2018 PLP (C (PLC(CS)N)

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.

Petitioners have challenged order dated 29-10-2016 of the learned District Judge Gilgit and order dated 14-12-2015 of the learned Civil Judge First Class No.1, Gilgit. Through both the impugned orders, the learned two courts below have passed decree in Civil Suit No.63/2004. So, this petition is against concurrent findings of the two courts below.

2. Respondents filed Civil Suit (C.S. No.63/2014) seeking declaration to the effect that they are permanent employees of petitioners in the department of PWD Gilgit-Baltistan. Respondents have very specifically averred in the plaint of the suit that petitioners appointed them under head 470 in the department of petitioners Nos.1 to

5. On the other hand, petitioners contested the suit through their written statement and pleaded that the office orders of appointment of respondents are forged, therefore, respondents are not employees in the department of PWD. Learned trial court framed issues in the light of pleadings of parties and passed impugned decree after concluding the trial proceedings. For ready reference, I reproduce the operative part, i.e., the decree passed by trial court, hereunder: RELIEF. I have heard the arguments pro and contra. Record perused. Fully agreed with the points raised by the counsel for the plaintiffs. The defendants filed an affidavit by stating that the appointment letters are forged. Now the law is clear regarding the evidentiary value of an affidavit. Where the department for cross-examination, the documents lose it's evidentiary value. Furthermore Exhibit D/4 was marked and exhibited on 8/9/2014 during the statement of DWs and a document once Exhibited could not be challenged. For what has been discussed by District Attorney and Legal Advisor, I am afraid that they have failed to properly defend this suit while plaintiffs have successfully made a suit in their favour resultantly, suit decreed in favour of the plaintiffs as per relief claimed. File be consigned to record room after due completion. Announced:- 14/12/2015 Sd/x Civil Judge 1st Class No.1 Gilgit Learned trial court decreed the suit and feeling aggrieved from the same, petitioners filed CFA No.140/2016 in the first appellate court, who dismissed the appeal in the following words:- RELIEF? The judgment and decree impugned through the instant appeal doesn't suffer any irregularity or infirmity or error nor the same is the result of misreading or non-reading of evidence and based on cogent reasons, therefore, doesn't call for any interference by this court, as such judgment/decree dated 14-12-2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class No.1 Gilgit is maintained and the appeal being without substance is hereby dismissed. ."

3. I have heard parties on their joint request and have gone through the material available on file. In my opinion, contesting party on behalf of petitioners is the provincial government for Gilgit-Baltistan (petitioner No.6). Some admitted facts are sufficient to accept as bases of this decision. Learned counsel for respondents frankly admitted at bar that any appointment against the head called 470 in PWD is always purely temporary. This fact is an open secret. From plain perusal of plaint, it is very evident that respondents have sought declaration to the effect that they are permanent employees of petitioners. So, the main question for determination is: Whether respondents are permanent employees of petitioners in the department of PWD G.B.? Another question that gives birth from the above question is: Whether the Civil Court has any jurisdiction to try the case if the respondents are permanent employees of petitioners? In this connection, I have gone through contents of pares No.8 of parawise written statement, wherein, petitioners have very clearly averred that the trial court has no jurisdiction to try the case. It is also very important to note that learned trial court did not frame any issue of jurisdiction.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties on the above two questions. Once it is admitted that the services of the respondents, even if admitted for arguments sake, are purely temporary and gives no locus standi or cause of action to the respondents to file a suit. So, the issues of locus standi and cause of action stood proved against the respondents. Yet another important aspect of the case is that the two courts below have burdened petitioners negatively, to prove that respondents are not employees of the petitioners. This notion is very strange and astonishing. Respondents were legally bound to establish that they are permanent employees of petitioners. File does not contain any evidence showing respondents as permanent employees of the petitioners. From plain perusal of averments in the plaint, it is evident that respondents claimed to have been appointed as employees in the head 470 of PWD and all employees of head 470 of PWD are obviously temporary employees. In my opinion, based on the admitted state of affairs, respondents never remained permanent employees of petitioners, therefore, both the impugned orders are result of erroneous approach of the two courts below.

5. Result is that this petition is accepted throughout. The above referred orders/decrees of the two courts below are set aside. Suit (Civil Suit No.63/2004) of respondents is dismissed. Anyhow, respondents are free to approach the Service Tribunal, if so advised. This file be consigned to record. ZC/190/GB Revision allowed.