MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE

S. ABDUL JAB13AR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑Messrs Muhammad Abdullah and 10 others have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded the Punjab Province through Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore, the Chief Engineer, Punjab (North) Highway Department, Lahore, the Superintending Engineer, Highway Circle, Lahore and Muhammad Rashid, Head Assistant, Highway Circle, Gujranwala, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellants have prayed that the order of respondent‑No. 2, dated 18th 'June, 1983 be set aside which has adversely affected the seniority of the appellants.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the Director, Administration (North), Punjab Highway Department, Lahore, passed an order, dated 18th June, 1983, by which he transferred Muhammad Rashid Head Assistant from Highway Circle Gujranwala to Highway, Circle, Lahore, on compassionate grounds vice Mr. Saif Ali, Head Clerk proceeding on L. P. R., on 5th July, 1983. The appellants without filing representation to the next higher authorities, have straightway challenged this order of transfer of Muhammad Rashid before this Tribunal on the ground that this transfer is going to affect their seniority as Muhammad Rashid, Head Assistant Highway Circle, Gujranwala could not be transferred in the manner he has been so transferred.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney on behalf of Respondent Departments and Mr. Masud Ahmad Riaz, Advocate, counsel for Respondent No. 4.

Without going into the merits of the case, we find that the appellants have failed to tile representations against the said order to the next higher authorities i.e. Secretary to Government` of the Punjab, Com munication and Works Department, Lahore. The law on this point is very clear as laid down under section 4(1) (a) of tire Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, which makes its obligatory that a Government servant, first of all, should exhaust all the remedies so available to him and then move for redress of his grievance. This objection has been strongly taken by the Respondent No. 4 in his written statement as well as learned District Attorney who has pleaded the case of the Govern ment. Learned District Attorney has also challenged the plea of the appellants as to their grievance with regard to the transfer of a particular individual. According to the learned District Attorney the matter of transfer, is out of jurisdiction of this Tribunal as being administra tive measure, which is always taken by the Government from time to time, in the public interest.

6. Without going into the merits of the case, we sustain the objection so raised by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, and proceed to dismiss the appeal as non‑maintainable on the ground that the appellants have failed to exhaust the remedy so available to them before coming to this Tribunal. The law on this point has been settled by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported as P L D 1981 S C 612.

7. In view of the above, we dismiss the appeal as not maintainable. There will be no order as to cost.

A. E. Appeal dismissed.