PERVAIZ NAZIR BHUTTA Versus SECRETARY, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 12-10-1998 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby an application for interim relief seeking a stay of the transfer order of the petitioner from District Engineer, Zila Council Rajanpur to Municipal Committee Kot Adu was dismissed. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the Service Tribunal's refusal to grant an interim injunction against a transfer order where the petitioner had already been relieved of his duties. The Supreme Court held that the grant of an interim order is a discretionary power vested in the Service Tribunal, which is entitled to examine the circumstances and existence of reasonable grounds, and found no legal infirmity or error in the impugned order since the petitioner had already handed over charge. The Supreme Court affirmed that interim relief is rightly refused when the transfer has already been given effect, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in refusing interim relief against a transfer order where the employee has already been relieved of his duties?
- Is the passing of an interim order considered a discretionary power vested in the Service Tribunal?
- Does a transfer order passed allegedly under political influence render an interim stay mandatory?
MUNAWAR AHMED MIRZA, J.‑ ‑‑This petition for leave to appeal is directed against order dated 12‑10‑1998 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 1785 of 1998.
2. Relevant facts briefly mentioned are that petitioner was appointed as District Engineer, Zila Council Aajanpur on 16‑12‑1997. He was transferred From RaJanpur to Municipal Committee Kot Adu on 1‑8‑1998. It is the case of petitioner that aforesaid transfer order has been passed on political reasons at the instance of Finance Minister of Punjab. Petitioner on 22‑8‑1998 challenged above transfer order through Writ Petition No.7174 of 1998 before Lahore High Court (Multan Bench). Writ Petition was eventually dismissed on 24‑9‑1998 being not maintainable. Petitioner thereafter submitted departmental appeal on 25‑9‑1998 which was later rejected by the competent Authority on 8‑10‑1998. It may be mentioned here that meanwhile petitioner was relieved from Rajanpur towards 25‑9‑1998. Aggrieved from Departmental appeal petitioner preferred Appeal No. 1785 of 1998 before Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore. An application for interim relief was also submitted which was, however, dismissed on 12‑10‑1998 in the following terms:‑‑
"Notice to the department. The request for a stay order has not been granted as there seems no relevancy for the grant of stay order as the learned counsel for respondent No‑5 has produced a copy of the order of the Administrator, Zila Council, Rajanpur according to which the transfer of Mr. Parvaiz Malik Bhutta had already been finalised as he was relieved of his duties on 25‑9‑1998. To come up on 10‑11‑1998."
3. Above order has been assailed through present petition for leave to appeal. Mr. Shaukat Ali Mehr, Advocate Supreme Court, urged that transfer order had been passed on the direction of Finance Minister and under political influence, therefore, same was ab initio void. He stressed that petitioner was being coerced to resume duty in persuance of illegal order which according to him, requires interference.
4. It may be seen that passing of interim order is a discretion vested in the Service Tribunal. In the instant case obviously the Service Tribunal was entitled to examine desirability of circumstances and existence of reasonable ground for grant of temporary injunctions. The Tribunal considering the fact that petitioner has already been relieved from duty, did not find it conclusive to grant interim relief to petitioner. We do not find any legal infirmity or error in above order of Service Tribunal. The decision is in conformity with observation contained in case: Imran Raza Zaidi v. Government of Punjab (1996 SCMR 465).
H.B.T./P‑47/S Leave to appeal refused.