In the supreme court of pakIstan  
( Original Jurisdiction ) 
 
 
BENCH 
Mr. Justice Amir Hani Muslim 
Mr. Justice Mushir Alam  
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
 
CRL.O.Ps. NO.47, 48 & 50 OF 2016 IN C.R.P.193 OF 2013 & 
Crl.M.A.No.1822 of 2016. 
 
 
Fida Hussain Shah  
(in Crl.O.P.47/2016) 
Ghulam Haider Jamali 
(in Crl.O.P.48/2016) 
Faisal Bashir, PSP  
(in Crl.O.P.50/2016)  
 
 
 
Syed Fida Hussain Shah 
(in Crl.M.A.No.1822/2016) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… 
… 
Petitioners 
 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Govt. of Sindh & others 
 
 
… 
… 
Respondents  
 
For Petitioners 
 
 
(Crl.O.47/16)  
: 
Kh. Haris Ahmed, Sr. ASC 
(Crl.O.48/16)  
: 
Mr. Ali Zafar, ASC 
(Crl.O.50/16)  
: 
Ms. Asma Jehangir, ASC 
On Court Call 
: 
Mr. Zameer Hussain Ghumro, AG Sindh 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Sarwar Khan, Addl. AG Sindh 
Date of hearing  
: 
16-02-2017 
 
JUDGMENT  
 
 
AMIR HANI MUSLIM, J.-  Through these three Criminal 
Original Petitions the Petitioners seek implementation of the judgments of 
this Court reported as Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, 
Sindh (2013 SCMR 1752) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs. Province of 
Sindh (2015 SCMR 456). The Petitioners in these three contempt Petitions 
have inter alia challenged the re-allocation/change of Occupational Groups 
of the Respondents Allah Dino Khawaja and Sanaullah Abbasi from 
Foreign Service and Income Tax Group, respectively, to the Police Service 
of Pakistan (PSP).  
 
Crl.O.P.47/2016 
2
 
CRL. O. P. NO.47/2016 
2. 
 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, learned Sr. ASC appeared in Crl.O.P 
48/2016, on behalf of the Petitioner and contended that this Court in the 
judgments reported as Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, 
Sindh (2013 SCMR 1752) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs. Province of 
Sindh (2015 SCMR 456), has laid down the foundations of a merit based 
Civil Service in Pakistan. He contended that this Court in the aforesaid 
judgments has held that no Civil Servant after his appointment to an 
occupational group, could be re-allocated to any other group.  He further 
contended that directions were issued by this Court to all the Provincial 
Governments through their Chief Secretaries as well as to the Federal 
Government to streamline the service structure of civil servants in terms of 
the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments.  
 
3. 
 
He next contended that the Respondent A. D. Khawaja, was 
recommended by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) for 
appointment to the post of Section Officer in the Foreign Service of 
Pakistan (FSP) way back in 1986.  However, three years thereafter, his 
group/cadre was changed from FSP to PSP in pursuance of the orders of the 
then Prime Minister. Similarly, the Respondent Sanaullah Abbasi was 
appointed in the Income Tax Group as ITO, and was re-allocated the PSP 
Group in total disregard of law, rules and merit. According to the learned 
Counsel, the re-allocation of the Occupational Group of the Respondents 
after their initial appointment was without lawful authority. He, in support 
of his contention, has relied upon the case of Liaquat Ali Memon Vs. 
Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 556).  
 
Crl.O.P.47/2016 
3
4. 
 
He next contended that the re-allocation of Occupational 
Group amounted to a transfer which was declared ultra vires by this Court 
in the aforesaid judgments. He finally submitted that contempt proceedings 
should be initiated for avoiding to implement the aforesaid judgments of 
this Court against the officers responsible in this regard.  
Crl.O.P.48/2016 
5. 
 
