GUL MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-The petitioner was employed in the Punjab Electricity Department in the year 1954. He was sent on deputa--tion on 31st March, 1959 to WAPDA. On 21st July, 1960, a letter, dated 2nd August, 1960, was sent from Superintending Engineer, Upper Chenab Canal Circle, Lahore to the Project Director (Hydel) WAPDA; Lahore, stating that :- "As already intimated, the above-named Temporary Assistant Clerk does not hold his lien in this Circle, his name has therefore been removed from the Establishment Register of this Circle."
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the letter dated 14th January, 1970, issued by the Assistant Chief Accountant-I (P), to the petitioner stating :- (According to rule 1 (ii) of Part III (Conditions of Service) West Pakistan WAPDA, Accounts Service Rules, 1966, you are being treated Regular Employee, as Assistant Accountant."
3. The petitioner had taken similar stand in para. 8 of his petition and in answer thereto, the respondents also admitted the averment in its com--ments sent to this Court on 24th March, 1980.
In view of the above, it is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner became a WAPDA employee at least since 1970, vide Annexure ---C' and consequently, he is not to be governed by P.
O. 24 of 1979. To support his contention reference is made to rule 1 (i), Part III of the West Pakistan WAPDA Accounts Service Rules, 1966.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents is not so placed to contest the point raised, for the reason that the position stated by the petitioner already stands admitted, in the comments of the respondents. Not only that the respondents had in fact terminated the services of the petitioner under section 17 (1-A) of the WAPDA Act, on 15th June, 1977, accepting him as an employee of WAPDA. The petitioners took his case to the Review Board which re-instated him. The status of the petitioner as WAPDA employee was, therefore, established without any doubt.
5. In view of the above, the petitioner being a WAPDA employee could not have been transferred under P. O. 24 of 1979, to the Provincial Government as its servant. The impugned order is, therefore, declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal affect. The result is that he continues to be a WAPDA employee. There will be no order as to costs.