' SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN).--Appellant Mr. Saeed Ahmed All was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher, on purely temporary basis, in the Cantonment Sir Syed Secondary School, Rawalpindi by the Directorate of Nationalized Cantonment Educational Institutions, Federal Ministry of Education, under office order dated 27-8-1975. Vide Establishment Division No, 104/57/77-Min-H, dated 10-9-1977, control and management of all the Cantonment and Garrison Schools and Colleges in Pakistan was transferred to the Director, Army Education, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi along with the teaching and administrative staff. Accordingly, the appellant also stood transferred to the recto rate of Army Education at G.H.Q., Rawalpindi. On his application to the Director, F.G. Educational Institutions, Islamabad, he was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher (Grade 14), in the Federal Government Boys High School No, 10, Bara Kau, Islamabad on 'deputation', initially for the period of four years, vide letter of appointment issued by the Director, F.G. Educational Institutions, Islamabad, dated 11-8-1981. He was relieved by the Directorate of Army Education during the same month to join his new appointment and it was indicated in his relieving order dated 22-8-1981 that he had severed all his connections with the Directorate and his lien would not be retained in the Directorate. He made representation to the Directorate, F.G.E.I. (C&E), G.H.Q., on 25-7-1984 for his confirmation in the Directorate. He was informed under letter dated 28-8-1984 that his request for his confirmation and retention of lien in the Directorate could not be acceded to. He then made representation dated 8-7-1985 to the Director-General, Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad, for his confirmation in the Directorate. He was informed under a letter dated 2-12-1986 that his case was under consideration. He made another representation dated 2-4-1987. While he was awaiting decision on his representation, a letter dated 18-1-1987 was addressed by the Director-General, Federal Directorate of Education to the Director of Education, Cantonments and Garrison, Directorate of Education, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi that the appellant was reverted to his parent department i,e, Cantonment and Garrison Directorate of Education, G.H.Q., Rawalpindi, in pursuance of the directive of the Prime Minister of Pakistan contained in a D. O. Letter No, 4/1/84- RPT(A), dated 20-11-1986. Feeling perturbed, the appellant made a representation dated 2-4-1987 to the Director-General, F.G. Educational Institutions and another representation dated 20-6-1987 to the Secretary, Ministry of Education for regularisation of his service. Ultimately, he filed appeal before this Tribunal on 21-7-1987, praying that Director-General, F.G. Educational Institutions, Islamabad may be asked to cancel his letter dated 18-1-1987 ordering his reversion to the Directorate of Cantonment and Garrison, G.H.Q., and regularize his service and absorb him in the Directorate from the date of his appointment or at least from the date on which the Cantonment Boards Institutions were taken over by the Ministry of Education in 1975. Amended memo of appeal was filed on 23-12-1987 by impleading the Director of Army Education as one of the respondents.
2. The appellant's case is that he entered the service as a civil servant and he was transferred to the Directorate of Education in the Army due to exigency of service and he was subsequently repatriated to the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions and he was to be absorbed there with all the benefits of service from the day he had entered the service. Much reliance has been placed on a decision of this Tribunal in a case of Mrs. Amatul Karim in Appeal No, 234 (R) of 1983. Due to some confusion, the respondents have not filed written objections. However, their representatives have opposed the appeal at the hearing. Mr. Muhammad Akhtar, Assistant Director in the Federal Government Directorate of Education, has contended that the appellant was initially appointed under the Directorate of Nationalized Cantonment Educational Institutions in the year 1975 and he stood transferred to the Directorate of Army Education on transfer of control and management of all the Cantonment and Garrison Schools and Colleges in Pakistan to that Directorate in September, 1977 and he joined the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions on his own application and he was taken on deputation for four years and he was to revert on the expiry of the period of deputation and was to seek absorption in his parent department i,e, the Directorate of Army Education which has succeeded the Directorate of Nationalized Cantonment Educational Institutions. He has stated that the appellant was not taken back by the Directorate of Army Education and he has, therefore, been absorbed with effect from 25-8-1985. Mr. Shaheen Khalid, Administrative Officer of Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions, G.H.Q., has submitted that the appellant had himself left the service in the Directorate and sought employment with the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions and he was relieved with the clear direction that his lien would not be retained in the department and, therefore, question of his repatriation to the Directorate of Army Education did not arise.