Syed Ali Zafar, learned ASC appeared in Crl.O.P 48/2016, on 
behalf of the Petitioner had contended that there are only three modes of 
appointment i.e. initial appointment, appointment by promotion and or 
appointment by transfer. He further contended that the appointment by way 
of change of Cadre or Occupational Group was not provided under the law 
and this Court in its judgment reported as Contempt Proceedings against 
Chief Secretary, Sindh (2013 SCMR 1752), had issued directives to 
streamline the service structure of Civil Servants in line with the principles 
laid down in the aforesaid judgment. 
 
6. 
 
He contended that appointment by transfer was a 
consequence of the initial appointment and a person could not be allowed to 
travel horizontally out side his cadre to penetrate into a different cadre, 
service or post through an appointment by transfer. In this regard he 
referred to the case of Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs. Province of Sindh (2015 
SCMR 456). He next contended that the Prime Minister could not exercise 
his powers whimsically to change the occupational groups of civil servants 
and at least the same parameters which were applied to an appointment 
through transfer should be made applicable to such like cases and if it is a 
fresh or initial appointment then the criteria of fresh appointment should be 
followed.  
Crl.O.P.47/2016 
4
Crl.O.P.50/2016 
7. 
   
Ms. Asma Jehangir, learned ASC appearing on behalf of the 
Petitioner in Crl.O.P 50/2016, has adopted the arguments advanced by the 
learned Counsel Khawaja Haris Ahmed and in addition has contended that 
if the issue involved in the present matter was not covered in the afore-
referred judgments, then this Court under Article 184(3) of the Constitution 
should examine the matter by resorting to its Suo Moto jurisdiction.  
8.  
 
Mr. Zameer Hussain Ghumro, AG Sindh and Mr. Sarwar 
Khan, Addl. AG Sindh appeared on behalf of the Government of Sindh and 
stated that the issue of allocation or re-allocation of Occupational Groups 
was not covered by the aforesaid judgments, therefore, these Petitions merit 
dismissal.  
 
9. 
 
We have heard the learned Counsels for the Petitioners as 
well as the learned Advocate General and Additional Advocate General, 
Sindh. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners have failed to pin point any 
portions of the aforesaid judgments which deal with the issue of allocation 
and re-allocation of Occupational Groups. The aforesaid judgments deal 
with the issue of deputation, absorption, up-gradation, out of turn 
promotion, re-employment, appointment by transfer and ante-dated 
seniority of Civil Servants and Government Servants. The issue in regard to 
the change in Occupational Group was neither raised during hearing of the 
said proceedings nor were any findings recorded by this Court therein. We, 
therefore, are of the considered view that no case of contempt has been 
made out and these Petitions merit dismissal on that score alone. 
10. 
 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, learned Sr. ASC has attempted to 
argue that the term ‘transfer’ used in the Civil Servants (Appointment, 
Crl.O.P.47/2016 
5
Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, is synonymous to the term ‘re-
allocation to a service or group’. He has submitted that if a Civil Servant is 
allocated a particular Occupational Group and subsequent thereto the 
Competent Authority on his representation changes the allocation, it would 
deem to be a transfer from one cadre to another, which this Court in the 
aforesaid judgments has declared to be without lawful authority. In the first 
place, the term ‘allocation of a group’ is distinct than the term ‘Cadre’ used 
in Civil Service Laws. The term ‘Cadre’ is defined in FR 9 (4) “Cadre 
means the strength of a service or a particular service sanctioned as a 
separate unit”. The term ‘Service’ and ‘Occupational Group’ is 
synonymous and has been defined for the first time in Occupation Groups 
and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990 as under : - 
“viii. “Occupational Group or Service” means any groups or 
service recruitment to which  is made through the competitive 
examination conducted by the Commission from time to 
against BPS-17 posts under the Federal Government or any 
occupational group or service transfer to which is made from 
the Armed Forces by induction and includes the following: 
      (a)  
Accounts Group 
     (b)  
Commerce and Trade Group. 
     (c)  
Customs and Excise Group 
     (d)  
District Management Group 
     (e)  
Foreign Service of Pakistan 
     (f)  
Income Tax Group 
     (g)  
Information Group 
     (h)  
Military Lands and Cantonments Group 
     (i)  
Office Management Group 
     (j)  
Police Service of Pakistan 
     (k)  
Postal Group 
     (l)  
Railways (Commercial & Transportation) Group;  
 
 
and  
   (m)  
any other service or group which may be notified  
 
 
by the Government as such.” 
11. 
 
