PLC(CS)N 2020

2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MUHAMMAD TAHIR and 10 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary and 5 others

Jurisdiction / Court
Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Decided Date
W.P. No.211 of 2018, decided on 17th October, 2019.
Honorable Judges
Wazir Shakeel Ahmed, CJ and Ali Baig, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)
Forum / Court Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Bench Members Wazir Shakeel Ahmed, CJ and Ali Baig, J
Parties MUHAMMAD TAHIR and 10 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary and 5 others
Primary Law Civil service
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 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 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)?

The case was heard and decided by the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court bench comprising: Wazir Shakeel Ahmed, CJ and Ali Baig, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) (MUHAMMAD TAHIR and 10 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Civil service

Representation

  • Raja Shakeel Ahmed for Petitioners.
  • Assistant Advocate General for the Respondents assisted by Tanveer Akhtar, Advocate/Legal Advisor.
  • 4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General assisted by Mr. Tanveer Akhtar, Advocate/Legal Advisor for the Forest Department, vehemently opposed this writ petition by contending that the petitioners were temporarily appointed against the posts of Development Project namely Establishment of City Park at Gahkuch, District Ghizer, and after completion of the suit project, the petitioners have been relieved from the project posts/ employment, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim for their permanent appointment against the disputed posts.

Headnotes / Summary

Contract appointment against project post

Regularization of service

Contention of employees (writ petitioners) was that they were entitled for regularization of their service but authorities were reluctant to do so

Validity

Petitioners had been appointed on contract basis in the project after fulfilling codal formalities

Employees had been performing their duties against meager salary or without pay

Posts held by the employees had been converted from development to non-development side

Recommendation for appointment of employees against regular created posts had been made

Petitioners had been serving in the project with the hope that their contract appointment would be converted into regular service on creation of regular posts

Respondents were directed by the Chief Court to regularize the services of petitioners against the posts created for establishment of the project

Writ petition was allowed, in circumstances. [Paras. 6 & 7 of the judgment] Assistant Advocate General for the Respondents assisted by Tanveer Akhtar, Advocate/Legal Advisor.

Judgment & Decree

ALI BAIG, J.

This writ petition, under Article 71(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 and Article 86(2) of G.B Order, 2018 read with enabling Articles of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed by the above named 11 petitioners to the effect that they were appointed against various posts from BPS-1 to BPS-4 in the Development Project namely Establishment of City Park at Gahkuch, District Ghizer, from the years 2010 to 2014, after fulfilling of all codal formalities and the petitioners are performing their duties in the said project till to date. After completion of the said project, the respondents Nos.4 to 6 had submitted PC-IV of the project, wherein, the names of the present petitioners were also mentioned against each post for creation of regular posts with the proposal for conversion of project posts to regular footing which was approved by competent authority and 12 posts out of 29 posts were created by the competent authority vide their letter No.F.6(11)PF-II/2016-17/169, dated 28th April 2016, and Finance Department Gilgit Baltistan has also issued NIS of newly created posts vide their letter No.Budget-1(30)/2017-2018 dated 11th August, 2017. Thus, the petitioners are, entitled to be adjusted/regularized on regular footing as per O.M. No.F.53/1/2008 SP dated 11th May, 2017 of the Establishment Division Islamabad and Services and General Administration Department O.M. dated 16th January, 2018, but the respondents are reluctant to appoint the petitioners against the aforesaid posts on regular basis, therefore, by accepting this writ petition the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioners on regular/permanent footing.

2. Copy of the instant writ petition was supplied to respondents with the direction to file parawise comments in this Court. Accordingly, the respondents filed their parawise comments on 29-11-2018, wherein, they have raised certain legal objections and repudiated the averments/contents of writ petition.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are rendering their services in Forest Department, Ghizer for the last 5 to 9 years for the entire satisfaction of their senior officers as contract/project employees. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that posts of the project, namely Establishment of City Park at Gahkuch, have already been converted into permanent footing by the competent authority and the present petitioners are performing their duties in the City Park Gahkuch, District Ghizer, without any pay from their respective appointment till todate, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be appointed/regularized against the vacant posts which are created through PC-IV of the aforesaid project.

4. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Advocate General assisted by Mr. Tanveer Akhtar, Advocate/Legal Advisor for the Forest Department, vehemently opposed this writ petition by contending that the petitioners were temporarily appointed against the posts of Development Project namely Establishment of City Park at Gahkuch, District Ghizer, and after completion of the suit project, the petitioners have been relieved from the project posts/ employment, therefore, the petitioners cannot claim for their permanent appointment against the disputed posts.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed by the respondents against the posts from BPS-1 to BPS-4 on contract basis in the project namely Establishment of City Park at Gahkuch in District Ghizer vide various Office Orders dated 01-07-2010, 28-02-2011, 01-07-2013 and 01-12-2014, after fulfilling of codal formalities. Since then, the petitioners are performing their duties in Forest Department Ghizer either against meagre salary or without of pay. Now, the posts which are being held by the present petitioners have been converted from development to non-development side, with effect from 4th April 2017, as evident from Gilgit Baltistan Finance Department letter No. 1(223)2016-2017-Dev-F, dated 4th April 2017, and the petitioners are performing their duties in the Forest Department against their respective posts for the entire satisfaction of their senior officers, as evident from letter No.GRFD-4(7)/10072/2017, dated 26th March 2018, addressed to the Conservator of Forests Gilgit Circle Gilgit, issued by the Divisional Forest Officer Ghizer, whereby, DFO Ghizer has recommended the petitioners/project staff to appoint against the regular created posts. Moreover, the petitioners are low paid employees and have been serving in Forest Department voluntarily/without pay with the hope that their contract/ad hoc appointment will be converted into regular service on creation of regular posts as evident from an agreement lying on the file executed between the parties.

7. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the respondents are directed to regularize the services of the petitioners against 12 posts created for establishment of City Park Gahkuch Ghizer, and compliance report be submitted to this Court within two months of the passing of this judgment through Registrar of this Court. File ZC/171/GB Petition allowed.