' SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against that judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) passed in Appeal No,1076(R)CE of 2000 dated 2-11-2001, whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that on 4-7-1994, the petitioner was transferred from Missa Kiswa l to Peer Koh. He felt that transfer order so issued was mala fide and he was punished being the Union Official of the respondent/Corporation, therefore, he approached the NIRC for restraining the order under Regulation 32 of NIRC Procedure and Functions and Regulations, 1974 and a stay order against his transfer to Peer Koh was granted and he was allowed to continue and perform his duties at Missa Kiswa l and also paid his salary that after about 3 years the respondent started deductions from the salary of the petitioner i.e, the amount which had been paid to him as salary, during the period he worked at Missa Kiswal on the strength of the stay order of NIRC.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by way of appeal, which was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
4. We have heard Ch. Sadiq Mohammad Warriach, learned counsel for the petitioner, who, inter alia, contended that that petitioner's absence from duty from 2-7-1994 to 8-8-1994 and 5-10-1994 to 10-9-1996 was wrongly treated as Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) and the Office Memorandum dated 13-2-1999 issued by the respondent/Head Office may be cancelled; that the Tribunal had not exercised its jurisdiction fairly and the recovery/deduction of the amount already drawn by the petitioner from the respondent is unwarranted.
5. Sardar Muhammad Aslam, learned Dy.A.G. Vehemently controverted the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and pointed out that no doubt NIRC issued an injunction to the petitioner but the same was re-called by the Tribunal on 18-8-1996. He has also referred to the appeal of the petitioner which is at page 57 of the paper book, in which he has stated as under: ' "I had reported for duty at Pirkoh Gas Field. Therefore, regularizing the period of stay, ordered by the Court as E.O.L is injustice with me."
' On his application office submitted summary to the Chief Personnel Officer of the respondent/Corporation, which reads as under: "(70) Reference para-180/N, it is submitted that as per message No,MK.1331 dated 26-11-1999 (P- 244/Cor.) O.M.(F), Missa Kiswa l, Mr. Niaz Hussain Shah was relieved from Missa Kiswal Oil Field, for Pirkoh Gas Field. He neither reported at Pirkoh nor at Missa Kiswal Oil Field, after getting stay order from NIRC. O.M.(F), Missa Kiswa l Oil Field, did not confirm whether he performed any official duty during his stay (off & on) at Missa Kiswal. Mr. Niaz Hussain neither claimed any field benefit like messing/D.A. And Rota facilities nor paid by the Location Incharge due to his non-performance of any duty.
"(71) In view of above, if approved by Manager (Personnel), his request may be regretted in the light of earlier decision as per para.141-A, please."
The perusal of the above document shows that the petitioner did not perform his usual duties and was not entitled to salary as claimed by him.
6. Sardar Muhammad Aslam, learned Dy.A.G. Further pointed out that recovery has already been effected from the petitioner and that Office Memorandum referred to hereinabove was entirely in accordance with the O.G.D.C. Service Regulations, 1974. It was also pointed out by him that, the petitioner in due course of service has already been promoted to his Managerial post.
7. We have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the record, which shows that the period for which recovery of refund of the salary was effected from the petitioner was the period for which he did not work. By now, it is settled law that when there is no work there is no pay. The petitioner did not perform his duties as mentioned hereinabove and recovery was rightly effected from him; thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Manager. The impugned judgment Tribunal. We further find that there is no jurisdictional error or is entirely based on proper appreciation of the material available with the misconstruction of facts and law. The impugned judgment is not open to exception.
8. Moreover, a substantial question of law of public importance, as envisaged under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, is not made out.
9. For the facts, circumstances and reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that this petition is without merit and substance, which is hereby dismissed and leave to appeal declined.