ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN): --Appellant Mr. Karamat Hussain is working as Assistant Budget and Accounts Officer in the Office of the Manager, Field Stores, WAPDA, Samundari, District Faisalabed, on his reinstatement as he was suspended while posted at Hyderabad. Subsequently, by office order dated 18-2-1993 issued by the General Manager, Finance, Power, WAPDA, Lahore, one Rana Maqbool Ahmed who was also under suspension, was reinstated and posted at Samundari in place of the appellant who was transferred to Muzaffargarh. The appellant challenged transfer order in the High Court by filing Writ Petition No. 2326/93. He was granted stay order but finally by order dated 19-4-1993, his petition was disposed of with the following observations: "The petitioner may, if so advised, complain against the order dated 18-2-1993 on available grounds, before the departmental authorities and/or the appropriate Service Tribunal."
Thereafter, the appellant filed this appeal before the Tribunal without moving the departmental authorities.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant at length. He has invited our attention to some letters from MNA's wherein they made request to the Prime Minister that injustice was done to Rana Maqbool Ahmed and requested for his reinstatement and his posting back at Samundari. It is argued that this is a political transfer with mala fide intention and as such this order is bad in law. He has referred to 1991 M LD 2214 and 1991 SCM R 477 in support of his submissions.
3. - Mr. Syed Iftikhar Ahmad, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents resisted this appeal and submitted that this is an administrative order, which can hardly be arraigned under Article 212 of the Constitution. He has referred to section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 that any civil servant is bound to serve anywhere in Pakistan.
4. Without entering into the controversy of political influence or otherwise, it would suffice to say that MNAs requested the Prime Minister to intervene in the case of Rana Maqbool Ahmed and not of the appellant. Accordingly, Rana Maqbool Ahmed was reinstated and posted back to Samundari in place of the appellant as was done in the case of the appellant who was working at Hyderabad and on reinstatement he was posted at Samundari. The appellant has not been able to convince us as to why Muzaffargarh is an inconvenient place for him or is it a punishment to him or whether there is any mala fide intention behind it. He could not point out any mala fides on the part of the administration and therefore no malice or bias could be attributed to the respondent while passing the impugned transfer order. This transfer order is an administrative order, and the appellant should not have any grievance against it as Muzffargarh is not a so far place than Hyderabad where he remained posted for a considerable period. Under the rules, every civil servant is liable to serve anywhere in Pakistan in the exigency of service and cannot claim as of right to serve at a particular station.
5. Coming to the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, we take the case reported in 1991 M LD 2214. In this case, the writ petition was filed and it was held that High Court has no jurisdiction and the petition was dismissed, with certain observations, and the learned counsel wants us to act upon those observations made by the, learned Judge in the judgment. But the learned counsel has not been able to explain as to whether any appeal was filed before the Service Tribunal as per observations and what was the fate of that case. Therefore, this case cannot come to rescue for the appellant. In the other case reported in 1991 SCM R 477 (Syed Afzal Ahmed Hydari v.
Secretary, Defence Production and others), the Supreme Court while dismissing the leave to appeal, observed as under: "We have every sympathy with the petitioner but he has not been able to find any rule or law placing any bar on the jurisdiction of the competent authority in making the transfer without the consent of the affected person. Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 in clear and unambiguous terms says that every civil servant shall be liable to serve anywhere within or outside Pakistan on any post under the Federal Government or the Provincial Government or a Local Authority or a Corporation. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner could be transferred to work in any post under the Federal Government, without his consent."
Therefore, both the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel cannot help the appellant. We are of the view that order of transfer of the appellant is an administrative order and cannot be assailed and does not call for any I interference.
6. The appeal also fails on the point of maintainability because under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, a civil servant aggrieved by any final order whether original or appellate made by a departmental authority, can only seek redress against impugned action after exhausting departmental remedy. In this case, the impugned order of transfer of the appellant was made on 18-2-1993. The appellant did not make any representation against that order and rushed to the High Court for seeking relief, but the High Court declined to allow any relief for want of jurisdiction and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of with the observations to seek relief on available grounds before the departmental authorities and/or the Service Tribunal. Even then the appellant did not make any representation and filed appeal before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the appeal is hit under section 4(1)(a) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal having no merit is dismissed.
8. The appellant is working at Samundari on the basis of status quo granted by this Tribunal vide order dated 3-5-1993. Consequent upon the dismissal of the main appeal, the above order granted by this Tribunal stands vacated.