2017 PLC(CS)N 45

NISAR ALAM Versus VICE CHANCELLOR, KARAKURAM INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, GILGIT-BALTISTAN

Citation2017 PLC(CS)N 45

CourtGilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Judge(s)Sahib Khan, C.J. and Muhammad Alam

ORDER

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- This is a Civil Miscellaneous petition, seeking contempt proceedings against respondents for willfully not complying the order dated 25-10-2010 of this court, passed in W.P. No.03/2010 and order dated 03-06-2014, passed in C.Misc. No.207/2013. Through order dated 03-06-2014, on C.Misc. No.207/2013, this court directed for implementation of order dated 25-10-2010, passed in W.P. No.03/2010.

2. Petitioner and 21 others filed a writ petition (W.P. No.03/2010), and a DB of this Court passed the following order in the said writ petition on 25-10-2010:-

10. We thus hold that the petitioners are entitled to continue and be adjusted against the positions and vacancies which arise from the time to time and after adjustment if any posts are left over than the same may be advertised. It is again advice that proper procedure and merit may be upheld so that the matters do not turn up in court for adjudication.

Announced

25-10-2010

For ready reference, we reproduce the prayer part of this petition hereunder:--

PRAYER

"It's, therefore, humbly prayed that by accepting this petition this August Court may be pleased to:--

1. direct the respondents to give all financial and academic benefits, mentioned in Court order of 25-10-2010 and Office Order No.KIU-Adm-1(15)/2011/24071 dated June 03, 2014.

2. Initiate legal action in contempt of court for willful defiance on the part of respondents.

It is prayed in the interest of justice, equality, fair play and supremacy of law."

Petitioner, who is present in the court, and his counsel also admitted at bar that respondents appointed petitioner in the light of above referred order of this Court. This happened soon after the above referred order of this Court. From plain comparative perusal of the above prayer part of this petition, with the above referred relief part of the judgment dated 25-10-2010, passed in W.P. No.03/2010, it is quite evident that this Court did not grant any financial back benefits to the petitioner nor there is any mention of academic benefits in favour of the petitioner. So, the petition in hand is result of misconception on the part of petitioner and is also result of wrong interpretation of above referred order of this court. Moreover, the question of contempt proceedings does not arise, once it is established that respondents did nothing in violation of the above referred order of this Court. Petitioner filed this petition after full implementation of order dated 25-10-2010, passed in W.P. No.03/2010. Although this petition is named as civil miscellaneous petition, but in fact, the petition in hand is second petition for implementation of order dated 25-10-02010 passed in W.P. No.03/2010. So, in our opinion, the petition is groundless and baseless, therefore, merits not to be admitted for regular hearing.

3. Admission of the petition for regular hearing is refused. This file be consigned to record.

HBT/69/GB Petition dismissed.