' MALIIC ZAWWAR HUSSAIN (MEMBER).-Allah Ditta, Junior Clerk office of the Forest Division, Gujrat has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Chief Conservator of Forests (Central Zone) Planning and Evaluation, Punjab, Lahore, the Secretary, Government of Punjab, Forestry Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Lahore and the Province of Punjab through its Secretary Wildlife and Fisheries Department, Government of the Punjab as respondents. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order dated 16th April, 1980 and 20th October, 1982 passed by the respondents Nos, 1 and 2 be set aside and he may not he transferred out of the Gujrat Forest Division and his services be not placed at the disposal of Conservator of Forests, Range Management Circle, Lahore.
2. Brief facts of the case are that while the applicant was working in the Gujrat Forest Division (Lahore Circle), his services were placed at the disposal of Conservator of Forests, Range Management Circle in the interest of public service w,e,f, the order dated 16th April, 1980 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore. The appellant filed a representation to the Secretary Government of the Punjab, Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife Department for cancellation of the order dated 16th April, 1980 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore who accepted the representation vide order, dated 12th May, 1982, However, when the Secretary was informed about the background of the case resulting in his transfer from Gujrat Forest Division, the Secretary reviewed the case of the appellant minutely and directed that the appellant should immediately report for duty at the place of his posting in compliance with the orders of the Chief Conservator of Forests. This order was communicated to the appellant as well as to the Chief Conservator of Forests vide Government letter, dated 25th October, 1982. Hence this appeal.
3.
We have heard the parties. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that the order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests transferring the appellant from Gujrat Forests Division (Lahore Circle) to Range Management Circle is against the law and the rules because it has changed the cadre of the appellant. It has also been argued that the appellant being a poor civil servant cannot afford his transfer out of his cader. On the other hand it has been argued by the learned District Attorney appearing on behalf of the respondents that the orders of his transfer have been passed by the Departmental Authorities strictly in accordance with the rules and no exception can be taken against it. He has relied upon the parawise comments filed by the respondents and section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974.
4. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also perused the record. The record shows that while the appellant was posted as Range Clerk (in Gujrat Forests Division) a few complaints were received against the appellant which necessitated his transfer from Gujrat to any other place. There is nothing on the record to show that the departmental authorities wanted to change the cadre of the appellant or to disturb his lien in his parent cadre. In the parawise comments filed by the respondents, it has been clearly stated that the cadre of the appellant has not been changed and his service have been placed at the disposal of the Conservator of Forests (Range Management Circle) on account of administrative reasons. We are of the considered opinion that this order has been competently passed by the respondents because according to section 9 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1y74, every civil servant is liable to serve any where within or outside the province in any post under the Government of the Punjab or the Federal Government or any Provincial Government or a local authority or a Corporation or a body set up or established by any such Government, provided that where a civil servant is required to serve in a post outside his service or cadre,' his terms and conditions or service as to his pay shall not be less favourable than those to which he would have been entitled if he had not been so required to serve. The appellant has failed to show that his terms and conditions of service with regard to pay have been violated. Thus, we held that there are no merits in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed.
5. However, while parting with the judgment we may observe that the Government of the Punjab vide its order, dated 25th October, 1982 had categorically stated that the question of posting of the appellant to his parent cadre/Division shall be considered by the Department on merits, thereafter.
We expect that Government would abide by his undertaking and would deal with the case of the appellant sympathetically.
6. In view of the above detailed analysis we did not see any merits in this appeal which is dismissed with no order as to costs. Judgment be communicated to the parties.