2016 PLP 39 (GBLR)

DR. RANA MUHAMMAD SHAMIM, C.J.

This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the impugned Judgment dated 11.03.2015 in Writ Petition No. 24/2015, passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, whereby the said Writ Petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed in limine. The petitioners being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with filed this petition for leave to appeal. This Court vide Order dated 24.11.2015 granted leave to appeal. Consequently notices were issued to the respondents and the case was heard today on 30.06.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners appointed in Works Department of Gilgit-Baltistan as Assistant Executive Engineer BPS-17 vide order dated 21.12.2012 on contract basis. Consequently, the petitioners joined their duties and continued their job up to 01.04.2014. He further submits that in the meantime the Gilgit-Baltistan PWD has sent twelve (12) posts of Assistant Executive Engineer to FPSC for direct recruitment and the same have already been filled in accordingly. He further submits that the petitioners have already working against those posts on contract basis. The respondent No. 02 has moved a summary for regularization of the service of the petitioners. He further submits that now the summary for regularization of the services of the petitioners has been withdrawn vide Office Order dated 30.10.2014 which was illegal, discriminatory, ab initio and null and void. The petitioners being aggrieved filed Writ Petition No. 24/2015 before the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court which upon hearing was dismissed, hence , this petition for leave to appeal. He submits that according to a letter No.E-1/100/Admin/7/2012/1267 "Employment on Contract Basis" dated 06.12.2012 issued by the respondent according to the said letter the services of the petitioners can only be terminated giving them thirty (30) days notice on either side or payment of basic pay in lieu thereof without assigning any reason. The Clause 14 is mandatory in nature and the violation of it, is not condonable which vitiates the termination order being issued illegally without lawful authority. He finally submits that the impugned order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court in the result of misconception of law and misreading/non-reading of the facts of the case, therefore, the same is required to be set aside. On the other hand the learned Advocate General supports the impugned order. He contends that the petitioners were appointed purely on contract basis and on completion of the period of the project the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized without the recommendation of the FPSC. All the posts from BPS-17 and above are appointed on the basis of the recommendation of the FPSC in accordance with law and rule. He further contends that the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court has rightly dismissed the Writ Petition of the petitioners vide judgment dated 11.03.2015 which is in accordance with law and facts of the case, hence, no interference is warranted into it and the same is required to be maintained to meet the ends of justice. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the record of the case file and gone through the impugned order dated 11.03.2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the said impugned order. Consequently, we convert this petition into an appeal and the same is dismissed. Consequent thereto the impugned judgment dated 11.03.2015 in Writ Petition No. 24/2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court is maintained. The appeal is dismissed in above terms. HBT/84/GB Appeal dismissed.