' NASIM SABIR SYED (MEMBER).---The relevant facts of the case are that the appellant is an employee of the Sui Northern Gas Pipeline Ltd., Lahore and has been declared to be a civil servant for the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 through amendment made on 7-6-1997.
2. He was employed as Assistant Records with the Respondent Company on 3-7-1995 on temporary basis vide order dated 3-7-1995. Some vacancies of the Assistants Store in Grade-V were available in the Store Department at Head Office of the Company, Lahore. He applied for one of the posts and was selected but the appointment letter was not communicated to him as claimed by him. When it came to the notice of the appellant that he was recruited as Assistant Stores, he enquired from the office and consequent upon this inquiry, the appointment letter which was issued on 23-9-1996 was handed over to the appellant on 6-1-1997. In accordance with the appointment letter the appellant was required to join on 27-10-1997 but as the appointment letter, as claimed by the appellant, was received on 6-11997, he reported for duty on 8-1-1997 but he was not accepted by the concerned authorities with the plea that the offer of appointment has since been withdrawn. However, the appellant submitted his arrival report by post on 8-1-1997 and also moved the Honourable High Court Lahore through Writ Petition No,1325 of 1997. The High Court ordered that parawise comments be filed by the respondents but later on the writ petition was disposed of with the order to file proper petition before proper forum.
3. The appellant represented before the respondent department through his application dated 10- 5-1997, after receiving copy of the High Court order with the request that his arrival report dated 8- 1-1997 may kindly be accepted considering it as time of joining duty under the circumstances which is still pending with the respondents. Neither decision of rejecting the representation was conveyed to the appellant nor the request of the appellant was acceded to. He again filed a Petition No,38 of 1997 under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, before the Pubjab Labourt Court-1 on 29-5-1997 which was returned to the appellant with the observation that under the new law the Punjab Labour Courts had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties and advised. For presenting the same before competent forum vide his order dated 3-7-1997. The appellant has come in appeal before this Tribunal because of the amendment made in the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973 (supra).
4. The department on the other hand took the plea that the letter of appointment dated 23-9-1996 ordered the appellant to join on or before 27-10-1996 and so the offer of appointment had been withdrawn. A reference was also made to PLD 1990 SC 951 that if an appeal is time-barred before the department, it is also time-barred before this Tribunal which could not condone the delay.
Case cited is not applicable in this case because the appellant has been moving the proper forum during all this time. The contention of the department that the competent authority who could appoint a person could also withdraw the offer and only a letter of offer does not create any vested right in favour of the appellant is accepted legal position. Our attention was also drawn to section 21 of General Clauses Act, according to which the respondent department could withdraw the offer made. Reliance was placed on PLD 1981 Lah.18 wherein it had been clearly held that no right was created by just issuance of an appointment letter which could be withdrawn before joining. With all the respect to the authorities quoted and the contents of the orders thereon, we are of the opinion that even if the appointing authority has the powers to withdraw the offer made the same has to be with valid justiciable grounds. It cannot be done arbitrarily or whimsically. Here the department has withdrawn the offer without giving any reason which it was not competent to do more particularly so when a vacancy existed with the respondent department.
5. After considering all the aspects of the case we have arrived at the consensus opinion that the department was not right in withdrawing the offer of appointment and as such is directed to post him from the date at which he reported i,e, 8-1-1997 with all the back benefits. The order for withdrawal stands hereby vacated.
6. The appeal stands disposed of as above.
7. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.