2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.

Petitioners 47 in number filed a Writ Petition bearing No.178/2016 under Article 71(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 read with enabling provisions of Constitution of Pakistan have approached this forum for issaance of writ declaring that the various orders issued by the respective respondents be declared illegal and void ab-initio, whereby their services have been terminated without any legal justification and a prayer has also been made that the petitioners may be restored/reinstated on their respective appointments/positions.

2. During pendency of the above Writ Petition bearing No.178/2016 the petitioners filed a Civil Miscellaneous bearing No.411/2016 under Order I, rule 10, C.P.C. read with sections 151/94 for impleading 8 other persons/petitioners as their case was of alike nature. Another Civil Miscellaneous bearing No.412/2016 was filed by the petitioners of Writ Petition bearing No.178/2016 under Order XIII, rules 1, 2 for permission to submit some additional documents. Both the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions bearing Nos.411 and 412 of 2016 were allowed, as no objection was raised by the learned A.A.G. and learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners were asked to address their arguments on main writ petition. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the petitioners were appointed by the competent authority in the year 2009 vide office order No.Secy-(R)-1313/12 but on 27-01-2014 their services were terminated by the respondents vide office order No.Sec(R)Esst(12)2014 without any show-cause notice or even providing them a chance of personal hearing which is against the concept of natural justice and an encroachment on their fundamental rights. In second limb of arguments the learned counsel submitted that 23 number of employees filed an appeal before this Court and their appeal has been accepted and the respondents have been directed to adjust/regularize the petitioners with back benefits and the case of the present petitioners is at par with the petitioners who have already been accommodated by this Court and prayed relief has been allowed vide judgment/order dated 06-06-2016.

4. On the other hand the learned A.A.G. and learned counsel for the respondents vehemently refuted the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that the petitioners were sacked, as the petitioners were neither appointed on contingent basis nor they even joined their services in the department as they were appointed through fake/fictitious appointment letters. The petitioners by their own conduct have proved that they have not approached this Court with clean hands. As per learned counsel if they were appointed in 2009, then till 2014 why they have not joined their duties or got any remuneration and kept quit for such a long time and filed the instant Writ Petition bearing No. 178/2016 on 28-10-2016. The learned counsel further submitted that the letters of appointments annexed with the writ petition show that the petitioners were given the status of civil servant and their services were to be governed by Civil Servants Act, 1973, if so their writ petition is not maintainable before this Court and they could avail the remedy before the Service Tribunal of Gilgit-Baltistan. The learned A.A.G. and counsel for the respondents prayed that writ being not maintainable be dismissed in the larger interest of justice.

5. We have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and learned A.A.G. at a considerable length and have also gone through record of the case with the valuable assistance of the learned counsel for both the parties.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners were repeatedly asked to satisfy the Court about the status of the petitioners, whether they claim relief on the basis of being a civil servant or being treated discriminatorily but the learned counsel could not satisfy us on this crucial issue, which goes to the very root of the case, as the remedy to a civil servant is available before Service Tribunal while in case of discrimination the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court could be invoked by any aggrieved person.

7. A thread bar examination of the record shows that the respondents have taken an unambiguous and unanimous stand that the petitioners were neither appointed on contingent basis nor they even performed their duties. Further contention of the respondents was that since all these appointments were fake/fictitious the petitioners cannot claim any relief, is well founded.

8. As evident from the comments/arguments of the respondents and could not be rebutted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have not joined their duties nor any pay bill in their respect was ever submitted to AGPR. If for the sake of arguments it is presumed that they were validly appointed in the year 2009, then their keeping mum till 2014 is a factor which speaks volumes against their tainted hands. The late filing of the instant writ petition also forces us to add a negative mark against the petitioners. Now it is all most all a settled principal of law that "he who seeks equity must do equity". The wisdom is sought from a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in 2012 SCMR 673, which is reproduced as under:- "Appointments made without advertisement of vacancies, inviting of applications and completion of codal formalities... termination of service of such employees without providing them opportunity of hearing... validity... "He who seeks equity must do equity" and "approach Court with clean hands" ... III-gotten gains could not be protected" such employees had got their appointments through back door, thus, could not agitate any grievance on pretext of denial of due opportunity of hearing to them... such employees could not challenge principal of good governance adopted at highest level mandating each and every appointment in government service to be made on merits as per relevant rules and completion of codal formalities... Appeals filed by such employees were dismissed in circumstances. [p. 678] A"

9. We see no merit in the instant writ petition which is dismissed accordingly, however the petitioners will be at liberty to seek any remedy from any proper forum, provided under law, if they are so advised. Petition accordingly dismissed. File. ZC/264/GB Petition dismissed.