Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1909 1991 SLD 1909 1991 PLC 237
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 7210 of 1990, heard on 30th October, 1990.
IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY, J
D.M. Awan for
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

MUHAMMAD ARSHAD

VS

SECRETARY, COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT and 2 others MUHAMMAD ARSHAD vs SECRETARY, COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT and 2 others

Law:

Section:

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Civil service---Constitutional petition against successive transfers--­Petitioner Government servant aggrieved by orders of Head of Department/Secretary Communications and Works transferring petitioner every now and then, stated that it was unbecoming of a Head of Department--­Petitioner otherwise failed to make out a case of violation of Law and Rules warranting interference in Constitutional jurisdiction---Mere fact that Head of Department was not consistent, lacked decisive power and lowered dignity of office by passing contradictory orders, held, was not sufficient to warrant interference in Constitutional jurisdiction---Petition dismissed being without merit. Begum Ismat Azhar v. Punjab Government through Secretary, Education and another P L D 1987 Lah. 256; Maqbool Ahmad v. Executive Engineer, Sheikhupura Division, Sheikhupura and another 1987 P L C (C.S.) 761 and Islamic Republic of Pakistan v. Dr.Safdar Mahmood P L D 1983 S C 100 ref. Sardar Roshan Ali Sindhu for Petitioner. Addl. A:G. for Respondent No. 1. JUDGMENT The petitioner through this Constitutional petition has sought a declaration that impugned order dated 4-10-1990 is illegal and mala fide. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices were issued to the respondents. The respondents have appeared and contested the petition. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the petition has argued that respondent No. 1 has proceeded in an illegal and manner unbecoming of a Head of Department. It is submitted that in about a month's time there were at least half a dozen orders passed in respect of the transfer of the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3. It is alleged that the whole trouble is that respondent No. 2 is a son-in-law of a dear friend of respondent No. 1 and he wanted to give him a station of his choice. 3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate-General as well as learned counsel for respondents Nos.2 and 3 have argued that transfer is a part of terms and conditions of a civil servant, therefore, the jurisdiction of all Courts including this Court is barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492