1. ' Brief facts out of which the present writ petition arises are that petitioner was taken on deputation from 9-31998 to 8-3-2001.By the Punjab Local Government Board in accordance with law.
2. Thereafter, petitioner was posted as Chief Officer Municipal Committee Okara under the control of Punjab Local Government Board Lahore. Punjab Local Government repatriated the petitioner to his parent department vide notification, dated 13-1-2000. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notification, dated 13-1-2000 is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the petitioner stands.
3. Repatriated w,e,f, 31-12-1999 retrospectively. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as the petitioner was appointed as Chief Officer Municipal Committee Okara on deputation as per summary approved by the Chief Minister and the respondents are subordinate to the Chief Minister and they have no lawful authority to terminate the services of the petitioner. He further submits that the impugned order is in violation of rules 15(1)(2) of the Punjab ESTACODE. He further submits that the impugned order is also in violation of Local Government department and Local Government Board own order, dated 9-3- 1998 wherein the deputation was for three years. Hefurther submits that repatriation of the deputationist as per Rule 15 (supra) is always with mutual consultation of the lending and the borrowing departments and in the present case consultation was not made between the two departments. He further submits that petitioner was permanently absorbed by the respondents vide notification, dated 18-12-1997. He further submits that action of respondent is hit by Article 25 of the Constitution as the petitioner did not terminate or repatriated Mr. Zafar Inayat Anjum, Mr. Mazhar Nazir and Mr. Umar Daraz Gonda. He summed up his arguments that petitioner was posted on deputation till 8-3-2001 and the respondents. Have no authority to repatriate the petitioner before the prescribed period.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner is a civil servant. Therefore, writ petition is liable to be dismissed by virtue of Article 212 read with section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. He further submits that petitioner is presently serving as Chief Officer of Municipal Committee.
4. Therefore, petitioner is a civil servant by virtue of section 44 of the Punjab. Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that petitioner has alternative remedy under the provisions of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and rules framed thereunder. He further submits that petitioner has alternative remedies to agitate the matter before the higher authorities by virtue of section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. He further submits that petitioner concealed the material facts from this Court as the petitioner has filed Writ Petition No,23315 of 1996 qua the same subject-matter and relief which is pending adjudication. He further submits that the deputation order contained the following terms and conditions which was accepted by the petitioner:--
(i) He will not seek extension in deputation..
(ii) He will not apply for absorption in Local Council Service.
(iii) He will not resort to the Courts for the above purpose.
5. ' He summed up his arguments that the petitioner got the deputation order under the influence of the politicians.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal submits that petitioner is not a civil servant as the petitioner originally got appointment in Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab. Similarly the Punjab Local Government Board is statutory body. Petitioner did not mention earlier writ petition as the petitioner was taken on deputation in accordance with law after the approval of the Chief Minister on 6-10-1999 by the respondents.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record myself. It is admitted' fact that petitioner filed Writ Petition No,23315 of 1996 with the following prayer:-- "It is respectfully prayed that the impugned order, dated 4-12-1996. For repatriation of the petitioner to S&GAD may kindly be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect."
6. This fact was concealed by the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner does not approach this Court with clean hands. It is settled proposition of law that he who seeks equity must come with clean hands. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:- ' PLD 1973 SC 236 (Nawabzada Ronaq Ali's case) and ' 1998 SCMR 1462 (Rana Muhammad Arshad's case).
7. ' It is also admitted fact that petitioner got appointment in the Tourism Development Corporation of Punjab and petitioner was posted on deputation as Section Officer to S&GAD Department vide notification, dated 23-4-1995 after the approval of the Chief Minister. Subsequently, petitioner was taken on deputation by the Punjab Local Government Board vide Notification dated 6-10-1999 after the approval of the Chief Minister. In case these facts are put in juxtaposition then it shows that the petitioner got appointment/posted on deputation on account of his influence. Therefore, orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahid Akhtar's case PLD 1995 SC 530. It is settled proposition of law that it is not the vested right of a civil servant/statutory employee to continue, on deputation. Therefore, writ petition is not competent. In arriving to this conclusion I am fortified by the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:- ' PLD 1959 SC 82 (Pakistan v. Fazal-ur-Rehman's case), PLD 1959 SC 13 (Pakistan v. Moazzam Hussain Khan and another), PLD 1964 Lahore 376 (Sh. Abdur-Rahim's case), 1998 PLC (C.S.) 839 (Abdul Khaliq Anjum's case) and C.P. No,427-L of 1991 (Government of Punjab v. Professor M.A. Saeed decided on 12-4-1992).
8. ' The deputation order contained the following condition:--"He will not seek extension in deputation."
9. ' This was the reason that the petitioner concealed the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled any discretionary relief as per principle laid down by the superior Courts in the following judgments:-- ' 1990 CLC 1783 (G.M. Malik's case), PLD 1974 SC 106 (Wali Muhammad's case), 1973 SCMR 127 (Khadim Hussain's case) and 1969 SCMR 141 (Abdur Rashid's case).
10. ' The services of the petitioner stand repatriated w,e,f, 31-12-1999 vide notification, dated 13-1-2000 to the extent of having retrospective effect is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Army Welfare's case (1992 SCMR 1652). Therefore, services of the petitioner repatriated from 13-1-2000 instead of 31-12-1999. Since the petitioner performed the duties as Chief Officer of Municipal Committee till date, therefore, respondents cannot demand to recover benefits already received by the petitioner till date as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalal-ud-Din's case PLD 1992 SC 207. Learned counsel for the petitioner during arguments submits that respondents did not repatriate the other employees namely Mr. Zafar Inayat Anjum, Mr. Mazhar Nazir and Mr. Umar Draz Gondal. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner did not mention the names of these officers/employees in the contents of the writ petition. Therefore, respondents did not have any chance. To contradict the same in their report and parawise comments. It is settled proposition of law that general allegations of malice is not sustainable in the eyes of law as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- ' PLD 1974 SC 151 (Saeed Ahmed Khan's case) and PLD 1990 SC 1092 (Aman-Ullah's case).
11. ' Notification, dated 18-12-1997 does not reveal that petitioner was permanetaly absorbed. This is a general notification, therefore, petitioner cannot take any benefit out of this notification unless and until specific order is passed by the competent Authority.. Since the petitioner has alleged serious allegations regarding discriminatory treatment. In this view of the matter, let a copy of the writ petition be sent to respondents Nos,2 and 3 who are directed to look into the matter and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law.
12. ' In view of what has been discussed above, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations.