2010 PLP 106 (GBLR)
PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Northern Areas Gilgit and 6 others — Petitioners Versus MUBEEN KHAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 106 (GBLR) |
| Forum / Court | Northern Areas Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C. J., Syed Jaffar Shah and Muhammad Yaqoob, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Northern Areas Gilgit and 6 others — Petitioners Versus MUBEEN KHAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 106 (GBLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 106 (GBLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Northern Areas Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C. J., Syed Jaffar Shah and Muhammad Yaqoob, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 106 (GBLR) (PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Northern Areas Gilgit and 6 others — Petitioners Versus MUBEEN KHAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Advocate-General for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 60(13)
Initial appointment of respondent on contract was made in year 2005, which continued till termination of last extended period of contract
Chief Court directed the authorities to reinstate respondent in service
Evidently orders regarding extension of contract of respondent passed from time to time created an impression that competent authority intended to absorb him as regular employee but due to intervention of Advisor, Health of Northern Areas neither order of his continuation in service was passed nor he was informed about termination of his contract
Supreme Appellate Court directed competent authority, without prejudice to the right of respondent, to proceed in the light of departmental practice and procedure strictly in accordance with law
Petition was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
This petition has been directed against the order dated 27-5-2009 passed by the Chief Court, in a writ petition filed by the private respondent a Nursing Assistant wherein he challenged the termination of his service as illegal. The writ petition succeeded and Chief Court issued direction for reinstatement of private respondent in service. The learned Advocate-General has contended that private respondent was a contract employee and on expiry of extended period of contract his service stood terminated, therefore, he had no cause of action or locus standi to file a writ petition before the Chief Court on the subject. Learned Advocate-General added that in any case contractual obligation cannot be challenged in writ petition, and that impugned order was passed in improper exercise of jurisdiction and without due consideration of the above question. Having heard the learned Advocate-General and perused the record with his assistance, we find that the question relating to the contractual obligation was not as such taken in the comments submitted in the writ petition, rather it was orally raised before the Chief Court, which was rejected. The initial appointment of respondent on contract was made in 2005, which continued till the termination of last extended period of contract and evidently the orders regarding extension of contract of respondent passed from time to time would create an impression that competent authority intended to absorb him as a regular employee but due to the intervention of advisor neither further order of his continuation in service was passed nor he was informed about the termination of his contract. In view thereof, we without commenting on the question relating to further retention of respondent in service or interfering in the order of Chief Court, dispose of this petition with the observation that the competent authority without prejudice to the right of respondent may in the light of departmental practice and procedure proceed strictly in accordance with law. Disposed of. M.H./19/Glt. Order accordingly.