IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J.- The relevant facts for the decision of this Constitutional petition are that the petitioner was an employee of the Agricultural Department. He was sent on deputation to the respondent Authority and afterwards made Additional Director General (Horticulture) with effect from. 1.12.1993. The petitioner served to the entire satisfaction of all concerned, therefore, vide office order dated 16.9.1996 he was permanently absorbed in the L.D.A. As Addl. Director General Horticulture (BS-20) with immediate effect. The grievance was that the petitioner was being sent back to 'Agricultural Department. He filed this petition and also moved for temporary injunction The writ came up for hearing 30.12.1996 when it was admitted to hearing and injunctory order was issued. The respondents have appeared and contested the petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was absorbed in the L.D.A. On permanent basis, therefore, he could not be repatriated. It is added that in any case no such order could be passed ithout show-cause notice and hearing the petitioner. It is added that the order was passed mechanically and in utter disregard of the injunction order ssued by this Court on 30.12.1996, therefore, repatriation was void.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argued at after the dismissal of the People's Party Government the Care-takers irected that the appointments made by the previous Government without bserving the merit, should be scrutinized and dispensed with. It is added hat the order was passed in accordance with the policy of the Government.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments and one through the record. It was not an appointment. In fact the petitioner as permanent employee of the Agricultural Department and was on eputation with the L.D.A. He after absorption became permanent mployee of the L.D.A.
Therefore, the order of repatriation was without urisdiction, void and passed without applying min to the facts, therefore, iable to be sat aside. The petitioner has a vested right to continue in the .D.A.
After his permanent absorption vide order dated 16.9.1996 erefore, in any case he was entitled to hearing and show-cause notice efore any order adverse to his service career was passed. This is not all. e order dated 16.9.1996 having been acted upon the respondents have Post locus poenitentiae. In this behalf, reference can be made to the udgment in the case-of Muhammad Nawaz Vs. Federation of' Pakistan and .1 others (1992 PLC (C.S.) 1127). The relevant portion reads as under:- "6. The Service Tribunal noted that in the case the competent authority, namely, the Director General, Pakistan National Centre, passed the order, dated 15.11.1988, regularising the service of certain Programme Managers and the name competent authority confirmed the services of some officers on 3.1.1989 and that the two orders, having been passed competently, had taken effect and created valuable rights in favour of the persons mentioned-in- the orders and, accordingly, held that the cancellation of these two orders by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was, therefore, not valid and thus, allowed the appeals."
5. This Court vide order dated 30.12.1996 has restrained the respondents from passing any order detrimental to the present service of the petitioner. The respondents were appearing in this writ petition and represented, therefore, the impugned order dated 17.11.1997 could not be passed . It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner continued on th basis of the injunction order in the L.D.A. Till 23.11.1998 when he retire from the service. He is now claiming pension and other benefits.
Once th petitioner was absorbed in the L.D.A. On permanent basis on 16.9.1996 h became employee of the L.D.A. Thereafter he ceased to be an employee t the Punjab Government and, therefore.
Could not be repatriated. In th behalf, reference can be made to the judgment dated 20.1.1993 in Wr Petition No. 2880-S/1991, "Mian Muhammad Vs. The Chairman, L.D.A etc.", which was again L.D.A.
Case. The relevant portion of the judgme reads as under:- "17. Once the policy decision dated 12.2.1990 1981 SCMR 523), Shahbaz V. The Crown (PLD 1955 F. 46), Lt. Col. G.L. Battacharya V. The State (PLD 1964 S. 503), Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD 1969 S.C. 407) an The State V. Muhammad Ismail (1980 SCMR 268), in which law on the principle of animus revertendi or locus poenitentia has been authoritatively settled.......... "
6. The upshot of the above discussion is that this writ petition accepted with no order as to costs.
The order of repatriation of th petitioner dated 17.11.1997 passed by respondent No. 3 is declared illegal The result is that the petitioner continued as an employee of the L.D.A. Til his retirement, therefore, he is entitled to pension and other benefits. Th respondents are directed to settle the claim of the petitioner expeditiously.