2016 GBLR 41

RIFAQAT ALI Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit

Citation2016 GBLR 41

CourtSupreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan

Judge(s)Dr. Rana Muhammad Shamim, C.J., Javed Iqbal and Shahbaz Khan

ORDER

1. This petition for leave to appeal was directed against the impugned order dated 17.08.2015 in Civil Misc. No. 296/2014 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. Whereby the said Civil Misc. was dismissed being meritless. The petitioners being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with filed this petition for leave to appeal. This court vide order dated 07.04.2016 issued notices to the respondents and the case was fixed for final arguments today on 28.06.2016.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners filed a Writ Petition No. 55/2009 before the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court for regularization of their services against the post of Game Watcher in Khunjrab National Park at par with other employees of the said line and cadre along with back benefits as granted to the respondents Nos. 06 to 16. He further submits that the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court partially allowed the said Writ Petition to the extent of adjustment of the petitioners on permanent footing vide judgment dated 20.08.2013. Wherein the plea of the petitioners for grant of back benefits was not allowed. He further submits that the petitioners filed Review Petition No. 296/2014 before the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court instead of filing leave to appeal before this court which upon hearing was also dismissed vide impugned order dated 17.08.2015, hence, this petition for leave to appeal. He also submits that the said impugned order passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court is the result of misconception of law and misreading/non-reading of the facts of case, therefore, the same is not tenable and liable to be set aside.

3. On the other hand the learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents supports the impugned order dated 17.08.2015 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. He contends that the same is required to be maintained being well reasoned and well founded, therefore, no interference is warranted into it to meet the ends of justice. He also contends that there was no justification to file a Review Petition against the judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 55/2009 before the same court instead of filing leave to appeal before this Hon'ble Court. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy the same in response to the query of this court vide this court orders dated 07.04.2016 and 22.06.2016, hence, the impugned order is required to be maintained.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length, perused the record of the case file and gone through the impugned order dated 17.08.2015 in Civil Misc. No. 296/2014 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court. We are in agreement with the learned Advocate General as the learned counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy this court with regard to filing of Review Petition before the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court instead of filing leave to appeal before this court. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any illegality/infirmity in the impugned order as well, hence, we convert this petition into an appeal and the same is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 17.08.2015 in Civil Misc. No.296/2014 passed by the learned Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court is maintained.

5. The petition is dismissed in above terms.

6. HBT/82/GB Petition dismissed.