SAJJAD HUSSAIN Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

SYED ALLY MADAD SHAH (CHAIRMAN) .‑‑‑Appellant Syed Sajjad Hussain joined Postal Department as Upper Division Clerk (B‑7)/Postal Clerk, on 30‑8‑1979. He was subsequently confirmed against that post (date not disclosed). While serving there, he applied for the post of Assistant in the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division (KANA Division), through proper channel. He was selected and was accordingly appointed as an Assistant in the said Division vide appointment letter dated 4‑9‑1986. Later, he applied for the post of a Judicial Assistant in the Supreme Court of Pakistan and was appointed as such vide letter of offer of appointment dated 24‑4‑1988. He joined the assignment on 4‑5‑1988, after being relieved by the KANA Division. The Supreme Court dispensed with his services during the probationary period vide office order dated 21‑5‑1989. He preferred appeal to the Chief Justice of Pakistan in January, 1990. He was not taken back in the Supreme Court of Pakistan but a letter dated 13‑3‑1990 was addressed to KANA Division for accommodating him in the Ministry. The Ministry expressed their inability. Thereafter, a letter dated 8‑10‑1990 was addressed by the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan, to the Chief Postmaster, Islamabad GPO for reabsorbing the appellant in the Post Office Department. The matter was referred to the Establishment Division by the Director‑General, Pakistan Post Offices. The appellant also made an application dated 10‑7‑1991 to the Establishment Secretary for absorption in the Postal Department. He did not find any response. He then preferred this appeal on 1‑10‑1991 to seek following relief:‑ " xx xx xx it is humbly prayed that Secretary, Establishment Division may kindly be directed to issue instructions to the Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division/Director‑General, Post Offices, regarding absorption of the appellant with effect from the date his services were terminated i.e. 31‑5‑1989 with all consequential benefits. It is also prayed that any other relief may also be granted to the appellant which this august Tribunal deems fit."

2. The appellant has based his appeal on the grounds that his appointment as Postal Clerk was substantive and he had served there for 7 years and he had sought appointment in the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division by making application through proper channel and he also sought the appointment in the Supreme Court by making application through proper channel and since his services were dispensed with during the period of probation, he was to revert back to the Kashmir Affairs Division at the least, to the Postal Department but he was not to be left without a job, particularly in the circumstances that his absorption in either of the two departments was recommended by the Chief Justice of Pakistan.

3. The appeal is directed against the Secretary, Establishment Division, the Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division and the Director ?General, Post Offices. They have filed written objections. It is stated in the written objections filed by Deputy Postmaster General, Northern Punjab and Azad Jammu and Kashmir, Rawalpindi, on behalf of the Director‑General, Post Offices, Islamabad, that the appellant joined Pakistan Post Offices Department on 22‑8‑1979 and he was appointed as a Clerk (B‑7) on 30‑8‑1979.

It is further stated that the appellant simultaneously applied through proper channel, for the post of Administration Assistant in the Atomic Energy Commission and for the post of Assistant (B‑11) in the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division and he was selected as an Assistant in the Atomic Energy Commission and he was relieved to join there and he joined that assignment on 19‑7‑1986 and his name was struck off from the strength of Islamabad GPO. It is yet further stated that he resigned the job in the Atomic Energy Commission and joined Kashmir Affairs Division on 20‑8‑1986 and he left that assignment too and joined the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a Judicial Assistant on 4‑5‑1988 and ultimately his services were dispensed with by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. It is also stated that the appellant, seeing no way, made an application to the Chief Postmaster, Islamabad for re absorption and the matter was referred to the Establishment Division for advice and the Establishment Division tendered advice that since the appellant had resigned from the Atomic Energy Commission, he lost his lien with the Postal Department and the appellant was informed accordingly. It is contended that the appellant did not have any claim for his reabsorption in the Postal Department. The stand taken in the written objections on behalf of the Secretary Establishment and the Secretary, Kashmir Affairs Division is that the appellant was appointed as an Assistant (B‑11) in the Kashmir Affairs Division on temporary basis but he sought assignment in the Supreme Court of Pakistan as a Court Associate and was relieved with the condition that he would sever all connections with that Division and, therefore, he could not be taken back in the Division after his services were dispensed with by the Supreme Court, and he was advised to make fresh application which he did not make. They have also challenged the maintainability of the appeal.

4. The pleadings of, the parties bear out that the appellant held a substantive appointment as a Clerk (B‑7) in the Post Offices Department. He applied, through proper channel, for the posts of Assistant in the Atomic Energy Commission as well as the Kashmir Affairs Division and he was lucky to have got appointment orders from both the quarters. He first joined the Atomic Energy Commission but abandoned that job, after serving there for a short period by submitting resignation application, and joined the Kashmir Affairs Division. He left that job too and applied, through proper channel, for the post of Judicial Assistant in the Supreme Court of Pakistan and was appointed there and he was relieved to join the new assignment. The appellant had made application for appointment as an Assistant in the Atomic Energy Commission and the Kashmir Affairs Division through his parent department and he was selected by the Atomic Energy Commission and the Kashmir Affairs Division and was relieved to join the Atomic Energy Commission wherefrom he had received the letter of appointment earlier and after receiving the offer of appointment of the Kashmir Affairs Division, he resigned the job in the Atomic Energy Commission and joined the Kashmir Affairs Division. The office order dated 4‑9‑1986 of his appointment in that Division filed as Annexure D to the objections filed by the respondents 1 and 2 indicates that his employment in that Division was purely temporary. His appointment as Court Associate in the Supreme Court, as per office order dated 7‑5‑1988, too was on temporary basis for a period of one year in the first instance. His services were dispensed with by office order dated 21‑5‑1989 which reads as under:‑

"The probation period of Syed Sajjad Hussain officiating Judicial Assistant (B‑15) on temporary basis, has not been extended. He is, therefore, informed that his services shall not be required after 31st May, 1989.

2. He will be paid his pay and allowances up to and including 31st May, 1989."

It follows that the appointment of the appellant at all the three places viz. Atomic Energy Commission, Kashmir Affairs Division and the Supreme Court of Pakistan was on temporary basis. He applied to the Atomic Energy Commission as well as the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division through the parent department and his applications are deemed to have been forwarded under the Government Servants (Application for Service and Posts) Rules, 1966 and he was relieved to join the Atomic Energy Commission as per order dated 19‑7‑1986. It was mentioned in that order that his name was struck off' from the strength of the Unit. Since he was confirmed in the parent department, his lien had to be retained for reasonable time. But he lost the benefit of retention of his lien on his resigning the post he was appointed to in the Atomic Energy Commission and joining Service with the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division. His movement did not stop there. He sought employment in the Supreme Court of Pakistan without the permission of the parent department where he had held lien. After his services were dispensed with by the Supreme Court, he could not revert back to the Post Office Department as a matter of right as he had left that department of his own volition and his lien stood terminated when he tendered resignation in the Atomic Energy Commission and chose to explore other options of seeking employment with the Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division and the Supreme Court, as mentioned above. He invited misfortune by not accepting offer by the Kashmir Affairs Division for seeking re‑employment there by making fresh application in pursuance of a letter addressed by the Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan to appoint him on compassionate grounds. Obviously, he has no case for the reliefs sought by him in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

A.A./773/Sr. F ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.