' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the High Court judgment, dated 10-12- 1999 whereby Constitutional Petition filed by the petitioner impugning the vires of Office Order dated 16-1-1999 issued by respondent No,1 Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (hereinafter referred to as the EOBI) transferring him to General Cadre, was dismissed.
2. After hearing the petitioner learned High Court came to the conclusion that the dispute essentially related to enforcement of the terms and conditions of an employee Of a statutory corporation to which the provisions of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act apply. Consequently in view of the decision rendered in Constitutional Petition No,1286 of 1999 the same day High Court directed the petitioner to approach the Federal Service Tribunal with the observation that the Tribunal will consider the question of delay and benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act sympathetically.
3. On the last date of hearing, after hearing the petitioner we found it fit and proper to issue notices to the Advocate General as well as the Chairman, EOBI, to appear in person. Today Mr. M. Sarwar Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General Sindh has appeared on the Court notice as learned Advocate-General is out of country. Likewise Sheikh Barkatullah, Chairman EOBI has appeared alongwith Mr. Akhlaq Ahmed Siddiqui ,Advocate-on-Record.
4. Upon hearing the petitioner and the Chairman of the respondent EOBI we are of the view that the points agitated by the petitioner involve the question of seniority of the petitioner in Law Cadre in the respondent establishment who is of the view that the services of the petitioner were placed on deputation for being utilized in General Cadre. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the various orders and notifications we would endorse the view of the learned High Court that all related questions can only be gone into by the Federal Service Tribunal by virtue of Article 212 of the Constitution. In this regard we are fortified with the view expressed in Aish Muhammad v. Pakistan (1985 SCM R 774), Ageela Asghar Ali v. Khalida Khatoon Malik (PLD 1991 SC 1118), Muhammad Karim v. Director, Health Services (1987 SCM R 295) and Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan v.
Imtiaz Ahmed Gill (1999 SCM R 650).
5. Mr. Imam Ali Soomro, Deputy Director, Law Cadre, EOB1 has voluntarily appeared to make a statement that he has preferred a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal agitating the question of his seniority as against the petitioner which appeal is pending. Be that as it may, for the reasons assigned hereinabove the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused with the observations that the petitioner may seek his remedy before the Federal Service Tribunal, if so advised.