However, the term ‘Service’ was defined in Civil Service of 
Pakistan (Composition and Cadre) Rules, 1954, as “Service’ means the 
Civil Service of Pakistan”.  
Crl.O.P.47/2016 
6
12 
 
We may observe here that transfer from one service or 
occupational group is dealt with under Section 7(b)(ii) of the Federal Public 
Service Commission Ordinance, 1977, which reads as under: 
(b) 
to advise the President 
(i) 
……….. 
(ii) 
on the principles to be followed in making initial 
appointments to the services and posts referred to in clause (a) 
and in making appointments by promotion to posts in BS-18 and 
above and transfer from one service or occupational group to 
another; and” 
 
13. 
 
From perusal of the above provision, it is abundantly clear 
that the allocation and re-allocation is the sole domain of the Government 
and is being made under the provisions of the Ordinance of 1977 and not 
under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 
1973, which have been interpreted in the judgments of Contempt 
Proceedings against Chief Secretary Sindh (ibid) and Ali Azhar Khan 
Baloch (ibid). The transfer of a civil servant from one occupational group 
to another, by no stretch of imagination, could be termed as a horizontal 
movement from one service or occupational group to another. This Court in 
the case of Syed Maroof Gilani vs Prime Minister of Pakistan (1996 SCMR 
1353), while dealing with the issue of the nature has held as under:- 
“It may be mentioned that paragraph 14 of the prospectus for 
the examination clearly stated that the Government had the right 
to allocate a candidate against any Group/Service irrespective of 
his or her preference, in public interest, and that no appeal 
against the decision of the Government in this regard was 
entertainable. As already indicated, the Federal Public Service 
Commission found the appellant unsuitable for appointment to 
the ‘Custom and Excise Group. The decision of the Government 
not to appoint him to the said group was based upon the advice 
Crl.O.P.47/2016 
7
tendered to it by the Commission which had examined him both 
orally and through a written test. In the circumstances, it cannot 
be said that the Government’s decision was arbitrary or 
whimsical. The appellant has not been able to show that the 
Federal Public Service Commission was motivated by an ulterior 
consideration when it declared him unsuitable for the service of 
his first choice. We, therefore, do not think that this is a fit case 
for interference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed.” 
 
14. 
 
The learned counsel Khawaja Haris has equated the term 
‘transfer’ as used in the Civil Servants Act with the term ‘re-allocation’ to a 
service or group. We respectfully differ with this contention, which in more 
or less the similar terms have also been argued by the learned counsel, Syed 
Ali Zafar. 
15. 
 
We believe that the term ‘transfer’ has been used with posting 
in section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which is reproduced as under: 
“10. Posting and transfer:- Every civil servant shall be liable to serve any 
where within or outside Pakistan, in any [equivalent or higher] post under 
the Federal Government, or any Provincial Government or local authority 
or a corporation or body set up or established by any such Government; 
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply to a civil 
servant recruited specifically to serve in a particular area or region; 
Provided further that, where a civil servant is required to serve in a post 
outside his service or cadre, his terms and conditions of service as to his 
pay shall not be less favorable than those to which he would have been 
entitled if he had not been required to serve.” 
 
16.  
 
From the above, the following inference can be drawn: 
i. It is within the competence of the authorities to transfer a civil servant 
from one place or post to another to meet the exigencies of service or 
administration; provided his terms and conditions of service are not 
adversely affected; 
 
ii. A civil servant has no vested rights to claim posting or transfer to any 
particular place of his choice, nor has he any right to continue to hold 
a particular post at a particular place; 
 
iii. His transfer and posting is limited to the given tenure, or at the 
pleasure of the competent authorities; 
 
Crl.O.P.47/2016 
8
iv. Normally, he is not required to acquire any specialized skill or 
professional training in order to serve at the new post or place; 
 
v. His seniority and progression of career in terms of promotion and 
other benefits of the service are not affected by the transfer and he 
remains pegged to his batch or group to which he was initially 
appointed after completing the required common and specialized 
trainings and after passing the required departmental examinations 
conducted by the FPSC;   
 
vi. He is posted and transferred routinely in the same grade or scale that 
he possesses in his service or group; unless the rule requires so or 
allows so. 
 
