CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---A brief resume of the relevant fact, giving rise to the instant appeal by leave of this Court against the judgment dated 7-5-1994 passed by the learned Federal Service Tribunal refusing the prayer of the appellant for his repatriation to the Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat as Assistant (B-16) with all consequential back benefit is that the appellant was serving as Assistant (BPS-11) in the Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan in the year 1983, when, in response to an advertisement of the office of the Wafaqi Mohtasib regarding some posts of Assistants, he applied for one such post through proper channel. He was selected for the post of Assistant in the same scale of pay as he was enjoying in the Ministry of Finance. His appointment letter was issued on 26-4-1983 allowing him the terms and conditions of his service, i,e,, Government service, plus other benefits as may be sanctioned by the Government for the employees of the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat. Ministry of Finance issued Office Order dated 7-5- 1983 relieving him of his duties there with effect from the same date and directing him to report for his new appointment. He was also granted right of reversion for a period of one year from 7-5-1983 to 6-5-1984 which was later extended for another year and thereafter for an indefinite period. While serving in the Ombudsman Secretariat he had been promoted as Assistant-in-Charge vide letter dated 7-12-1983 and then by D.P.C./Competent Authority as Superintendent (B-16) with effect from 2-12-1985 vide letter dated 10-12-1985 and his services had been placed under probation for one year. He continued to perform his functions in the Ombudsman Secretariat as Superintendent/Deputy Registrar and also drew salary in that scale and grade from 2-12-1985 to 19-11-1991.
2. He was in response to Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat D.O. letter dated 17-11-1991 that the Ministry of Finance issued Office Memorandum No,F. 1-266/74-Admn. III, dated 18th November, 1991 whereby the Wafaqi Mohtasib/Ombudsman was requested to relieve the appellant with the direction to report to Admn. III Section. He was relieved of his duties in the office of Wafaqi Mohtasib on 19-11- 1991. Office Order No,416/91 issued by the office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman)'s Secretariat on 19-11-1991, reads thus: "Pursuant to Finance Division's O.M. No,1-266/74-Admn.III, dated 18th November, 1991 Mr. Muhammad Rafiq, Assistant who is serving in the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman)'s Secretariat, Islamabad on deputation from Finance Division, Islamabad is reverted to his parent Organisation, with effect from 19-11-1991 (afternoon).
"2. Mr. Muhammad Rafiq, Assistant, Stands relieved of his duties in the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman)'s Secretariat, Islamabad with effect from 19-11-1991 (afternoon) and is directed to report in the Finance Division, Islamabad on 20-11-1991 (forenoon)."
3. Treating order dated 19-11-1991 reproduced in the immediately preceding paragraph, as his demotion and reversion to the Finance Division as also reduction in rank without resort to any disciplinary proceedings, the appellant submitted a Departmental Appeal/representation on 16-12- 1991. On 29-3-1992, he preferred Appeal No,97(R) of 1992 before the Tribunal which was withdrawn by him on 30-11-1992, in terms of the following order: "At the very outset, the counsel for the respondents invited the attention of the Tribunal and the appellant to the judgment in the case of Sh. Noor Hussain Zia v. Wafaqi Mohtasib, Appeal No,260(R) of 1991 and the decision of the Tribunal. The appellant requested for the withdrawal of his appeal, in case his request is re-examined on merits by the department. The departmental representative has no objection to the proposal and promised that the request of the appellant will be re- examined on merits and according to rules. The appeal is allowed to be withdrawn. The respondents-department to re-examine the case as per rules."
4. Remaining unsuccessful before the Wafaqi Mohtasib in obtaining redress of his alleged grievance, the appellant made Appeal No,4(R) of 1994 before the Tribunal on 6-1-1994, with the following prayer: "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the appeal may be accepted, the impugned order of appellant's reversion and reduction in rank may be set aside and he may be restored to the office of Superintendent (BPS-16) in the Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat with all consequential benefits.
Any other relief which this Honourable Tribunal may deem proper, may also be awarded."
5. After hearing the parties and scanning the material on the record, the Tribunal accepted Appeal No,4(R) of 1994 vide the impugned judgment dated 7-5-1994 after noticing the plea of the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat to the effect that it was not possible for them to accept the return of the appellant from Finance Division in 1994, " because in the meantime many changes/promotions had taken place particularly in cadre of Superintendent." The following excerpt from judgment dated 7-5-1994 indicates the manner in which the same was disposed of: "5...................But since the appellant had been relieved by the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Sectt, had been accepted by the Finance Division and he had joined there as a permanent Assistant with effect from 19-11-1991, the ground position for him had been re-established in his last parent office i,e, Finance Division. For sake of justice and to minimise financial and other hardship to the appellant, we accept the appeal to the extent of his rights/benefits etc. due to him and direct the Finance Division to assign/place the appellant at proper seniority position as permanent Assistant and if any one of his Junior Assistants had been promoted as Assistant Incharge/Superintendent etc. during the said period of 8-1/2 years, he shall be given the same position/appointments with effect from relevant dates and with all consequential actions/benefits etc. Order accordingly. Parties be informed."
