IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE GULZAR AHMED, C.J. 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO. 283-K OF 2020 
(On appeal against the judgment dated 11.03.2020 
passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in 
Constitutional Petition Nos. D-5659 & D-3597 of 
2018) 
 
Muhammad Sajjad 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
Federation of Pakistan and others 
…Respondent(s) 
 
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Muhammad Akbar Awan, ASC 
 
 
 
 
(through video link from Karachi) 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
Not represented 
 
Date of Hearing: 
 
08.03.2021 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J.- Through this petition 
under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has called in question the judgment 
dated 11.03.2020 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, 
whereby the Constitutional Petition filed by him, challenging the 
vires of Rule 5(1) of the Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954, under 
which the competent authority had transferred him, was dismissed.  
2. 
 
Briefly stated the facts of the matter are that the 
petitioner was appointed as Sanitary Inspector (BPS-10) in the 
Cantonment Board, Pannu Aqil vide order dated 23.01.2010 and 
purportedly he was transferred to Karachi subsequently. His 
services were transferred from Cantonment Board Korangi Creek, 
Karachi, to Cantonment Board D.I. Khan vide order dated 
07.11.2013. Being aggrieved by the transfer order, the petitioner 
along with other similarly placed employees challenged the transfer 
order by filing Constitutional Petitions No. D-4790/2013 etc titled as 
“Muhammad Sajjad Vs. Federation of Pakistan” before the High 
Court of Sindh, Karachi, on the ground that their posts are non-
Civil Petition No.283-K of 2020 
2
transferable pursuant to Service Policy framed under Rule 5(1) of the 
Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954. The said Constitutional 
Petitions were dismissed vide consolidated judgment dated 
01.06.2017. The petitioner and others assailed the said judgment 
before this Court through Civil Petitions No. 384-K of 2017 etc but it 
also met the same fate vide judgment dated 23.11.2017. He then 
filed Civil Review Petition No. 23-K of 2018 which also stood 
dismissed vide order dated 07.06.2018. In the second round of 
litigation, the petitioner along with another challenged the vires of 
Rule 5(1) of the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954 before 
the High Court of Sindh, by filing Constitutional Petition No. D-5659 
of 2018 with a prayer that the said Rule may be declared ultra vires 
of the law. However, the petition was also dismissed by the High 
Court on the ground that the said question has already been 
decided by this Court while dismissing Civil Petition Nos. 384-K of 
2017 etc i.e. in the case reported as Tariq Iqbal Vs. D.G. Military 
Lands and Cantonments Department (2018 SCMR 335). Hence, this 
petition seeking leave to appeal.  
3. 
 
The crux of the arguments advanced by the learned 
counsel for the petitioner is that Rule 5(1) of the Pakistan 
Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954, is contrary to sub-Section 2(c) of 
Section 280(c) of the Cantonments Act, 1924. He contended that the 
petitioner being a low paid employee, his transfer to a far flung area 
would certainly cause him financial constraints.  
4. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at 
some length and have perused the record.  
5. 
 
Primarily the question which is raised before us is 
whether the Rule 5(1) of the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 
1954, is ultra vires of the law, the post held by the petitioner is 
transferable or not and whether the competent authority has 
misused the authority under the said Rule 5(1). We have noted that 
in the appointment letter dated 23.01.2010, which is available at 
page 36 of the paper book, it is clearly mentioned that the service of 
the petitioner is transferable. It would be advantageous to reproduce 
the relevant paragraphs of the appointment letter, which read as 
under:- 
“8. 
His service is transferable at any other station 
throughout Pakistan.  
Civil Petition No.283-K of 2020 
3
9. 
If already, in service, he should produce paper 
admission/relieving order from his employer.  
10. 
No TA/DA will be admissible to his for joining this 
appointment.  
11. 
Should Mr. Muhammad Sajjad S/o Muhammad 
Zaman accept the above mentioned appointment, he should 
report for the duty in the office of Cantonment Board Pano 
Aqil by 6th February, 2010.” 
 
6. 
 
