' By way of preferring of the present petition transfer letter- dated 24-6-2000 as such been impugned. Under the circumstances the same is considered as of paramount importance and reproduced hereunder for perusal:--- "'PAKISTAN RAILWAY"
' In terms of D.S. (W's Notice No,42-E/16(E.Ii), dated 20-6-2000 Mr. Saif-ur-Rehman son of M. Nawaz S.K. Moulder E. No 3779343 CC No,7302 General Repair Shop of Electrical Shops Mughalpura is transferred in the same capacity and posted in the shops Hyderabad against an existing vacancy till further orders.
' This issues with the approval of the competent Authority.
(Sd.)
' Divisional Electric Engineer/Workshop P.D. Mughalpura. No,940-EP/39-XIX (E.Ii)
' Dated 24-6-2000."
2. Notice of the petition as well as stay application issued to the respondents on whose behalf adjournment was sought on 3-7-2000 as regards filing of the necessary reply. However, during the course of arguments on that date in response to query as to whether the petitioner stood relieved for proceeding to new assignment different and divergent view were expressed whereas 'status quo' ordered to be maintained meanwhile. Replies was duly filed on 18-7-2000 and on 3-8-2000 the learned counsel for the parties argued the case in support of their respective contentions.
3. It may be too early rather proper stage has not arrived or developed so as to touch merits of the case. It may not be out of place to be mentioned here that observations contained in this order may be construed, taken and interpreted as without prejudice.
4. The admitted features are that petitioner is a Class-IV employee (Workman), a trade unionist, having a separate seniority at Lahore vide dated 7-3-1994 equivalent vacancies lying at Mughalpura as evident from letter of Electrical Forman dated 21-7-2000, and has since been ordered to be transferred from one Division/Establishment to another despite instructions contained in 940-E/(OE.i) dated 7-6-2000.
5. The transfer cases of such employees are also governed under the Rules and Instructions contained in Personnel Manual, while present action impugned and termed as in violation thereof, section V, rule 501 inter alia requires transfer from one Division to another and from one Branch to another be made at the request of an employee, and consent of the Division to which one is transferred and also approved by the Headquarters etc. Must be obtained (not so far forthcoming), and transfers from one unit of seniority to another should not be made.
' In view of the circumstances; and in the interest of justice held that the petitioner has a prima facie case in his favour and in view thereof the earlier order of 'status quo' modified and extended with observation that the impugned letter of transfer dated 24-6-2000 directed to be kept in abeyance/dormant till further orders so as to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice meanwhile.
' The case to proceed on its own merits. For further proceedings on 21-9-2000.