punjab and another 1982 CLC 515, Ch. Muhammad Bakhsh v. Government of Punjab PLD 1989 Lah. 175, Ayyaz Anjum v. Government of Punjab and others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 123, 1997 SCMR 169, Rafique Ahmad Chaudhry v. Ahmad Nawaz Malik and others 1997 PLC (C.S.) 124, 1997 SCMR 170 and Abdul Khaliq Anjum v. Secretary Education 1998 PLC (C.S.) 839 .
9. It is worth mentioning that a deputatio nist could not be treated as an aggrieve d person provided he had been placed in the same grade and status in borrowing cadre which he was enjoying before his status of deputationist. It may not be out of place to mention here that a deputationist has no vested right to remain on-a--pest-as- deputationist forever or for a stipulated period as mentioned in the notification and can be repatriated at any time.
In this regard reference can be made the case titled Muhammad Rafique v. Secretary , Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others 1998 SCMR 2631 .
The learned Division Bench of Islamabad High Court in a case titled as Ghansham Das v. Federation of Pakista n through Secretary Establishment Division and others (2017 PLC (C.S.) 191) observed that deputation being matter related to terms and conditions of service and constitutional petition by deputationist for his continuation on deputation is not maintainable. Reliance can also be placed on the cases titled as Aziz Ul Allah and others v.
Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary , Quetta and another (2018 SCMR 5), Rafiq Ahmed and others v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary , Quetta and others (2018 SCMR 48) and Muhammad Sharif Tareen, Chief of Section (Acting) (BPS-19), Planning and Development Department, Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and another (2018 SCMR 5 4).
9. In view of above, this writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable.