1997 P L C (C.S.

) 739
[Lahore High Court]
Before Faqir Muhammad ho!har" #
M$M%&' H&()*+
,er-u-
./0*+1M*1% /F P&(S%&1 a2d 3 other-
Writ Petition No. 69 of 1997, decided on 13th January, 1997.
Co2-titutio2 of Pa!i-ta2 (1973)444
----Art. 199---Constitutional petition ---!"AC#$, 19%9,!.No. 3&, p.3&'---(ployee of
statutory )ody---Curtail(ent of deputation period )efore its e*piry ---+alidity---No e(ployee
had ,ested ri-ht to re(ain on deputation for full period of tenure---.epatriation /ould )e ,alid
on the -round that tenure post did not (ean a post to )e held for prescri)ed period---!uch period
could )e curtailed )y )orro/in- Authority-- 0nstructions of !"AC#$ /ere not applica)le in
respect of e(ployees of statutory )odies-- Petitioner /as not entitled to relief in discretionary
1urisdiction of 2i-h Court.
Pa3istan ,. 4a5al .ah(an 6hund3ar and another P7$ 1989 !C 9Pa3.: %; and <ehar =ul
<uha((ad ,. <ehran n-ineerin- and "echnolo-y >ni,ersity, Na/a)shah 1979 !C<. 37&
rel.
>tility Corporation of Pa3istan 7i(ited ,. Pun1a) 7a)our Appellate "ri)unal and others P7$
19%7 !C &&7 ref.
$r. =.!. 6han and .ao 4a5al 6han A3htar for Petitioner.
/+)*+
"he learned counsel ha,e contended that the petitioner /as /or3in- as an Assistant $irector
9?!-1%: in 6arachi <etropolitan Corporation 96arachi ?uildin- Control Authority: /hen )y
order dated 16-1'-199& he /as posted on deputation /ith effect fro( 1'-9-199& as Pro1ect
$irector in People@s Pro-ra((e under the <inistry of 7ocal =o,ern(ent and .ural
$e,elop(ent for 0sla(a)ad Capital "erritory. 0t is further su)(itted that the period of deputation
/as for three years as is e,ident fro( the order dated ;9-%-199& passed )y the sta)lish(ent
$i,ision, Ca)inet !ecretariat, 0sla(a)ad. 0t is ,ehe(ently contended that three years@ deputation
period has not yet elapsed /hen the i(pu-ned order dated ;6-1;-1996 passed )y the
sta)lish(ent $i,ision has ter(inated the deputation of the petitioner /ith a direction to
repatriate hi( to his parent depart(ent /ith i((ediate effect. 0t is further stated that )y another
office order, dated ;nd of January, 1997 )y the <inistry of n,iron(ental 7ocal =o,ern(ent
and .ural $e,elop(ent, one Asi( 6han =oraya has assu(ed the char-e of Pro1ect $irector,
$.!.A.?., 0sla(a)ad Capital "erritory. ?y another order, dated 7th of January, 1997 issued )y
the <inistry of n,iron(ental, 7ocal =o,ern(ent and .ural $e,elop(ent, the petitioner /as
relie,ed of his duties as Pro1ect $irector, $istrict !ocial Action ?oard, 0sla(a)ad and the lea,e
application of the petitioner /as turned do/n /ith a direction to apply for lea,e to his parent
depart(ent. "he learned counsel ha,e placed reliance on !erial No.3&, pa-e 3&' of the
!"AC#$ 19%9 to contend that the repatriation of the petitioner to his parent depart(ent /as
in ,iolation of la/ inas(uch as the consent of the lendin- authority or the petitioner /as not
o)tained )efore curtailin- the deputation period of the petitioner. 0t is further contended that the
i(pu-ned orders /ere also in ,iolation of the instructions of the 4ederal =o,ern(ent as
contained at !erial Nos. 9 and 1' at pa-e 319 of the !"AC#$ inas(uch as three (onths@
notice /as not -i,en to the petitioner )efore puttin- an end to the deputation of the petitioner.
.eliance is also placed on the case of >tility Corporation of Pa3istan 7i(ited ,. Pun1a) 7a)our
Appellate "ri)unal and others 9P7$ 19%7 !C &&7: in /hich it has )een held authoritati,ely )y
2is 7ordship <r. Justice Nasi( 2asan !hah that an authority can only pass a ri-ht order and not
a /ron- order.
;. 0 a( afraid, the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner ha,e no force. 0n the case
of Pa3istan ,. 4a5al .ah(an 6hund3ar and another 9P7$ 1989 !C 9Pa3.: %;:, the
0nspector-=eneral of Police, 6arachi on deputation /as repatriated to the =o,ern(ent of ast
Pa3istan )efore the co(pletion of his deputation- period and the 2on@)le !upre(e Court of
Pa3istan held such repatriation to )e ,alid on the -round that the tenure post did not (ean a post
that is to )e held for a period prescri)ed and the period could )e curtailed )y the )orro/in-
authority. "he sa(e ,ie/ /as ta3en in the case of <ehar =ul <uha((ad ,. <ehran
n-ineerin- and "echnolo-y >ni,ersity, Na/a)shah 91979 !C<. 37&: /herein the )orro/in-
authority had repatriated an e(ployee of a statutory )ody to the parent depart(ent prior to the
co(pletion of his tenure and the 2on@)le !upre(e Court of Pa3istan had held that no e(ployee
had a ,ested ri-ht to re(ain on deputation for full period of tenure. 0n (y opinion, the
instructions of !"AC#$ are not applica)le in respect of e(ployees of statutory )odies and
the reliance of the learned counsel appears to )e (isplaced.
3. 0n this ,ie/ of the (atter, 0 a( not inclined to interfere in the discretionary 1urisdiction of this
Court. "his /rit petition is dis(issed in li(ine.
A.A.A<-;9&A7 Petition dis(issed