PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through General Manager and another vs AJMAL KHAN

' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.---Petitioners Pakistan Railways seek leave to appeal against judgment dated 19-4- 2001 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred as the Tribunal) in the Service appeal filed by respondent formerly employed as Assistant Train Examiner at Quetta seeking restoration of L.P.R.

2. Respondent, on completion of 25 years of service applied for leave preparatory to retirement with effect from 10-7-2000, which was duly processed in the concerned quarters and sanctioned vide respondents' office order dated 29-5-2000. Petitioner-administration subsequently noted that L.P.R. Was wrongly sanctioned in that the respondent was under orders of transfer from Quetta to Karachi and had been actually relieved on 4-5-2000, Consequently, office order dated 29-5-2000 sanctioning L.P.R. In favour of respondent was withdrawn vide order dated 10-6-2000. Respondent being aggrieved, after making departmental representation, invoked appellate jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Appeal was seriously contested but the Tribunal, after due consideration, allowed the same observing that subsequent office order was not in accordance with the rules relating to sanctioning of L.P.R. To an employee. The Tribunal further held that the reasons given in the office order were not convincing, therefore, the same was set aside and office order dated 29-5-2000 restored leading to this petition.

3. We have heard Mr. Tariq Shamim, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and gone through the relevant material on the record as well as the impugned judgment.

4. It is, inter alia, contended that under the policy decision vide letter dated 25-2-2000, relating to transfer of officers as well as subordinate staff, laying down that the transfer order of an incumbent should not be modified or withdrawn under any circumstance and any appeal or request to this effect should not be considered till he has complied with the orders of transfer. We are amazed at this argument of the learned counsel, as the impugned policy letter is not relatable to any provision of law empowering the petitioner-administration to lay down subordinate policy decided, which appears to run contrary to the service rules relating to grant of leave including leave preparatory to retirement. Respondent, on completion of 25 years of qualifying Service, in our view, could not, in law, be compelled to continue in the employment against his wishes, as appears to have been understood by the petitioners. In case the Railways Administration had acted fairly and reasonably in abiding by their policy decision, transfer order could have been held in abeyance or cancelled rather than insisting upon its meticulous compliance to the utter disadvantage and inconvenience of a low paid employee.

5. Learned counsel next submitted that respondent had manipulated the sanction of LPR in contravention of the policy decision in collaboration with the lower staff but he was unable to state whether any action was initiated against any dealing Assistant, Superintendent of the branch or my other officer for having mala fide processed respondent's request for sanction of LPR. In law, official acts are presumed to have been correctly and regularly performed and there is no presumption of manipulation or elusion in the working of a public department. Be that as it may, respondent having availed of the period of LPR by now, impugned judgment loses its significance and efficacy. In our view, the petitioners, instead of causing hardship and inconvenience to an employee with long service spread over 25 years, should adopt just, fair and reasonable attitude in dealing with its employees rather than to adopt attitude of rigidity and harsh bureaucratic tendency.

6. For the foregoing facts and reasons, we find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused.