Petitioner who is an Engineering Graduate joined service in Wapda as Junior Engineer on 4-3-1982.
While he was serving with Wapda, he was granted Commission in Pakistan Army, EME Branch on 27-1-1983. The letter issued by the Army Authorities in that behalf (Annex A) shows that the petitioner was selected for Commission in the Army a under Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971. After his selection, petitioner wrote to the Chief Engineer (GSO),Electricity Wapda Islamabad for being relieved from duty. Refer Annexure 'B'. He was accordingly relieved w.e.f. 11-2-1983 vide Chief Engineer's letter dated 5-2-1983 (Annexure C). Petitioner was, however, informed by the Chief Engineer vide letter dated 13-11-1984 (Annex: D) that the case regarding retention of his lien in Wapda was submitted to the Legal Adviser who gave an opinion that the petitioner had no lien in Wapda. It appears that the Army Authorities did not accept this contention of Wapda as in their view the petitioner who had joined Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces before 5-9-1983 retained his lien with his previous employer.
2. Petitioner was released from the Army service w.e.f. 30-9-1985 on completion of Compulsory Service and he was directed vide letter dated 28-9-1985 (Annexure H) to report to Wapda for assumption of his duty. Petitioner accordingly submitted his arrival report to Chief Engineer (Admn.) Wapda on 1-10-1985. He was not taken on duty and was verbally informed by the Wapda Authorities that he having joined Pakistan Army of his own, he had no lien in Wapda and, therefore, could not be accommodated. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court through the present constitutional petition which was admitted to regular hearing on 1-7-1986 to consider the question as to whether the petitioner was required to join the Army Service under the Compulsory Service in the ArmedForces Ordinance, 1971 and was entitled to be reinstated in his previous service in Wapda.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel appearing for Wapda that in view of the claim made by the petitioner, his remedy lay with the Service Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter as provided by Article 212 of the Constitution. Submission of the learned counsel, therefore, is that the present constitutional petition is not maintainable. The objection of the learned counsel for the respondents, in my view, has to be sustained. The grievance made by the petitioner is undoubtedly relateable to the terms and conditions of his service based on the provisions of Ordinance XXXI of 1971. Petitioner's remedy, therefore, lies with the Service Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, points out that the petitioner could not approach the Service Tribunal because the Authorities in Wapda have not as yet passed any formal order on his arrival report refusing to take him back on duty. Learned counsel for Wapda is not in position to rebut this submission and is unable to firmly state that an formal order was passed on the arrival report submitted by the petitioner. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with the observation that the competent authority in Wapda shall pass a proper formal order on the arrival report of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner, so advised, may approach the Service Tribunal for necessary relief. No order as to costs.
A.A./A-109/L.