1. Muneer Boa, petitioner, Upper Division Clark, Pakistan Railways, Khanewal, has brought this petition under section 25-A of the I. R. O., 1969, against the order of his transfer to Sama-Sata dated 10-4-76 whereby he has also been asked to vacate his residential quarter housing his family members.
2. According to his petition he was allowed to occupy house No. 540/13, Railway Colony, Khanewal, which according to his Court statement was considered to be a comfortable house on account of his being a patient of paralysis. The Railway authorities subsequently wanted the petitioner to vacate the aforesaid residential quarter without any reasonable justification and as the petitioner preseated against the arbitrary action. He was suspended from service ou 4-4-75. However, as the time went by the. Railway authorities vacated the order of suspension by virtue of his representations but simultaneously the petitioner was transferred to Sama-Sata which order put him in difficult position and in a way was calculated to get the residential premises vacated by him. Under the circumstances it is prayed that he should be rescued from the arbitrary action of the respondent Railway. On the date previous to the last i.e. on 31-7-76 the parties got adjournment to get the dispute settled by mutual negotiations but according to the learned counsel for the respondent no such settlement could be made. Today the parties statements have been recorded.
3. The petitioner examined himself in support of his grievance while Nasir Ali, U.D.C., Railway, was produced in rebuttal and according to his statement reliance teas been placed on the letter dated 9-2-76 of the office of the Divisional Superintendent Multan, addressed to various officers of the division, a photo copy whereof Exh. P-1 has already been tendered in evidence on behalf of the petitioner.
4. According to the official communication (photo copy Exh. P-1) relied upon by both the parties it was decided by the Raliway authorities that after the Railway staff have attained the age of 55 years i.e. three years before they are due retirement) they should not be transferred from their homes and should be stationed at the places of their choice as far as possible.
5. Two important considerations come to the forefront to dispose of the present dispute. The primary factor to be taken into consideration is that the petitioner was asked to vacate his residential premises and on his refusal he was suspended from service. The other part is that subsequently the order of suspension was withdrawn and the petitioner's reinstatement was subjected to his transfer to a different station. It is obvious that the respondent Railway issued the order of transfer only to cover its action of getting the residential premises vacated by the petitioner which action can hardly be recognized as valid in the eye of law. Because the procedure for getting the residential quarter vacated by a worker is altogether a different matter from the official considerations for his transfer from one place to the other. The stand of the petitioner must be regarded as genuine in this behalf and he has rightly approached the Labour Court to come to his rescue.
6. But this is not all about the grievance of the petitioner. He is a paralytic person and I examined him myself when in the course of his statement he was asked to move his right arm stated by him to be affected by paralysis. He could not raise his arm up to half of its normal height and otherwise from his facial expression he is pale, weak and clearly an ailing person. In this condition of his physical health it is altogether unbecoming and unjust to compel him to move to a different station along with his family with his meagre financial resources without any assurance of residence. He is drawing about Rs. 380 as his monthly wages which can hardly serve his immediate needs of daily life. Besides he is clearly nearing his superannuation age and under the policy of the Railway Department itself all such persons who are bordering over the age of superannuation are to be considered sympathetically in the matter of their transfer. According to this policy such Railway officials whose retirement is due within a period of three years, they should be liberally given a choice to be stationed at the place of their own choice and should not be transferred. The date of birth as deposed by the petitioner is 2-2-1322 and as such he is completing one of the important stages of superannuation of attaining the age of 55 years only by February next year. In regard to his final stage of superannuation at the age of 58 years only three years and three months are left.
7. He is, therefore, nearing the age of retirement while being in weak condition of health.
8. It may, however, be pointed out that the departmental instructions given in Exh. P-1 are not part of any rule of service and as such have no force of law so that the same should be strictly adhered to in every detail for the disposal of the present dispute. One thing, however, is quite clear that the Department has already taken upon itself to extend sympathy to suitable cases in accepting the choice of workers to be po3ted at the station of their own choice when they are near about their superannuation. The case of the petitioner is not only in regard to his being near superannuation he is in addition to this a patient of paralysis and at the same time he has already suffered wrath of suspension from service for some tune which has .sow been withdrawn by the authorities that may be regarded an act of benevolence. But any such act should not have been marred by an arbitrary action under which the concession given to the petitioner with one hand might be taken away by the other. In these circumstances I consider it a fit case to decide in favour of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the petition being a:cepted he is directed to be given duty at his post at Khanewal while keeping his residential quarter intact. The file may be consigned.