Perusal of the aforesaid clauses clearly reflects that it 
was made clear to the petitioner that only if he accepts the aforesaid 
clauses, he should report for duty. Joining of duty by the petitioner 
means that he had accepted clause 8 of the appointment letter, 
which says that his service is transferable at any other station 
throughout Pakistan. In this view of the matter when the petitioner 
had accepted the conditions mentioned in the appointment letter, he 
was estopped to challenge the transfer order before the High Court. 
Even otherwise, in the earlier round of litigation, this matter has 
already been agitated and decided by this Court in the Tariq Iqbal 
supra case in the following terms:- 
 
 “12.  However, the important thing which need to be noted 
is that both Annexure-I and III were issued by the Director 
General Military Lands in exercise of power conferred under 
Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1954 and in the same pattern 
Director General Military Lands on 03.11.1999 under 
exercise of the power conferred under the same Rules 
directed that all employees of Cantonment Boards in BS-5 
and above who were in Non-Transferable categories were 
placed in Transferable Categories and therefore could be 
transferred anywhere throughout Pakistan. It is important to 
note that neither Annexure-I nor Annexure-III were notified in 
official gazette nor under Rule 5 of Rules of 1954, there 
appears to be any requirement to notify and publish in the 
official gazette any consequent change, made by the Director, 
Military Land and Cantonments. Additionally, petitioners 
could not be allowed, to back their case on the basis of 
Annexure-I and III issued by the Director, Military Land and 
Cantonments while exercising power under Rule 5(1) of the 
Rules 1954 and dispute the change in posting and transfer 
brought 
by 
the 
same 
Director, 
Military 
Land 
and 
Cantonments in the same manner vide his letter dated 
03.11.1999 declaring all employees of the Cantonment 
Boards in BS-5 and above to transferable categories. It is 
also important to note that the Petitioners have never 
challenged the vires of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1954 and for 
the first time before this Court have simply contended that 
since clause (c) of subsection (2) of section 280 requires that 
the 
rules 
for 
the 
purposes 
of 
appointment, 
control, 
supervision, condition of service, transfer, suspension, 
removal, dismissal and punishment of servants of Boards 
need to be published and, therefore, any change brought 
therein needs to be published. Suffice is to observe that 
Pakistan Cantonments Servants Rules, 1954 were duly 
Civil Petition No.283-K of 2020 
4
published in accordance with requirement of subsection (1) of 
section 280 and no change in the said rule has been 
questioned nor it has been brought to our notice. It is only the 
exercise of power by the Director now Director General ML&C 
under Rule 5 of the Rules, 1954 and the question as to 
whether the powers so conferred on the Director, Military 
Land and Cantonments inter alia, to issue service policy, 
provide cadres declare posts as transferable or not are intra 
vires of clause (3) of subsection (2) of section 280 or not, nor 
the provisions of Rule 5(1) which confer such powers on the 
Director, 
Military 
Land 
and 
Cantonments 
were 
ever 
questioned. On the contrary the entire case of the petitioners 
is based on Annexure I and III issued by the Director General 
ML&C in pursuance of Rule 5(1) of Rules of 1954. The 
contention thus fails.” 
 
7. 
 
As all the issues raised by the petitioner have already 
been resolved by this Court in the judgment referred above, 
therefore, again challenging the transfer order on one pretext or the 
other is hit by the principle of ‘res judicata’ and the same is not 
sustainable in the eyes of law. Transfer of an employee/public 
servant falls within the ambit of “terms and conditions” of service, 
which includes transfer and posting. The petitioner neither agitated 
any element of mala fide on the part of the department nor any of 
his right has been infringed. Transfer and posting is part of service 
and it is for the authority to determine where services of any staff 
member are required. The department has exercised delegated 
powers while passing the impugned order of transfer and the same 
could not be termed as without jurisdiction or without lawful 
authority.  
8. 
 
For what has been discussed above, this petition 
having no merit is accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal is 
refused.   
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the 
8th of March, 2021 
Not Approved For Reporting 
Khurram