17. 
 
As far as the ‘reallocation to service or group’ is concerned, 
we believe that though the term ‘reallocation’ has not been defined in the 
statute but its plane meaning is to “allocate again or in a different way” 
(Oxford Dictionary). Here the situation is somewhat as under: 
i. 
A civil servant is appointed in a new service or group by competent 
authority, and he loses his ties with his pervious group or service, 
though his previous service may be counted, if the rules permit; 
 
ii. 
After joining the new service or group he undergoes afresh the 
required departmental/specialized training, followed by the Final 
Passing Out Examination (FPOE) conducted by the FPSC; 
 
iii. 
His inter se seniority is re-fixed with the new group or service he 
joins, normally on the basis of his merit and results obtained in the 
FPOE; 
 
iv. 
His appointment, unlike a ‘transfer’, is thus irreversible, unless the 
rules allow him to retain a lien so that he may revert back to his 
previous service or group within the lien time; 
 
v. 
Normally ‘reallocation’ happens when a civil servant reappears in 
the CSS examination and his higher merit allows him to opt for a 
different occupational group form the one he belongs to; 
 
vi. 
There are also instances of ‘reallocation’ of civil servants from one 
to another group, which have been made under the existing rules by 
the competent authorities; but they are fundamentally different from 
the ‘appointment by transfer’ as the latter involves absorption of 
civil servant in a new department as a result of abolition of his 
earlier department or post or for meeting any other exigency, subject 
to the given rules;  
 
vii. Moreover, the nature and consequences, if not the form, of the re-
allocation to another service or group are the same: 
 
a. a civil servant is reappointed to the new group or service; 
 
Crl.O.P.47/2016 
9
b. his seniority is fixed with the new batch in accordance with his 
overall merit; 
 
c. he loses his ties with his earlier occupational except that he may 
claim benefits of the time of service; 
 
d. he undergoes and qualify the required specialized trainings and 
examinations, including the FPOE; 
 
e. he may be discharged from the service if he fails to successfully 
completes his probation/trainings and examination.  
 
18.  
 
Hence, the reallocation to another occupational group is more 
akin to the ‘initial appointment’, as provided in Part-III of the Civil 
Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, rather than 
an ‘appointment by transfer’ as contended at the bar. The appointment by 
transfer is an incidence a posteriori to initial appointment, that is, a civil 
servant is transferred to another place or post after he has been appointed on 
regular basis, or when he has been promoted and transferred to a post or 
group (e.g. from the Provincial Service to APUG in BS-19), or rarely when 
an occupational group is abolished and he is absorbed into a new group or 
to meet the exigencies of administration.   
 
19.  
 
We may also like to add here that allocation and re-allocation 
of occupational group is a process, which is completed before appointing a 
person to a particular service or group. In other words, a person becomes a 
civil servant after his allocation to a particular service or group. For the 
aforesaid reasons, the change of group or re-allocation could not be 
considered at par with transfer or horizontal movement made under the 
Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973.  
20. 
 
It is also not out of context to mention here that the re-
allocation of the Respondents was never challenged by any of the 
candidates of their batch, on the ground of being arbitrary or whimsical, for 
Crl.O.P.47/2016 
10 
more than 26 years till the filing of these proceedings. The Petitioners have 
failed to demonstrate their locus standi to challenge the re-allocation of the 
Respondents after more than 26 years. No material has been placed before 
us to establish that the re-allocation of group to the Respondents was made 
in an arbitrary manner.  
21. 
 
These are the reasons for the short order of even date, which 
reads as under: 
“For reasons to be recorded later, these Petitions are 
dismissed alongwith Crl.M.A No.1822 of 2016.”  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
16th February 2017. 
Approved for reporting.  