3. The facts not disputed are that the appellant was appointed as a Trained Graduate Teacher in the Directorate of Nationalized Cantonment Educational Institutions. His appointment as per appointment order dated 27-8-1975 was purely temporary. The control and management of all the Cantonment and Garrison Schools and Colleges was transferred, along with their teaching and administrative staff, to the Director, Army Education at G.H.Q. Vide letter dated 10-9-1977. Thus, the service of the appellant stood transferred to the Directorate of Army Education, G.H.Q. He made an application for his transfer/appointment to the Directorate of F.G. Educational Institutions. It was on his request that he was taken in service in that Directorate vide letter dated 11-8-1981. It was, however, mentioned in the letter that his appointment was on deputation initially for a period of four years. He was relieved by the Directorate of Army Education to join his assignment under the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions, but it was expressly mentioned in his relieving order dated 22-8-1981 that his lien would not be retained in the Directorate of Army Education. Nonetheless, he was taken in service in the Directorate of F.G. Educational Institutions and he served under that Directorate till the letter dated 18-1-1987 was addressed to the Director of Education, Cantt. And Garrison, Directorate of Education, G.H.Q., for his reversion/repatriation to that Directorate. The appellant became victim of this letter and he was thus placed in the dust bin of uncertainty as he was pushed aside by one Directorate and was not accepted by the other Directorate. The unfortunate employee rushed from pillar to post and made representations for his absorption somewhere. Ultimately, the luck has dawned upon him and he has been temporarily adjusted against a post of Trained Graduate Teacher in the Federal Government Boys Model School, Islamabad under the Federal Directorate of Education, vide office order dated 26-5-1988, with effect from 25-8-1985, placed on record at the hearing of the appeal by the appellant. This way, the appellant has been given relief partly but the question is of his previous service which he rendered from the day he joined the service vide office order dated 27-8-1975. As mentioned above, the appellant's appointment was purely temporary and it was under the Directorate of Nationalized Cantonment Educational Institutions. The control and management of those institutions was transferred, along with the teaching and administrative staff, to the Directorate of Army Education in the year 1977. The appellant went there along with his post. He left that post there and sought employment under the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions. He was taken there on deputation and has been adjusted against one of the temporary posts virtually on compassionate grounds as his repatriation to the Directorate of Army Education was not accepted. Moreover, it was at his request that he was taken in service in the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions. Since he was taken in service in that Directorate despite the fact that the Directorate of Army Education had expressly mentioned that he was being relieved without retaining his lien in that Directorate, he should not have been denied absorption. On his absorption in the Directorate of F.G. Educational Institutions, he is not to lose the service he put in the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions by virtue of letter dated 11-8-1981 and he is entitled to have all the admissible benefits of that service. Of course, he would not be entitled to have the benefit of service he put in the Cantonment Institutions under the Directorate of Nationalized Cantonment Educational Institutions and the Directorate of Army Education, which service he parted with at his own volition. The case of Mrs. Amatul Karim relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant had distinguishing features. She had joined service under the Cantonment Board, Wah Cantt. In November, 1969. On Nationalization of the Cantonment and Garrison Educational Institutions in the year 1975, she became employee of the Directorate of Nationalized Cantonment Educational Institutions and thereby achieved the status of a civil servant. On transfer of control and management of the Cantonment and Garrison Educational Institutions to the Directorate of Army Education in the year 1977, she was not transferred to that Directorate but she continued serving under the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions till 1981 when she was given option for continuing service under the Directorate of F.G.
Educational Institutions, or revert to the parent department under the control of the Directorate of Army Education. She exercised option for serving under the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions. Certain conditions were imposed on her continuing in service where she was. Much time was spent in correspondence but no decision was taken. She, therefore, preferred appeal before this Tribunal and it was allowed that she shall be deemed to have remained in the civil employment from 1975 when the Cantonment and Garrison Educational Institutions were nationalized. 'In the instant case, the services of the appellant were transferred to the Directorate of Army Education and he served there and he sought employment with the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions himself, which was initially in the form of deputation but has now been regularised. He is, therefore, not entitled to count in the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions the service he had rendered under the Cantonment and Garrison Educational Institutions Directorate.
4. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellant shall be deemed to be an employee under the Directorate of Federal Government Educational Institutions from the day he joined the Directorate in pursuance of the letter dated 11-8-1981 and he shall be entitled to all the admissible benefits from the day he had joined the service.