2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

ALI BAIG, J.

This writ petition under Article 86(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 read with enabling Articles of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, has been filed by the petitioner namely Salman Ali son of Ehsan Ali residence of Astore, wherein, the petitioner has sought the following remedies:- "It is therefore, humbly prayed that; a. This Hon'ble Court by accepting instant Writ Petition may kindly set aside the impugned office order dated 23/10/2018 and may direct the respondents to extend/continue the contract service of petitioner as Store Supervisor (BS-16) till arrival of FPSC nominees. b. Respondents may be directed to release the pay of petitioner from July 2017 to October 2018. c. Any other remedy which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances to meet the ends of justice and equity."

2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Store Supervisor (BPS-16) on contract basis by the respondents vide Office Order No.E-1/101/Admin 2/2010 dated 25th November, 2010. Thereafter, contract service of the petitioner has been extending by the respondents from time to time and final contract service of petitioner was extended on 17th November, 2016 till appointment/arrival of new nominee through FPSC.

3. The Secretary Works/respondent No.5 put up Note before the Chief Secretary/respondent No.1 regarding contract extension case/proposal of the petitioner which has been rejected by the Services, General Administration and Cabinet Department vide letter No.SO(S)-I-1(4)/2018 dated 23-10-2018, on the direction of the concerned authority, i.e., Chief Secretary/respondent No.1, hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was appointed as Store Supervisor (BPS-16) in the year 2010 and the petitioner has been performing his duty with the entire satisfaction of senior officers of Work Department GB PWD Diamer-Astore Division. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the respondents Nos.3 to 5 have recommended for extension of contract service of the petitioner, but Services, General Administration and Cabinet Department vide letter No.SO(S)-I-1(4)/2018 dated 23-10-2018, on the direction of the concerned authority, i.e., Chief Secretary/respondent No.1, has illegally rejected the summary/Note forwarded to Chief Secretary/respondent No.1 by Secretary Works/respondent No.5 regarding extension of contract service of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that respondent No.1 had constituted a Performance Evaluation Committee under the chairmanship of respective Secretary for evaluation / appraisal of contract employees for extension of contract period vide Notification No.PS-1(1)/2017-CS dated 22nd May, 2017, and the said committee submitted good Performance Evaluation Report in respect of the petitioner vide notification dated 25th June, 2018, hence, the petitioner is entitled to continue his contract service.

5. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General vehemently opposed this writ petition by contenting that the competent authority has rightly not extended the contract service of petitioner and has directed the concerned authorities of Work Department GB PWD that the post of Store Supervisor (BPS-16) be forwarded to the FPSC for initial recruitment. The learned Assistant Advocate General has further argued that the petitioner cannot claim/seek that his contract employment/service may be extended till arrival of new nominee through FPSC.

6. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record of the case with their able assistance.

7. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as Store Supervisor (BPS-16) in Works Department of GB PWD in the year 2010 and his contractual services has been extending by the respondents till October 2018. The Services, General Administration and Cabinet Department vide letter No.SO(S)-I-1 (4)/2018 dated 23-10-2018, on the direction of the concerned authority, i.e., Chief Secretary/respondent No.1, has illegally rejected contract extension case of the petitioner initiated by the respondent No.5 on the recommendation of respondent No.4/Chief Engineer GB PWD Diamer-Astore Division.

8. From perusal of record, it transpires that the respondent No.4, vide his letter addressed to Secretary Works/respondent No.5 dated 25-06-2018, has stated that contractual period of the petitioner was expired on 30-06-2017 and the incumbent is still discharging his duties. The service of petitioner is essentially needed for the period of 2 years w.e.f. 01-07-2017 to 30-06-2019. Furthermore, the Performance Evaluation Committee vide minutes of meeting dated 13-7-2018, has also recommended extension of contractual service of the petitioner for a further period of 6 months, w.e.f., 01-07-18 or till arrival of nominee through FPSC and the contract expired period w.e.f. 01-07-2017 to 30-06-2018 may be treated as leave on half average pay, but due to unknown reasons, the Services, General Administration and Cabinet Department vide letter No.SO(S)-I-1 (4)/2018 dated 23-10-2018, on the direction of the concerned authority, i.e., Chief Secretary / respondent No.1 has rejected the recommendations of the Performance Evaluation Committee, whereas, the post of Store Supervisor is still vacant. Moreover, the Performance Evaluation Committee vide Performance Evaluation Report dated 25-06-2017 has declared performance of petitioner as good, hence the petitioner is entitled for the extension of his contractual services as Store Supervisor (BPS-16).

9. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed and consequently the respondents are directed to extend the contractual service of petitioner as Store Supervisor (BS-16) till appointment of fresh candidate/incumbent through FPSC. The respondents may also forward requisition to FPSC Islamabad for filling up the disputed vacant cost of Store Supervisor (BPS-16) on regular basis.

10. Copy of this judgment be sent to the respondents, who are directed to submit compliance report through Registrar of this Court within two months of the passing of this judgment for our perusal. file. ZC/146/GB Petition allowed.