2010 GBLR 429 (PLP)
ZAHEER KHAN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 GBLR 429 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Appellate Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J., Syed Jaffar Shah and Muhammad Yaqoob, JJ |
| Parties | ZAHEER KHAN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 GBLR 429 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 GBLR 429 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Appellate Court bench comprising: Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi, C.J., Syed Jaffar Shah and Muhammad Yaqoob, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 GBLR 429 (PLP) (ZAHEER KHAN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art. 60(13)---Petition for leave to appeal---Civil service---Director Education, appearing in person stated that due to misunderstanding, he had instructed the Advocate General that court could pass any order; and with regret submitted that the petitioner was contingent employee and for the time being he would be adjusted/restored to his job accordingly---Director Education, however, stated that subject to the policy and financial position, petitioner would be adjusted against the regular vacancy in due course of time in his own right---Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of accordingly.
- Malik Shafqat Wali Sr. Advocate and Ali Nazar Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Advocate General Gilgit-Baltistan for Respondents.
- The Director Education, respondent No. 3 appearing in person has stated that due to misunderstanding, he instructed learned Advocate General that Court may pass any order and with regret submitted that Zaheer Khan petitioner is contingent employee and for the time being he will be adjusted/restored to his job accordingly. The Director Education however states that subject to the policy and financial position, he will be adjusted against the regular vacancy in due course of time in his own right, In the light of department for regularization of contingent employee.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 60(13)
Director Education, appearing in person stated that due to misunderstanding, he had instructed the Advocate General that court could pass any order; and with regret submitted that the petitioner was contingent employee and for the time being he would be adjusted/restored to his job accordingly
Director Education, however, stated that subject to the policy and financial position, petitioner would be adjusted against the regular vacancy in due course of time in his own right
Petition for leave to appeal was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
The Director Education, respondent No. 3 appearing in person has stated that due to misunderstanding, he instructed learned Advocate General that Court may pass any order and with regret submitted that Zaheer Khan petitioner is contingent employee and for the time being he will be adjusted/restored to his job accordingly. The Director Education however states that subject to the policy and financial position, he will be adjusted against the regular vacancy in due course of time in his own right, In the light of department for regularization of contingent employee. In view of the position explained by Director Education, the petition has barren fruit and disposed of accordingly. H.B.T./9/Glt Order accordingly.