' MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN (MEMBER).---The appellant was serving as .a Deputy Director in the Pakistan Meteorological Department at Karachi when he was transferred to Islamabad vide an order, dated 3-6-1996 on medical grounds. However, this order of transfer was cancelled vide a subsequent order, dated 17-7-1996. The appellant filed a Service appeal after seeking the departmental remedy unsuccessfully but the said Service Appeal No,545-R of 1996 was decided vide judgment, dated 24-12-1996 holding therein that after the said order, of 17-7-1996 the appellant had been promoted as Director (BPS-19) vide order, dated 28-10-1996 and thereafter he had been posted at Karachi and that the appellant had complied with the said order of posting on 21-11-1996 hence the earlier order, dated 17-7-1996 was not holding the field and the order of promotion and posting was a fresh cause of action. However, in the said judgment it was also held that "under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, every civil servant is liable to serve anywhere in Pakistan and it was for the Department to take notice of the appellant's hardship and ill-health on compassionate grounds". The appellant consequently filed a departmental appeal on 8-3-1997 which was replied on 12-5-1997 and hence the present appeal has been filed on 23-5-1997.
2. We have listened to the arguments of the appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondent- Department and perused the record. The contention of the Respondent-Department that the matter has already been adjudicated upon by the earlier judgment of this Tribunal in the said appeal is not correct. As stated hereinbefore the said judgment related to the order, dated 17-7- 1996 and not to the order of posting on promotion passed in October, 1996. This was a fresh cause and the appellant had a right to seek his remedy.
3. However, in view of the observation made in the earlier appeal, as reproduced hereinabove, there is a slight difficulty that the Tribunal has expressed its opinion about the latest development and had at the most, rolled the ball back to the Court of the Department concerned. Since no appeal was filed against this order, therefore, it had attained finality. Even otherwise as per the arguments of the appellants a civil servant has the right to have posting of his choice in the last year before his retirement, which is not the true reflection of the position of the rules. The rules do provide that during the last year of retirement one should not be preferably dislocated. The analaysis of the situation means that a person should not be transferred from the post where he was serving for the reason of administrative convenience as well as for the convenience of finalizing the pension cases based on the availability of record in the last years of service. S6 far as the administrative convenience is concerned, the Department has replied accordingly to the representation of the appellant that the efforts ill be fruitless. It was argued by the learned Standing Counsel that if the appellant was transferred to Islamabad in November, 1997, and he retires in January, 1998, then the person who was transferred to Karachi will have to be shifted to Islamabad after three months. So, the administrative convenience is in favour of the maintenance of status quo. Similarly the appellant has served for a considerably long period at Karachi and his shifting to Islamabad during the last three months will create innumerable problems for the settlement. Of pension claim and the availability of the record at Islamabad. Since the appellant has himself accepted the transfer consequent to promotion in October, 1996, therefore, the present appeal is not directed against the transfer order but it was for the issuance of a new order whereby he wants to be transferred back to Islamabad. Thus, the appeal is practically a demand for transfer and not against any order impugned by this appeal.
4. During the course of the hearing of the appeal it came to light that the main grievance of the appellant is not specifically about the fact of place of posting but it was based on a situation of constant discrimination, favourtism and unreasonableness in the Department that the appellant feels suffocated. Admittedly he. Was suffering from heart ailment and the transfer in June, 1996, was also made on the medical grounds but thereafter, the appellant undoubtedly suffered the agony which was unbearable even for a healthy person. He was shuttled back just within one month of his transfer and then he was compelled to report for duty under the threats of disciplinary action and break in service. His T.A. Bill was refused and he had to file departmental appeal. In his period of one year he had to approach the Tribunal thrice with an additional burden of filing appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. On the other hand, somebody was stationed at Islamabad for years together without even a single incident of regular transfer except on favourable training inside the country and abroad. Space is being created to accommodate the favourites to the disadvantage of those who have put in the best part of their lives in the service of the Department. This should not be the attitude of the administration in a Department. The authorities concerned should adopt an attitude of feeling the pinch of agony of the aggrieved persons by placing themselves in the shoes of such civil servants. The way one behaves with others, he is likely to suffer similarly in retribution: If the Department considers the transfer of the appellant being fruitless and inconvenient administratively for three months, the Matter can also be viewed in another perspective that somebody else has to be posted at Karachi after three months on the retirement/superannuation of the appellant. Such a person can be posted to Karachi to provide a sigh of relief to the appellant at the fag-end of a remarkable service record and after considerable long experience. These can be the recommendations to be considered by the Department. However, since there is no law whereby a person can be allowed to demand the transfer to a particular post in violation of the statutory provision contained in section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, therefore, we do not find any legal force in this appeal which is disposed of accordingly.