ABDUL KHALIQ vs SECRETARY, SENATE SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Abdul Khaliq against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed in limine his writ petition challenging his non-repatriation and reversion. The petitioner, working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Law and Justice Division and previously serving in the Senate Secretariat and Ministry of Interior, sought repatriation to his parent department, claiming a confirmed status and a subsisting lien. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of fundamental rules regarding the retention and termination of a government servant's lien in their parent department and the legality of refusing repatriation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the questions raised regarding the interpretation of fundamental rules on the point of lien require further consideration. The key principle laid down is that matters concerning a government employee's lien and entitlement to repatriation under the fundamental rules necessitate a detailed examination on merits.
- Whether a civil servant has an enforceable right to be repatriated to their parent department?
- How is a government servant's lien determined under the fundamental rules?
- Does the refusal to repatriate an employee holding a permanent post amount to discrimination?
ORDER
1. SH. RIAZ AHMAD, J.---Petitioner Abdul Khaliq seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14-3-1995 of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, whereby, a writ petition filed by him calling in question his reversion was dismissed in limine. The facts in brief giving rise to the institution of this petition are that the'-petitioner is working as Upper Division Clerk in the Law and Justice Division, Islamabad, since 1st of October, 1994. Before joining the Law Division, the petitioner had served in the Senate Secretariat and Ministry of Interior. It is alleged that the petitioner was confirmed in the Senate Secretariat vide office order dated 26-7-1983. According to the petitioner, he I approached for being repatriated to his parent department but his request was ' turned down.
2. It is submitted that the refusal is based upon incorrect data and facts and thus, the respondent erred in refusing for reverting the petitioner to his parent department. It is further contended that the petitioner had lien in his parent department against a permanent post and, therefore, refusal to repatriate him was discriminatory in nature and based upon incorrect facts. It is added by the petitioner that he had been working for 6-1/2 years against a permanent' post as Lower Division Clerk and, therefore, in the absence of any order to the contrary, it will be deemed that he was confirmed. The question raised inter alia and the interpretation of fundamental rules on the point of lien require further consideration. Accordingly, we grant leave to appeal. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.