MULTAN, Sept 21: The Multan Bench of the Lahore High Court has once again adjourned hearing of the petition filed by a professor of the Nishter Medical College and Hospital against his transfer. Prof Dr Ashiq Pervez had challenged the transfer orders issued by the S&GAD on the grounds that “an official cannot be transferred against his will during the last two years of his reaching the age of superannuation.” The plaintiff is scheduled to retire in March next year.

The S&GAD had issued his transfer orders in May last year after which he moved the Multan bench of the LHC against the directives. The court had observed while referring the matter to the chief secretary that service matters did not come in its domain.

Dismissing the petition, the court had directed the CS to take a decision on the matter within a month.

The petitioner was informed by the provincial health department in July that his presentation had been considered and then rejected by the CS. He was advised through the same letter to comply with his transfer orders.

Dr Pervez, however, filed a fresh petition with the same court and requested it to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction on constitutional grounds. The petitioner took the stand that the provincial government had transferred him without assigning any reason.

Admitting the petition, the court granted him stay against the transfer order and fixed Sept 7 for taking up the matter again. The health department was directed by the court to submit a para-wise reply to the petition.

In its reply, the health department reportedly stated that the petitioner was transferred on the recommendation of an inquiry conducted against him by a senior member of the Chief Minister’s Inspection Team. The inquiry officer had held him guilty of professional and moral misconduct.

The proceedings were adjourned for Sept 19, as the counsel for the petitioner could not turn up. On the date of hearing, the counsel remained absent and the assistant advocate-general, representing the provincial government, requested the court to at least vacate the stay order issued against the petitioner’s transfer.

The court, however, fixed Sept 29 as the next date of hearing.