MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan

ORDER

MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- This is a writ petition seeking the following direction:--

"In view of above mentioned facts and circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may pleased to give direction to the respondents Nos.2 to 6 to release the pay of petitioner and the petitioner may kindly be permanent adjusted/regular in BPS-02 as Helper in Water and Power Division Gilgit with back benefits to meet the ends of justice."

2. We have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Assistant Advocate General. We have also heard the pleader for respondents Nos.2 to 6. In the attending circumstances of the case in hand, we have thoughtfully considered the admitted state of affairs between parties. Respondents have filed their parawise comments through learned Assistant Advocate General and parawise comments filed on 09-11-2015 show the signature of Deputy Secretary of respondent No.2 and Mr. Behram Khan Advocate, pleader for respondents Nos.2 to 6.

3. Contents of paras Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 are admitted which clearly show that respondents appointed petitioner against the post of Helper in BPS-02 on work charge basis, on 02-04-2010, in the department of respondents Nos.2 to 6. Respondents created 4448 posts in the department of respondents Nos.2 to 6 and constituted a committee for preparation of list of the temporary employees in the said department. Respondents adjusted all the temporary employees in the department in the light of so prepared recommendations by the so constituted committee. The only ground on the basis of which respondents denied to adjust the petitioner was that, in their opinion, petitioner was not eligible to be regularized. The ground for such denial on the part of respondents is that petitioner was over-age. In our opinion, it was duty of the respondents to prove that petitioner was not fit for regularization only because he was over-age. From admissions of respondents, made in paras Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 of the parawise comments, it is very clear that respondents appointed petitioner on 02-04-2010 and passed regularization orders of other temporary employees, except the petitioner, on 23-12-2013. So the question arises that why respondents made appointment of the petitioner on the temporary basis or work charge basis on 02-04-2010, if he was then over-aged? From perusal of para No.5 of the petition, it is evident that the regularization orders of 958 temporary employees of respondents department were made on 23-12-2013. It is also clear from the regularization order passed by respondents that they declared 958 work charge employees was regular. Moreover, respondents did not show any law that the non-inclusion of petitioner in the list of regularized employees was legal. Respondents failed to show that petitioner was over-aged on 02-04-2010 or even 23-12-2013.

4. We, therefore, allow this petition throughout and direct respondents for adjustment of the petitioner against any post on permanent basis. We further declare that petitioner is entitled to obtain back benefits of pay etc. from the date of regularization of rest of the temporary employees, i.e. 23-12-2013. Short order passed on 07-11-2016 be deemed as merged in this judgment/decree. Petition allowed. This file be consigned to record.

ZC/35/GB Petition allowed.