2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)
SALMA AZIZ Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN, through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 4 others
| Citation | 2020 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N) |
| Forum / Court | Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court |
| Bench Members | Malik Haq Nawaz and Ali Baig, JJ |
| Parties | SALMA AZIZ Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN, through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 4 others |
| Primary Law | Civil service |
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: Malik Haq Nawaz and Ali Baig, JJ.
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) (SALMA AZIZ Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN, through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 4 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Munir Ahmed for Petitioner.
- Assistant Advocate General for Respondents.
- 5. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate General and legal Advisor Education Department opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that as per rules five years service in BPS-17 is required to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director BPS-18 but the petitioner has not completed five years service as Assistant Director (BPS-17) as the petitioner has been appointed on regular basis on 23-4-2015. The learned Assistant Advocate General further argued that although the petitioner was appointed against the post of Assistant Director (BPS-17) on contract basis on 31st October 2009 but her contractual service cannot be counted towards length of service prescribed for promotion to a higher post.
Headnotes / Summary
Appointment on contract basis
Contention of petitioner/employee was that she was entitled for promotion against the vacant post whereas department contended that contractual service could not be counted towards length of service prescribed for promotion to a higher post
Employee was senior most in the department and had served for about six years on contract basis and her service had been regularized
Employee was entitled to be promoted against the vacant post in the department
Service rendered on ad-hoc/contract basis under Federal Government followed by regular appointment in the same pay scale was to be counted towards length of service prescribed for promotion to a higher post provided there was no break between the ad-hoc and regular appointments to the post concerned
Employee had completed required length of service for promotion to the vacant post
Authorities were directed to promote the employee against the said post in the department
Impugned advertisement to the extent of disputed post was set aside
Writ petition was allowed, in circumstances. [Paras. 7, 9 & 10 of the judgment]
Judgment & Decree
ALI BAIG, J.
This Writ petition has been filed by petitioner namely Salma Aziz under Article 71(2) of (Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerments and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 wherein the petitioner has sought the following relief/remedy:-
2. In the light of above mentioned facts it is therefore humbly prayed that this writ petition may graciously be accepted and the respondents may very kindly be directed to promote the petitioner from Assistant Director (BPS-17) to Deputy Director (BPS-18) to meet the ends of justice. OR Any other relief which this Hon'ble court deems proper and just may kindly be granted.
3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition are that the petitioner is performing her duties as Assistant Director (BPS-17) in the Department of Women Development Gilgit-Baltistan for last many years, therefore, she is entitled to be promoted against the vacant post of Deputy Director (BPS-18) in the aforesaid Department against the 50% promotion quota as per rules. The petitioner has further pleaded/averred that the respondents have illegally advertised the aforesaid post through advertisement published in daily K-2 Gilgit-Baltistan on 3rd January 2018 as such the aforesaid advertisement is to be declared ab-initio void and the respondents may be directed to promote the petitioner against the post of Deputy Director (BPS-18) with effect from the date of her eligibility.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the petitioner was appointed against the post of Assistant Director (PBS-17) on contract basis in the Department of Women Development and Social Welfare Gilgit-Baltistan vide Office Order/Circular No. WDD-1-1 (4) 2009 dated 31st October 2009 and thereafter her contractual service has been extending by the respondents on year to year basis. Finally the services of the petitioner and other contract employees were regularized vide Notification No.Sec-Edu-2 (14)/2015 dated 27th April 2015. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the petitioner is senior most Assistant Director (BPS-17) in concerned Department therefore, she is entitled to be promoted against the post of Deputy Director (BPS-18) and the respondents have illegally advertised the aforesaid post by inviting applications from the candidates as per rules promotion of Departmental quota to be made first and direct recruitment would be made later on.
5. On the other hand the learned Assistant Advocate General and legal Advisor Education Department opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that as per rules five years service in BPS-17 is required to promote the petitioner to the post of Deputy Director BPS-18 but the petitioner has not completed five years service as Assistant Director (BPS-17) as the petitioner has been appointed on regular basis on 23-4-2015. The learned Assistant Advocate General further argued that although the petitioner was appointed against the post of Assistant Director (BPS-17) on contract basis on 31st October 2009 but her contractual service cannot be counted towards length of service prescribed for promotion to a higher post.
6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record with their able assistance.
7. Admittedly the petitioner is a senior most Assistant Director in the of Department of Women Development and Social Welfare Gilgit-Baltistan. The petitioner has served as Assistant Director (BPS-17) from 31-10-2009 to 26-4-2015 on contract basis and her service was regularized vide notification dated 27th April 2015 as evident from the record as such she is entitled to be promoted against the post of Deputy Director (BPS-18) in the aforesaid, department.
8. The respondents have also accepted the pleadings/ averments made in the writ petition by the petitioner in their parawise comments except that the petitioner has not completed the required 5 years service in (BPS-17) after her regular appointment prescribed for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (BPS-18) and her contractual service shall not be counted towards the length of service for the proper promotion.
9. In this connection the matter was considered in the Establishment Division and it has been decided that the service rendered on ad-hoc/contract basis in a post under the Federal Government, followed by regular appointment to a post in the same pay scale shall be counted towards length of service prescribed for promotion to a higher post provided there is no break between the ad-hoc and regular appointments to the post concerned as mentioned in Rule 22.1 of the ESTACODE. Rule 22.1 is reproduced as under:- "Under the existing rules, ad-hoc service does not reckon for the purpose of seniority. A point has been raised whether ad-hoc service rendered in a post followed by regular appointment to that post may be allowed to be computed towards length of service prescribed for promotion to a higher post. The matter has been considered in the Establishment Division. It has been decided that the service rendered on ad-hoc basis in a post under the Federal Government, followed by regular appointment to a post in the same pay scale shall be counted towards length of service prescribed for promotion to a higher post provided there is no break between ad-hoc and regular appointments to the post concerned."
10. In view of the above said/re-produced provisions of ESTACODE the petitioner has completed the required length of service i.e. five years for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (BPS-18), hence this writ petition is allowed. Consequently the respondents are directed to promote the petitioner against the clear vacant post of Deputy Director in Women Development and Social Welfare Department Gilgit-Baltistan within two months of the passing of this judgment. The respondents shall submit compliance report within two months to this Court through Registrar of this Court. Consolidated advertisement No. 5/2018 dated 31st May, 2018 to the extent of the disputed post of Deputy Director (BPS-18) Women Development Department Gilgit-Baltistan appearing at serial No. 109 case No. F-4-108/2018- (RCS)/2018 is cancelled. File. ZC/61/GB Petition allowed.