SHC dismisses inland revenue officers’ lawsuit against their transfers and postings

The Sindh High Court dismissed a lawsuit of inland revenue officers against their transfers and postings.

Plantiffs Mohammad Nasser Janjua and others had challenged federal government’s notifications with regard to transfers of 12 officers of inland revenue service, submitting that that their transfers deemed to be akin to OSD and quashed.

The office of the court raised the objection of maintainability, saying how a matter pertaining to terms and conditions of service of civil servants may be agitated in a civil suit, in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution as appreciated by the Supreme Court in the Ali Azhar Baloch case.

The petitioner’s counsel submitted that impugned notifications render the plaintiffs as OSD and the same is impermissible per the law. He placed reliance of Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 to enunciate that transfers under scrutiny were covered in the proviso therein contained; hence, they were not amenable to adjudication before the tribunal.

Federal law officers insisted that the action under scrutiny was a simple transfer and not amenable for adjudication in a civil suit. They submitted that the impugned notifications make no mention of OSD, are relative to transfer orders of PAS officers to the Establishment Division between postings, and that under no circumstances could the impugned orders be imputed to be read as decisions of a departmental authority determining the fitness of a person to hold a post or be promoted therefrom. They also questioned maintainability on the point of jurisdiction of the court.

A single bench headed by Justice Agha Faisal, after hearing the arguments of the counsel, observed that sole determinant issue before the court was whether the present grievance of the plaintiffs could be adjudicated in a civil suit under Article 212 of the Constitution, as interpreted by the Supreme Court from time to time, including in the Ali Azhar Baloch case.

The court observed that the present determination is entirely with respect to the forum for adjudication of grievances of the plaintiffs and not with respect to the merit, or otherwise, thereof.

The court observed that there is absolutely no cavil to the fact that the plaintiffs are civil servants and impugned notifications clearly explicate that merely a transfer is contemplated therein, governed inter alia per Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act 1973.

The court observed that the memorandum of plaint unequivocally expresses that the impugned notifications pertain to transfer; however, such transfers may be considered to be akin to being made OSD.

The court observed that at the very onset, it is imperative to record that there is no mention of OSD in the impugned notifications and nothing has been articulated before the court to give the notifications any other meaning than that apparent from the plain verbiage thereof.

It further observed that the present grievance of the plaintiffs could not be adjudicated in a civil suit and dismissed the case.