2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

ALI BAIG, J.

Through this single consolidated judgment I intend to dispose of three Civil Revision Petitions bearing No. Civil Revision Petition No.111/2018, Civil Revision Petition No. 112/2018 and Civil Revision Petition No. 113/2018 as common question of law and facts are involved in all three Civil Revision Petitions.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the filing of the instant revision petitions are that the plaintiffs instituted Suit for declaration and perpetual injunctions against the present petitioners and present respondents Nos. 2 to 10 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Shigar claiming therein that the plaintiffs were appointed as contingent paid employees/staff against the various posts of grate-1, in Health Department Shigar by District Health Officer Skardu vide Office Order dated 20th October 2015 therefore, the plaintiffs being contingent employee are entitled to be appointed against the various posts of grade-1, in Health Department Shigar on regular basis but the present respondents Nos. 2 to 6 and 4 to 10 in Civil Revision Petition No.113/2018 have illegally and unauthorizedly appointed the present petitioners / defendants against the various posts of grade-1 in Health Department on permanent basis which is against the vested rights of the plaintiffs thus the appointment orders of the present petitioners/defendants may be cancelled declaring it illegal and void.

3. The defendants Nos. 2 to 6 present respondents Nos. 2 to 6 have contested the suit by filing their written statement in the learned trial Court wherein they have raised certain legal objections and on facts, averments of plaint were also repudiated by pleading/asserting that the plaintiffs/present private respondents were not appointed as contingent paid employee and their appointment orders are fake and fabricated.

4. Along with the plaint the plaintiffs/present private respondents had also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for grant of temporary injunction. The learned trial Court after hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties had allowed the afore said application of plaintiffs/present respondents and temporary injunction was granted against the defendants/present petitioners vide order/judgment dated 02-10-2018, which was challenged before the learned District Judge Skardu through Civil 1st Appeal by the defendants/present petitioners which was dismissed by the learned District Judge Skardu vide the impugned judgment/order dated 01-12-2018, hence this Revision Petition.

5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners contended that the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court is contrary to law and facts on the record of the case. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that the appointment orders dated 20th October, 2015 issued by the District Health Officer Skardu in favour of the plaintiffs/present private respondents are fake as District Health Officer namely Dr. Bahadur Khan was posted and was serving as District Health Officer Shigar at the time of appointment of the plaintiffs as contingent paid staff by District Health Officer Skardu. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that the District Health Officer Shigar vide his letter No. 23-DHO/MSC/2016 dated 20-10-2017 addressed the Director Health Services Baltistan Region has stated that no any contingent paid employee has been appointed in the office of District Health Officer Shigar, hence the appointment orders dated 15th October 2015 issued by the District Health Officer Skardu in favour of the plaintiffs are fake and fabricated as District Health Officer Dr. Bahadur Khan was appointed/posted against the post of District Health Officer Shigar on 10-10-2015 and he had joined his duty as District Health Officer Shiger on 19-10-2015 then, how the District Health Officer Skardu can appoint the plaintiffs as contingent employee in District Shigar. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further argued that the plaintiffs have failed to challenge the advertisement whereby the respondents Nos.2 to 4 had invited applications from the eligible candidates including the present petitioners, hence the plaintiffs have failed to make out prima facie arguable case, balance of convenience is also not in favour of plaintiffs and if temporary injunction is not granted in favour of the plaintiffs/present private respondents, the plaintiffs shall not suffer irreparable loss as if the plaintiffs eventually win the case they will be appointed against the posts of grade-1 by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the plaintiffs/private respondents supported the impugned judgment/order passed by the learned 1st Appellate Court by contending that the plaintiff No. 1 is land donor and rest of the plaintiffs were appointed as contingent paid employees by the competent authority, hence the plaintiffs were entitled to be appointed against the various posts of grad-1 on regular basis. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs/present private respondents further argued that Services, General Administration and Cabinet Department vide O.M. dated 16th January 2018 has directed all the Administrative Departments to give preference to the contingent paid staff/employees for appointment against vacant positions but the dependents / respondents Nos. 4 to 10 have violated the instructions of services Department Gilgit-Baltistan and have illegally appointed the present petitioners against the vacant posts in the Health Department of District Shigar, hence the plaintiffs have shown/demonstrated prima facie arguable case and balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiffs therefore, the learned trial Court as well as learned 1st Appellate Court have rightly granted temporary injunction against the present petitioners and in favour of the plaintiffs.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and with their able assistance, I have gone through the record/material available on file.

8. It is case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs were appointed as contingent paid staff/employees against the various posts of Grade-1, in Health Department District Shigar vide office orders No. 1415/DHO / Estb/201 dated 20th October, 215 by District Health Officer Skardu, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to be appointed against the various vacant positions of Grade-1 on regular basis as per directions of Government of Gilgit-Baltistan issued vide office Memorandum No. SC (5)-1-1(45) 2018 dated 16th January 2018 but the respondents Nos. 4 to 10 have illegally appointed the present petitioners against the various posts of Grade-1 in Health Department District Shigar.

9. It is well settled principle of law that in order to succeed in obtaining an order of injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. the plaintiff is required to demonstrate a good prima facie case in his favour, balance of convenience must also be in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff will likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury if temporary injunction is not granted. No. order of injunction could be granted unless all the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled.

10. From perusal of record it transpires that the plaintiffs have filed the suit on the basis of office order dated 20th October, 2015 whereby the plaintiffs/private respondents have been appointed as contingent paid employees in Health Department District Shigar by the DHO Skardu.

11. Admittedly District Shigar was created in the month of August 2015 and Dr. Bahadur Khan was posted as District Health Officer Shigar vide office order dated 10-10-2015 and he had assumed the charge of the post of District Health Officer Shigar on 19-10-2015. But it is astonishing to note that how District Health Officer Skardu has appointed the plaintiffs as contingent paid Grade-1 in Health Department District Shiger in presence of District Health Officer District Shigar. Moreover, the District Health Officer Shigar vide his letter dated 28-10-2016, addressed to Director Health Services Baltistan Region has responded/stated that his office has not appointed any employee as contingent paid staff. Hence, appointments orders dated 20-10-2015 issued by District Health Officer Skardu seem to be doubtful and fictitious. Thus plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate prima facie arguable case in their favour. Balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiffs/private respondents. Furthermore, if temporary injunction is not granted in favour of plaintiffs, the plaintiffs shall not suffer irreparable loss as they can claim a monetary compensation in case they succeed in their suit and plaintiffs can be appointed on permanent / regular basis with effect from the date of filing of suit.

12. The learned Counsel for the private respondents/plaintiffs has been unable to show the co-existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in the instant case. The learned trial Court as well as the learned 1st Appellate Court has committed material irregularity and illegality while granting temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the petitioners.

13. For what has been discussed above, I accept this appeal, and set aside the impugned judgment dated 01-12-2018 passed by the learned District Judge Skardu as well as order/judgment dated 02-10-2018 passed by the learned trial Court. Consequently the temporary injunction granted in favour of the plaintiffs/private respondents herein and against the present petitioners is vacated. Certified true copy of this judgment be placed on Civil Revision Petition file No. 112/2018, and Civil Revision Petition No. 113/2018. File. ZC/39/GB Revision allowed.