The petitioner was recruited as Attendant by Rawalpindi Electricity Power Company (REPCO) on 9- 8-1972 where he worked till 1980 when WAPDA took over REPCO and the company merged in WAPDA and the petitioner's services as Attendant impliedly become subject to WAPDA Service Rules. He served as Attendant till July, 1991 when the petitioner and others were rendered surplus from REPCO and were absorbed/posted in the office of Chief Engineer, GTPS, WAPDA, Kot Addu against existing vacancies vide letter dated 15-7-1991.
2. The petitioner was relieved on 24-7-1991 and was directed to report to Chief Engineer, G.T.P.S., WAPDA, Kot Addu for further assignment and vide office order dated 31-7-1991 the petitioner, on his arrival, was posted as Attendant with DRE(O). On I1-8-1991 the orders dated 31-7-1991 were withdrawn and the petitioner was posted as Electrician with XEN (E) Project. The facts narrated above were admitted by the respondents.
3. The petitioner made an application to Secretary, WAPDA House, Lahore through proper channel for restoration of his cadre as Attendant. The said application was forwarded by Chief Engineer, G.T.P.S., Kot Addu to the Secretary WAPDA. Repeated representations were made thereafter which finally were responded vide letter addressed to him dated 27-7-1993 wherein he was informed that change of cadre was not allowed vide Memo dated 10-4-1990. The petitioner has impugned the decision, as communicated to him vide letter-dated 27-7-1993.
4. The learned counsel .For the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was originally recruited as Attendant and his posting as Electrician amounted to demotion in rank and was, therefore, without lawful authority. The terms and conditions of his service were changed illegally and that the mere fact that he was rendered surplus in REPCO did not vest the authority/respondent to adjust him in a lower grade. No consent of the petitioner was obtained for such a change.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was estopped from raising objection against his posting as Electrician as he was working as such since 11-8-1991 and that there was no justification in his request for change in cadre.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the points discussed at the bar. It is an admitted fact that the change of cadre from Attendant as Electrician amounted to demotion in rank. The petitioner was first posted as Attendant vide office order dated 31-7-1991 at Kot Addu which was subsequently withdrawn vide order dated 11-8-1991.
7. I do not agree with the analogy of the learned counsel for the respondents as placed by him on letter-dated 10-4-1990. If the change in cadre was not permissible under the abovesaid letter then the office order dated 15-7-1991 absorbing the petitioner as Electrician was against the policy laid down in the letter dated 10-1-1990 and, therefore, the office order to the extent of reduction of the petitioner in rank and change of cadre was without lawful authority.
8. It has been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents and the representative of the respondents that the post of the Attendant was available with the respondents. The plea that there was no post available in the circumstances had no basis.
9. In view of what has been discussed about the order communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 27-7-1993 is declared to be without lawful authority and against the import of policy enunciated in the letter of the authority dated 10-4-1990 and ineffective against the rights of the petitioner and of no legal consequence. There shall be no order as to costs. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms.