2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)
NISAR ALAM Versus VICE CHANCELLOR, KARAKURAM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, GILGIT-BALTISTAN and 3 others
| Citation | 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Sahib Khan, C.J. and Muhammad Alam, J |
| Parties | NISAR ALAM Versus VICE CHANCELLOR, KARAKURAM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, GILGIT-BALTISTAN and 3 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil service as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?
The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Sahib Khan, C.J. and Muhammad Alam, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) (NISAR ALAM Versus VICE CHANCELLOR, KARAKURAM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, GILGIT-BALTISTAN and 3 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mohammad Wazir Khan and Khursheed-ul-Hassan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Petitioner, a lecturer in the University had sought contempt proceedings against University for willfully not complying with the order, passed by Division Bench of Chief Court
Petitioner had prayed that University be directed to give him all financial and academic benefits as mentioned in the court's order
University had appointed the petitioner in the light of the order of the court
Court in the said order had not granted any financial back benefits to the petitioner, nor there was any mention of academic benefits in favour of the petitioner
Petition was result of misconception and result of wrong interpretation of order of the Chief Court
Question of contempt proceedings would not arise, once it was established that University did nothing in violation of the Court order
Petitioner had filed present petition after full implementation of order passed in writ petition
Writ petition filed by the petitioner being groundless and baseless, merited not to be admitted for regular hearing
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.
This is a Civil Miscellaneous petition, seeking contempt proceedings against respondents for willfully not complying the order dated 25-10-2010 of this court, passed in W.P. No.03/2010 and order dated 03-06-2014, passed in C.Misc. No.207/2013. Through order dated 03-06-2014, on C.Misc. No.207/2013, this court directed for implementation of order dated 25-10-2010, passed in W.P. No.03/2010.
2. Petitioner and 21 others filed a writ petition (W.P. No.03/2010), and a DB of this Court passed the following order in the said writ petition on 25-10-2010:-
10. We thus hold that the petitioners are entitled to continue and be adjusted against the positions and vacancies which arise from the time to time and after adjustment if any posts are left over than the same may be advertised. It is again advice that proper procedure and merit may be upheld so that the matters do not turn up in court for adjudication. Announced 25-10-2010 For ready reference, we reproduce the prayer part of this petition hereunder:-- PRAYER "It's, therefore, humbly prayed that by accepting this petition this August Court may be pleased to:-- 1. direct the respondents to give all financial and academic benefits, mentioned in Court order of 25-10-2010 and Office Order No.KIU-Adm-1(15)/2011/24071 dated June 03, 2014.
2. Initiate legal action in contempt of court for willful defiance on the part of respondents. It is prayed in the interest of justice, equality, fair play and supremacy of law." Petitioner, who is present in the court, and his counsel also admitted at bar that respondents appointed petitioner in the light of above referred order of this Court. This happened soon after the above referred order of this Court. From plain comparative perusal of the above prayer part of this petition, with the above referred relief part of the judgment dated 25-10-2010, passed in W.P. No.03/2010, it is quite evident that this Court did not grant any financial back benefits to the petitioner nor there is any mention of academic benefits in favour of the petitioner. So, the petition in hand is result of misconception on the part of petitioner and is also result of wrong interpretation of above referred order of this court. Moreover, the question of contempt proceedings does not arise, once it is established that respondents did nothing in violation of the above referred order of this Court. Petitioner filed this petition after full implementation of order dated 25-10-2010, passed in W.P. No.03/2010. Although this petition is named as civil miscellaneous petition, but in fact, the petition in hand is second petition for implementation of order dated 25-10-02010 passed in W.P. No.03/2010. So, in our opinion, the petition is groundless and baseless, therefore, merits not to be admitted for regular hearing.
3. Admission of the petition for regular hearing is refused. This file be consigned to record. HBT/69/GB Petition dismissed.