2016 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

This is a writ petition, whereby, petitioner has sought the following remedy:- "It is therefore humbly prayed that.

1. The impugned discontinuation order dated 28/08/2015 passed by the respondent may kindly set-aside.

2. The respondent be directed to regularized the service of petitioner.

3. Any other relief."

2. In the petition in hand, petitioner has averred that the respondents appointed petitioner against the suit post on October 10, 2012 on contract basis, and on 02-10-2014, i.e., few days prior to expiration of the original contract period of services of petitioner, the same was extended for another year, i.e., till 10-10-2015. On 28-08-2015, respondents passed orders of termination of the extended period of contractual services of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved from the same, petitioner filed a writ petition, i.e., W.P. No.82/2015, which was dismissed through order dated 01-09-2015. For ready reference, we reproduce order dated 01-09-2015 of this court on W.P. No.82/2015, which goes as under:- 01. 01-09-2015 Mr. Amjad Hussain Advocate, for the petitioner. Heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not prima facie establish a case of petitioner fit for admission. Petitioner is admittedly working on contract basis against the suit post and so far the respondents have done nothing against him. Admission refused and petition dismissed in limine. File. Announced: 01-09-2015. Sd/- Chief Judge. Sd/- Judge

3. Petitioner has challenged order dated 28-08-2015 of the respondents through this petition and has specifically prayed for setting aside the same. While file shows that through order dated 25-08-2015, respondent No.4 has directed the District Accounts Officer Astore for discontinuation of salary of the petitioner on the ground that petitioner remained absent from duty. Both the orders, i.e., order dated 25-08-2015, reproduced hereunder, and order dated 28-08-2015 have been written by respondent No.4. In order/letter dated 25-08-2015, respondent No.4 has directed the Accounts Officer of Astore for discontinuation of salary of the petitioner and in order/letter dated 28-08-2015, the same respondent No.4 has conveyed message of his action against petitioner to respondent No.3. For ready reference, we reproduce the said order dated 25-08-2015, which goes as under:- Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Office of the Deputy Director LG&RD District Astore. No.lG&RD-1(1)/2014 Dated 25th August 2015. To, The District Accounts Officer Astore. Subject:- STOPPAGE OF SALARY. It is brought to your notice that Mr. Sabir Ali Secretary Union Council Doyain Astore is found absent from duty. It is requested that his salary may please be discontinued forth with. Sd/xxx Deputy Director LG&RD District Astore. Copy for Information:- The Director LG&RD Gilgit Region Gilgit. Sd/xxx Deputy Director LG&RD District Astore.

4. So both the orders/letters dated 25-08-2015 and order/letter dated 28-08-2015 does not show any termination of the services of petitioner. 5. [It is very important to note that both the orders dated 28-08-2015, challenged through this petition, and order dated 25-08-2015, so far not challenged anywhere, were in the field before our order on W.P. No.82/2015, therefore, petitioner may have challenged the same through the said petition (W.P. No.82/2015) or must have challenged the same through the said writ petition. In our opinion, no different circumstances have arisen, giving any fresh cause of action for this petition. Moreover, through both the said orders, respondent No.4 has passed orders directing discontinuance of salary of the petitioner on the ground of absence of petitioner from the duty. Obviously, petitioner is working in the office of respondent No.4, therefore, is supposed to work in subordination of his immediate boss, i.e., responsible No.4 and respondent No.4 has every right to take disciplinary action against petitioner if petitioner remained absent from his duty. So, the action or impugned order is a very simple disciplinary action against the petitioner and nothing new has been pointed out giving a new cause of action, different from cause of action for the W.P. No.82/2015. It is also important to note that petitioner did not file any application etc before respondent No.4 or any other respondent explaining his position regarding the impugned order and order dated 25-08-2015. Therefore, petition in hand is not fit to be admitted for regular hearing. So, we refuse admission of this petition. Admission is refused. File be consigned to record.]A ZC/141/GB Petition dismissed.