6. Appellant-Muhammad Rafiq has argued the case himself and was critical of the disposal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal on the following grounds:---
(1) That he was not a deputationist in the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat and being a regular employee there, his reversion to the Finance Division is not justified.
(2) That his reversion to the Finance Division has no support of the law on the subject and he was eminently entitled to continue to perform his functions as Superintendent in the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat.
In addition to the above submissions he has also referred to his Miscellaneous Application No,121 of 1992 in his earlier Appeal No,97-R of 1992 having been disposed of by the Federal Service Tribunal on 22-8-1993 (copy available at page 44 of the Paper Book) to contend that the respondentWafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) was in error in not taking him in his Secretariat as Superintendent there. According to him, the direction issued by the learned Tribunal, in its judgment in Appeal, to the Finance Division to place him at proper seniority position as permanent Assistant and if any one of his juniors had been promoted as Assistant Incharge/Superintendent during the interregnum, to give him the same position/appointments with effect from relevant dates and with all consequential actions/benefits, is of no avail to him in that neither in the past there have been any such promotions in the Finance Division nor even the prospects of such course being adopted by the concerned quarters in future are discernible. Contrarily, Mr. Shahid Saeed, learned Standing Counsel for the Federal Covernment, has supported the judgment of the Tribunal with the argument that the treatment meted out the appellant in the year 1991 is not open to any objection in law.
7. We have considered the conflicting pleas raised by both sides in this case and have also perused the material on the record. It is not denied by the appellant that his lien/right of reversion to the post of Assistant in the Finance Division under letter dated 26-4-1983 remained extant throughout the period which he spent in the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat as also the facts that: he had been, (1) relieved by the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat, (2) accepted by the Finance Division and (3) joined there as a permanent assistant with effect from 19-11-1991 with the result that the ground position for him had been re-established in his last parent department i,e, Finance Department. Being a civil servant having a lien in his parent department, the appellant has not been meted out any discriminatory treatment so far. We find that the case of Sh. Noor Hussain Zia i,e,, Appeal No,260(R) of 1991 referred to by the Federal Service Tribunal in the first appeal of the appellant, came up to this Court in C.P. No,385 of 1992 directed against judgment dated 30-971992 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad and leave was refused therein on 13-4-1993, as below: "1. xx xxx xxx xxx "2 The facts of the case are that the petitioner was serving as stenographer on temporary basis in the Finance Division. He was selected as Stenographer in the Secretariat of Ombudsman in BPS-11.
He joined the Ombudsman's Secretariat. He was appointed as Private Secretary (B-16).
Subsequently, he was appointed in Grade-17. He was repatriated to the Finance Division. He was relieved on 10-12-1991. The petitioner has challenged the order of his repatriation to the Finance Division on the ground that he was employed in the Finance Division on temporary basis and he was given the right of reversion for only one year and after the expiry of that period, he could not be reverted back to the Finance Division. The petitioner was not permanently absorbed in the Ombudsman's Secretariat. The lien of the petitioner was retained in his parent department. His services were not terminated. The petitioner was serving in the Ombudsman's Secretariat until further orders on the basis of a decision that "such personnel may continue serving in the Ombudsman's Secretariat until further orders, no matter that they were allowed specific time for reversion to the parent department'. He himself made several representations for getting promotion in his parent department as such the petitioner cannot raise the plea that after one year, he could not be transferred back to his parent department. Even in his parent department, he was on temporary basis and his services could be terminated but the department accepted him.
He had no lien in the Ombudsman's Secretariat.
3. There is no force in this petition. The same accordingly is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused."
The appellant has not even so much as alleged that he had any lien in the Ombudsman's Secretariat. In this view of the matter, pleas Nos.1 and 2 noticed in para. 6 above, are of no avail to the appellant. Moreso, when the order dated 19-11-1991 was preceded by communication between the Wafaqi Mohtasib's Secretariat and the Finance Division, duly noticing the status of the appellant in his parent department.
8. As regards the plea that the appellant has no prospects of his promotion in the Finance Division, we suffice by observing that such fears hardly furnish any cause to complain to persons appellant.
9. No other point was urged.
10.For all that has gone before, the instant appeal is sans merit and is liable to be dismissed.
Order accordingly. No costs.