MUZAFFAR ALI OURESHI Versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE PRIME MINISTER

ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).‑ ‑‑TV16 Appeals Nos. 522, 523, 524, 525, 5216, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 533, 434, 535, 536 and 537/R of 1994 have been filed by M/s. Muzaffar Ali Qureshi, Fazal Ahmed, Muhammad Munir, Muhammad Siddique Naveed, Sultan Ali, Muhammad Saghir, Abdul Ghafoor, Muhammad Shafiq, Ghulam Mustafa, Tariq Javed, Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Sabir, Nazir Ahmad, Shaukat Mahmood, Malik Muhammad Afzal and Muhammad Yousaf, who were working in the Prime Minister's Secretariat and due to reorganisation they all were declared surplus by separate identical orders, dated 10th July, 1994 whereby their services were placed at the disposal of the Establishment Division for absorption. The Establishment Division vide Office Memorandum dated 2‑8‑1994 placed their services at the disposal of various Ministries/Departments where they joined in pursuance to the aforesaid orders of the Establishment Division. All the appellants separately filed departmental appeals on 2‑8‑1994 addressed to the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister and having received no reply, they have come to this Tribunal within time, with the prayer that the impugned orders may be set aside and the respondents be directed to withdraw the transfer orders as of the appellants from the Prime Minister's Secretariat with all intents and proposes including payment of allowances of intervening period and grant such other relief as the Tribunal may deem fit and proper.

2. These appeals came up before the Bench for the purpose of admission and we heard Mr. Khalid Abbas Khan, the Advocate appearing for the appellants at length on 8th and 9th January, 1995 and also some appellants argued their appeals.

3. It is argued that this reorganisation and the orders declaring these employees as surplus are in violation of section 11(2) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and, therefore, may be set aside. It had also been contended that some persons in the P.M. Secretariat who are on deputation or on loan have been allowed to continue contrary to the policy and that in the first instance those persons should have been sent back and then junior persons in the Secretariat in order of seniority should have been declared surplus. It is submitted that by placing them at the disposal of other Ministries/Departments, the appellants will lose seniority and will also be deprived of other allowances they were drawing in the Prime Minister's Secretariat.

4. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. The orders whereby the appellants were declared surplus clearly indicate that there was some reorganisation in the P.M. Secretariat acid it is stated in the Memo of Appeals that under the orders of the Prime Minister, 30 to 40% of the posts had been abolished but authority exceeded the limit of reduction, with the result that the appellants were declared surplus, with the condition that they will continue to draw their salary etc. from the P.M. Secretariat till they are absorbed/adjusted elsewhere: The only question before us is whether the order declaring the appellants as surplus due to reorganisation is in contravention of the terms and conditions, of their service. In this context, we refer to section 11(2) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 whereunder, on abolition of a post or reduction in the number of posts, the services of a civil servant being the most junior could be terminated, by a competent authority. The relevant provision relied by appellants is reproduced below:

"11(2) Where, on the abolition of a post or reduction in the number of posts in a cadre or (service) the services of a civil servant are required to be terminated, the person whose services are terminated shall ordinarily be the one who is the most junior in such cadre or service. "

Undoubtedly, the services of the appellants have not been terminated but were placed at the disposal of Establishment Division for further absorption/adjustment and immediately they were absorbed by order dated 2‑8‑1994 in other Ministries/Departments, where they have joined. Here, neither there is any termination. nor any of the terms and conditions. of their services have been violated, because the appellants have actually been transferred to other Departments in the same posts in which they were working in the P.M. Secretariat. Under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 every civil servant is liable to serve any where within or outside Pakistan in any `equivalent' post. Therefore, in our view, even on the abolition of the post in the P.M. Secretariat, the Government has taken care of their service career and have absorbed them against equivalent posts in other Ministries/Departments, and the provisions of section 11(2) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants do not attract in these appeals, particularly when the appellants have not placed on record any document or seniority list to show that junior persons have been retained and they have been ousted. A Moreover, such persons have not, been made party in these appeals. With regard to other contentions about the seniority and the allowances which were admissible under the rules, it is open to the appellants to move the concerned departmental authorities where they have joined and in case they have been deprived of any allowance admissible to post and incumbents can come to the Tribunal, which is the only Constitutional forum for redressal of grievances of the civil servants in case they feel there is any violation of any of the terms and conditions of their service. But so far as the reorganization is concerned, it is the prerogative of the Government to adopt suitable economy measures in the national interest, as has been done in this case, and it cannot be said that such orders are contrary to the provisions of law. We also refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.317 of 1993, decided on 31‑12‑1993, filed by Mr. A. Khaliq Awan, v. Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Cooperative, against the judgment of this Tribunal in Appeal No.176(R)/92, dated 2‑12‑1992, but leave to appeal was refused. The Tribunal decided as under:‑‑

"8. This aspect of the matter apart, the respondents pleadings as also the record shows that on a summary having been submitted, it was ordered by the Prime Minister that `the project will not be implemented'. It was further ordered that no expenditure will be incurred in respect of the project and the remaining work should be carried out by its permanent staff. It is clear that the post against which he was working was abolished by the competent authority and the impugned order of 28‑12‑1991 was a result of this abolition. Under the circumstances, his services were rightly terminated under section 11(2) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973."

The facts in that appeal were that Mr. A. Khaliq Awan, the petitioner, had rendered long service in the Milk Plant but he was declared surplus and brought on surplus pool as the Milk Plant had been transferred to private sector. He was re‑employed in a temporary vacancy against a `scheme' of the Zoological Survey Department, but even this post was also abolished with the result that the appellant had rendered surplus and could not be adjusted against any vacancy. He brought his grievance before this Tribunal by filing service Appeal No.176 (R)/92 but could not succeed and ultimately took his grievance to the Supreme Court by preferring CPLA No.317 of 1993. The Supreme Court by order, dated 13th December, 1993 refused to grant leave to appeal and the concluding paragraph of the judgment is reproduced below:‑‑

"3. So far as the transfer of the Milk Plant is concerned, his grievance before the Tribunal was belated. As regards the subsequent termination of his employment, it has been found that he was in fact a temporary employee and the post on which he was employed had been abolished. In that event the termination of his service had to take place."

In the present case, consequent to the reorganisation of the Department the rights of appellants have been safeguarded and the services of the incumbents of the posts have neither been terminated but rather they have been absorbed and adjusted in other Ministries/Departments against equivalent posts and there is no element of victimisation, discrimination In the case of Muhammad Yousuf Chauhari and another v. Sarfraz Khan Jadoon and another, reported in PLD 1991 SC 514, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that i on abolition of post the services of an incumbent of the post are terminated, he cannot make a legal grievance and such incumbent of the post has no right to claim absorption.

5. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that no case is made out for admission of these appeals, and as such all the appeals are dismissed in limine.

H.B.T./1030/Sr.F Appeals dismissed