' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Masood Ahmad was working as Assistant Industrial and Development Officer (B-11) in the Department of Industries and Mineral Development, Government of Punjab, and was posted at Rawalpindi. His services were placed at the disposal of Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad, on deputation as Industrial Development Officer (B-16) for a period of three years, vide letter dated 6-8-1984. In the meanwhile, his case for permanent absorption was taken up with the Federal Government but his request could not materialize on the ground that the post of Industrial Development Officer was temporary. However, later on the post was made permanent but the appellant could not be absorbed permanently by the Chief Commissioner, I.C.T.
Ultimately, the appellant was asked, vide Notification dated 2-5-1991, to report back to his parent department, i,e, the Government of the Punjab, and was accordingly relieved of his duties with immediate effect. The Chief Commissioner, I.C.T. Requested the Government of the Punjab for extension of his deputation period, which was not agreed to, and finally the appellant went and joined the parent department. The case of the appellant is that since his case was taken up and no objection was raised from the Punjab Government, it was incumbent upon the Federal Government to absorb him in B-16 permanently as he had got a vested right. The appellant has given instances whereby the Federal Government permanently absorbed so many persons. He has prayed that Notification dated 2-5-1991 may be set aside and the appellant be declared to have been permanently absorbed in the I.C.T. As Industrial Development Officer (B-16) with effect from 10-10- 1989 and the Chief Commissioner, I.C.T. Be directed to issue a formal notification to this effect with all consequential benefits.
2. The appeal was admitted subject to all just exceptions on 26-5-1996. Notices were issued to respondents and finally the appeal came up for regular hearing on 31-7-1996 and we have heard the learned counsel for the parties, at length.
3. Mr. Sheikh Riazul Hach Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant and argued that for the purpose of absorption there are three conditions - firstly consent of the deputations - secondly no objection from the parent department and thirdly the intention/consent of the borrowing department. He has referred to Serial No,47 of ESTACODE, 1989 Edition, and submitted that since the appellant fulfilled these conditions, the Federal Government was bound to absorb him permanently as Industrial Development Officer (B-16) in the Federal Government, and such direction be issued. He has referred to 1991 SCMR 1765; 1993 SCMR 2337 and 1995 PLC (C.S.) 846 in support that the Tribunal has got jurisdiction in such matters.
4. Mr. Khalid Abbas Khan, Federal counsel appearing for the Federal Government has raised preliminary objection that the appellant being a Provincial employee cannot invoke jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is argued that the appellant was on deputation but it is, the discretion of the Federal Government to absorb him permanently but he cannot force the borrowing department to take him permanently as it was not in the public interest.
5. Mr. Mansoor Ahmed, Advocate appearing on behalf of private respondent No, 5 submitted that the appeal is time-barred as the cause of action arose to him by Notification dated 2-5-1991; but initially he filed Writ Petition No,1100 of 1990 before Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, and the matter went upto Supreme Court, but could not succeed. Meanwhile, the situation changed and he went and joined the parent department where he continues to serve. It is further argued that the appellant has a lien in the parent department which was not terminated by the parent department and no adverse order has been passed against him, therefore, he cannot maintain this appeal for redressal of his grievance.
6. There are certain admitted facts. The appellant was on deputation from the Government of the Punjab to the Federal Government. The order for his permanent absorption was not issued but there was some correspondence between the two Governments and finally the Chief Commissioner, I.C.T. Where the appellant was serving, issued the notification dated 2nd May, 1991 whereby he was relieved of his duties with immediate effect with the direction to report to his parent department, i,e, Directorate of Industries and Mineral Development Government of Punjab.
He filed Writ Petition before Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench which finally he had withdrawn and the order of the High Court dated 21-4-1993 is reproduced below: "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been repatriated to his parent department, therefore, the petitioner does not press this petition. However, will seek remedy regarding the recovery of pay etc. By way of separate proceedings. Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. "
' The Supreme Court also in Civil Petition No, 229 of 1995 refused to grant leave to appeal but made observations that the petitioner if feels aggrieved and if so advised can approach the competent forum for his redress. Taking the benefit of these observations, the appellant filed departmental appeal with Federal Government which remained unresponded and then approached this Tribunal by way of this appeal.
7. Before we advert to merits of the case, we should like to dispose of legal objection about the jurisdiction of this Tribunal raised by the respondents. The appellant admittedly is an employee of the Government of the Punjab. He was on deputation to the Federal Government and was not absorbed in the Federal Government. He has since been relieved by the Chief Commissioner, I.C.T.
In 1991 and has joined his parent department. Let us refer to the definition of Civil servant' as contained in section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which reads as under : "(b) 'civil servant' means a person who is a member of an All Pakistan Service or of a civil servant of the Federation, or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, including any such post connected with defence, but does not include
(i) a person who is on deputation to the Federation from any Province or other authority;
(ii) xx xx xx xx xx".
Under section 4 (1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, any 'civil servant' who falls within the definition provided in the Civil Servants Act, 1973, can invoke jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal.
Admittedly, the appellant is an employee of the Government of the Punjab, having lien in the parent department, and he remained on deputation with the Federal Government and ultimately repatriated to his parent department where he joined and working there. Thus, he is a civil servant of the Government of the Punjab and not the Federal Government, and this Tribunal cannot take cognizance of the employees of the Provincial Governments, and this appeal is not competent. On this, we rely on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1986 SCMR 1994 (Province of Punjab v. Ikramul Haq).
8. With regard to merits, though it is not necessary to deal with this aspect but since arguments were advanced we would like to give our findings. The contention of the appellant is that there was correspondence between the Punjab Government and the Federal Government and his case was being considered actively for permanent absorption which could not materialise, but such recommendations and correspondence cannot make out a case for seeking declaration by this Tribunal for permanent absorption. The deputationists cannot have a vested right to claim to be absorbed by the borrowing department as the discretion lay with the competent Authority, which has duly been exercised, with the result that the appellant has been repatriated to his parent department. The deputationists are loanees and their terms and conditions of service remain with their parent department where their lien is maintained. The borrowing department can lay down the conditions for which he was taken in the Federal Government and that condition was fixed that the appellant shall be on deputation for a period of three years initially, which was extended further as considered necessary by the competent Authority. We feel that there has been no violation or infringement of any terms and conditions of service of the appellant while serving on deputation even. The appellant has referred to judgment of this Tribunal delivered in the case of Dr. Iftikhar Ahmed (Appeal No,193(R)/95), decided on 25th July, 1995, in support of his contentions. It may be pointed out that the aforesaid judgment has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the case has been remanded to the Tribunal for hearing afresh; and on remand, the appeal has been heard by another Bench and judgment is reserved. In these circumstances, we are of the view that this Tribunal cannot make any direction or declaration that the appellant be absorbed permanently under the Federal Government. The appeal is misconceived and is dismissed with costs.