' ZARIN DAD KHATTAK (MEMBER).---This appeal has been filed under section 4 of the N.-W.F.P.
Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the impugned order dated 9-5-1993 issued by respondent No, 1, praying that the appellant may be re-instated as Chowkider at Government Primary School, Chinarono and respondents Nos. 1 to 4 be restrained from passing mala fide orders of his transfer any more.
2. Brief history of the case as averred from the memo of appeal is that in 1971 it was decided by the Government to establish a Primary School in Village Chinarono. A small place situated in the hilly areas of Tehsil Timargara, District Dir. The appellant who had donated land for the above school was given preference and was appointed against the vacant post of Chowkidar on temporary basis vide order of 5-7-1971. There is another Primary School situated in the village Utala (Dosh Khel), Tehsil Timargara, District Dir. Respondent No, 5 who is the resident of the same village to which the appellant belongs, was simultaneously appointed as Chowkidar in the second school situated in the Village Utala.
3. Since the appointment of respondent No, 1 (Sub-Divisional Education Officer, (Male) Temargara, District Dir, the services of the appellant have been subjected to a long series of inter se transfer orders and exchange of posting orders between respondent No,5 and the appellant on the approach of former. The details of the orders so far issued are as under:-- S. No.Orders datesRemarks
1. 26-5-1973Transferred to GPS Utala vice respondent No. 5.
2.9-8-1975Exchange of posts between appellant and respondent No. 5 3.10-10-1975-do--- 4.18-11-1975-do--- 5.4-9-1976---do- 6.11-10-1976-do--- 7.24-11-1991Transfer order of 11-10-1976 held in abeyance.
8.31-5-1992Mutual transfer of appellant and respondent No.5 was ordered.
9.8-6-1992Mutual transfer of appellant and respondent No.5 was ordered.
10.24-8-1992Transfer orders of 8-6-1992 were cancelled.
11.30-8-1992Transfer order issued on 24-8-1992 cancelled.
12.3-9-1992Transfer order of 30-8-1982 cancelled.
13.12-9-1992Transfer orders of 3-9-1992 were cancelled.
14.14-9-1992Transfer orders of 13-9-192 were cancelled.
15.23-9-1992Transfer orders of 13-9-1992 restored.
16.10-10-1992Re-instatement orders of 2 6-9-1992 cancelled. Appellant wasallowed to perform his duties at FPS Chinarono.
17.24-10-1992Transfer orders issued on 26-9-1992, 29-9-1992, 10-10-1992 and 12-10-1992 cancelled.
18.12-12-1992Order of 10-10-1992 cancelled.
19.6-1-1993 Mutual transfer of the appellant with respondent No.5 ordered.
20.24-2-1993-do--- 21.7-3-1993Order of 24-2-1993 was cancelled.
22.20-3-1993Order of 7-3-1993 was cancelled.
23.2-5-1993Order of 7-3-1993 was restored.
24.9-5-1993Order issued on 2-5-1993 was cancelled.
25. Para. 3 from the parawise comments submitted by respondents Nos. 1 to 4 is reproduced in verbatim:-- "In 1975 an order regarding exchange of posts between the appellant and respondent No, 5 was ordered. The appellant was aggrieved with this order and from that time the appellant and respondent No,5 started the case. Both the persons were quite energetic and not tireable persons.
Each one tried to defeat the other one. Both were quite approachable and were running after political bodies and have been instrumental in some shapes and that is why such a long story of their transfer papers have been prepared. The transfer of Government servant from one station to another station is not a punishment but it comes in general routine work and it depends on the disposal of the concerned officer to issue orders for running an institution in satisfactory level. It is not a fundamental right of any Government servant to perform his duty at one and only at one station. The appellant ought to have complied with the orders of the department and no such long series of transfer would be repeated. It has been accepted above that the appointment orders mentioned above were correct and accordingly both the Class IV servants were liable to be transferred to any station and it is not their due right to perform their duties at their desirable station."
4. The appellant and representative of respondent department alongwith Government Pleader present. Arguments heard and record perused with their assistance.
5. We find that the appellant who had been appointed as Chowkidar in Government Primary School, Chinarono on temporary basis was not liable to transfer. Similar is the case of respondent No,
5. However, the respondent No,3 either on the basis of external pressure or on his own issued at least 18 transfer orders of the two low paid employees during the period from November 1991 to May 1993 without justification. It could be termed as the height of manifestation of irresponsibility and we condemn it.
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that we accept the appeal with cost against respondent No,3. File be consigned to the record, after completion.