SARFRAZ ALI SHAH Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FOOD DEPARTMENT

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). ‑Sarfraz Ali Shah, Assistant Food Controller has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Food Department, Lahore, Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, Deputy Director Food, Multan Region, Multan and Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region, Lahore, as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the order, dated 13th December, 1982 issued by the Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region, Lahore and the order dated 13th June, 1983 issued by the Director Food, Punjab, Lahore, be set aside and the respondents be directed to show the appellant in the correct seniority list of Multan Region on the basis of his lien in the said region.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was allocated to Kultan Region w.e.f. 31st May, 1973, vide letter dated 13th August, 1973 issued by the Secretary, Food and Co‑operative Department. However, the appellant was transferred, on 8th August, 1974 from Muzaffargarh to Mianwali, i. e. from Multan Region to Lahore Region but the said transfer was made on temporary basis and he was posted at Mianwali against a vacant post. The appellant continued to serve in Lahore Region as mentioned above and during this period, seniority list on Provincial basis was published as stood, on 15th October, 1981. In the said seniority list the appellant was shown at Serial No. 9. However his date of induction as Assistant Food Controller was shown as 31st May, 1973 in the combined seniority list on Provincial basis, which was absolutely correct and the appellant did not agitate against the same. Later on a subsequent seniority list, dated 13th December, 1982 was issued by the Deputy Director Food, Lahore Region. In that the appellant was shown belong ing to Lahore Region and his induction was also shown from 9th August, 1974 instead of 31st May, 1973. The appellant immediately agitated against this inequity and wrong assignment of Region to his superiors. However respondent No. 2, vide his order, dated 13th January, 1983 corrected the date of induction of the appellant but insisted on his being shown belonging to the Lahore Region on the strength of domicile. His appeal against the said order was also rejected by the respondent No. 2. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record so produced before us with their assistance.

5. The main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in this case is that as the post of appellant being on Regional basis and his initial absorption in the Department under the order of the Secretary, Food and Co‑operation was on Regional basis, therefore, his simple transfer from Muzaffargarh to Lahore on administrative consideration would not terminate his lien in Multan Region particularly when the transfer order itself disclosed that same was made on temporary basis. It was further argued that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have committed and incorporated in their order that the appellant will continue to remain in Multan Region. It has been vehemently argued that mere fact of domicile would not be relevant for absorption of a particular official in a particular region, in view of the glaring fact that when the Secretary, Food and Co‑operation himself allocated the appellant to Multan Region the fact bf domicile of the appellant was fully in his knowledge/notice.

6. On the other hand the stand of the learned District Attorney of the Department is that a civil servant is liable to be transferred any where in the Province and cannot claim seniority of his Region. It has been argued that with the incident of transfer the Region also changes and a civil servant will be deemed to be a member of service of that particular Region where he was working at the time when the seniority list was formulated. Learned District Attorney has laid lot of stress on the fact that the appellant was a domicile of Lahore Region, therefore, it was in his notice that he could be allocated in the said Region particularly when off and on, he and his wife had been agitating that he should be allocated in the said region, which would be convenient to him.

7. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments so raised before us and find that the Services, General Administration and Information Department's order bearing No. S. O. 2 (107)170, dated 27th July, 1973 issued by the Secretary, Food and Co‑operation on 13th August, 1973 clearly, states that Sarfraz Ali Shah the appellant, was placed at the disposal of Deputy Director Food, Multan Region. We have also taken notice of the West Pakistan Food Department Subordinate Executive Establishment Recruitment Rules, 1962, and find that the post of the appellant under these rules, is a regional post and Region means the whole of the area under' the charge of the Deputy Director. We have satisfied ourselves by going through the appendix at page. 15 of the file, that the appellant was an allocatee of Multan Region, for all intents and purposes. A perusal of the letter dated 8th August, 1974 by which the appellant was transferred from Muzaffargarh to Mianwali, viz. Multan Region to Lahore . Region, clearly reveals that this was a temporary measure and to keep the cadre strength intact, one A. F. C. was transferred to Multan Region vide said letter. Similarly the order dated 17th August, 1974 makes it ample clear that the posting of the appellant was simply on temporary basis. The Gradation List of A. F. Cs. on provincial basis as stood, on 15th October, 1981 clearly indicates that the appellant retains seniority being at Serial No. 9. However, there appears to be a mistake regarding his induction to service by showing him inductee of 1974, whereas he was inductee of 1973. Thus, these abovementioned documents lead no doubt that the appellant was allocated to Multan Region despite the fact that he was a domicile of Lahore Region, a fact which was available on the record at the time of his allocation to the said Region. Therefore, it would be wrong to say that the appellant being a domicile of Lahore Region, had to be allocated to Lahore, as that what have been so, the Secretary Food and Co‑operation, who was fully aware of the fact that the appellant was a domicile of Lahore, would have not allocated the appellant to Multan at all. The order of the Secretary, Food and Co‑operation clearly shows that the matter of domicile is absolutely irrelevant for the allocation of Region of a civil servant of his Department. Keeping in view all the aspects of the case that the Regional allocation was made by no less a person than the Secretary, Food and Co‑operation himself, it would not be concernable, nor convincing to accept that the Deputy Director Food, Lahore was a competent authority to change the Region without giving any notice to a civil servant whose seniority was going to be affected by the said change. In the present case what we find is that unilateral action has been taken by the Deputy Director Food, Lahore on the wrong assumption that the appellant being a domicile of Lahore Region, he would like to be accom modated in this Region and, therefore, without consulting him, his Region was changed arbitrarily. We have taken notice of the arguments of the learned District Attorney that there were a few documents on the record in the form of few requests once made by him and other by his wife regarding his posting in the Region of domicile, but we do not find any mention in these documents that the appellant wanted change of his Region despite his original alloctaion.

8. The scrutiny of the record further reveals that a combined seniority list on provincial basis was published in 1981, wherein the appellant has been shown at Serial No. 9 in the said list. It seems that the appellant was not given even handed treatment at that stage because he being senior most person: should have been treated likewise at the time of promotion alongwith his juniors. To change the Region of the appellant in this abrupt manner at the time when he being fairly a senior man in Multan Region, a fact reflected in the seniority list of provincial basis, we have no hesitation to conclude that it has resulted into a grave injustice to the appellant and in inflicting the said injustice, a hollow argument has been advanced that the same had been done because the appellant originally belonged to Lahore Region.

9. In view of the established fact on the record and the Rules of 1962, by which the case of the appellant is governed, we have no alternative but to hold that the appellant still belongs to Multan Region and the Deputy Director Food, Lahore, was incompetent to change his allocation particularly without giving him any notice. We, therefore, proceed to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned orders and direct that the seniority of the appellant be fixed at a correct place in the seniority list of Multan Region to which he belongs and where he holds a permanent lien. However, there will be no order as to costs.

A. E. Appeal accepted.