Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SHAFI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Forestry
The petitioner, an Assistant Accounts Officer, challenged his transfer from Rawalpindi to Lahore before the Punjab Service Tribunal, alleging mala fide intent. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that transfer is an ordinary incidence of service and that a civil servant possesses no vested right to remain posted at a specific station. Upon petition for leave to appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the matter. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, noting that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of mala fide intent. Emphasizing that the petitioner had served in Rawalpindi for over thirty years, the Court held that the department's decision to transfer him was not unreasonable. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that transfers are administrative prerogatives and that civil servants cannot claim a vested right to a particular place of posting absent proof of malice or illegality.
- Does a civil servant have a vested right to remain posted at a particular station?
- Is a transfer considered an ordinary incidence of service for a civil servant?
- Can a transfer order be set aside solely on the allegation of mala fide without sufficient evidence?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, ACTG. C.J.---The petitioner is Assistant Accounts Officer in the Office of the Chief Conservator of Forests, Northern Zone, Rawalpindi. He has been transferred in the same capacity to the Office of the Director, Budget and Accounts Office, Lahore. He challenged the order of his transfer before the Punjab Service Tribunal on the ground that it was mala fide. The learned Tribunal found this allegation to be without substance, took notice of the provisions of section 9, Civil Servants Act, and held that no civil servant had a vested right to stay posted at one place or feel aggrieved on his transfer to another station. Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal. As rightly pointed out by the learned Tribunal, transfer is an ordinary incidence of service. The material placed on the record by the petitioner is entirely insufficient to establish that his transfer to Lahore was made with mala fide intent. He has already served for more than 30 years in Rawalpindi. The department has now moved him to Lahore cannot be said to have been acted unreasonably.
Leave is, accordingly, refused.
Judges on this bench
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments
- Muhammad Rafiq Tarar605 judgments
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments