PARVEEN BATOOL Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan, Gilgit

MUMTAZ AHMED, CHAIRMAN.--- Since in all appeals mentioned-above have the same question of law and issue, for this reason, we intend to dispose off them through this single judgement and Service Appeal bearing No. "292/2024" titled as " Parveen Batool v. Provincial Government and others " filed by Parveen Batool , is taken as lead appeal for disposal.

2.Brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed these service appeals under Sections 5/6 of Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal Act, 2010 against the impugned Notification bearing No. Sec.Edu-3(3)/2019 dated 07.1.2019, whereby the Secretary Education/Chairman Upgradation Committee has been pleased to approved upgradation of posts of teachers in Education Department from BS-09 to EST (BS-14), TUGT BS-14 to BS-16 and PET/OM/BS-9 to BS-14 and OT BS-14 to BS-16 on acquiring prescribed professional qualification with immediate effect partially to the extent of word "with immediate effect" and for declaring the appellant entitled to financial back benefits with the following prayer:-

B. By declaring the Appellant entitled for all financial back benefits from the date of up-gradation of post w.e.f 03.07.2014 and the same may graciously be granted and redressed in favor of the Appellant under the law to meet the ends of justice and equity."

3.Vide our order dated 08.9.2025 , we have categorically passed an order to call upon/summoned Additional Secretary Education Department to appear in person to assist and argue the matter before the Tribunal or positively appoint any legal advisor to argue the matter, but he did not turn up before this Tribunal, nor he appointed any legal advisor, therefore, we heard the learned provincial law officer on behalf of the respondents and counsel for the appellant for disposal of all the above appeals.

4.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that despite the Notification bearing No. Sec-Edu-2(31)/2009 dated 14.5.2011 (available at page 11), issued from the office of the Secretary Education, GB, wherein the then worthy Chief Minister of Gilgit-Baltistan has approved the upgradation/re-designation of all the posts of teachers in Education Department Gilgit-Baltistan with effect from 01.07.2011 but the same benefits were not extended/given to the appellants. In this regard learned counsel also referred the relevant column of the said notification wherein the posts of teachers were upgraded who have acquired the required prescribed professional qualification. Learned counsel further contended that vide Notification bearing No. Sec.Edu-3(3)/2015 dated 03.4.2015, 70 teachers were upgraded in view of the above said notification, and they were given benefits from the date of the notification; further contended that when upon the turns of above mentioned appellants, the Education Department discriminated and the said benefits were not been extended/given to the present appellants and impugned notification was issued with "immediate effect" which is also contrary to Column No. 6 of the said notification as well as of the notification issued by the worthy Chief Minister, GB dated 14.5.2011. He further submits that another office order No. Sec.Educ-3(3)/2019 dated 17.03.2022 was issued by the department wherein 196 teachers were also given the same benefits w.e.f from date of acquiring required professional qualification to that of 70 teachers vide notification dated 03.4.2015 , and by this way appellants were discriminated and deprived from their lawful right, hence, the appellants are also entitled to get benefits of notification issued by the Secretary Education, GB from the date of acquiring of the requisite qualification as mentioned.

5.On the other hand, learned Provincial Law Officer as well as Muhammad Amin, AEO (Litigation) , have vehemently denied the contentions raised by the counsel for appellant. Learned law officer contended that under law, when the departmental appeal is time barred then how service appeal may be in time. In the instant case, appellant has partially challenged the impugned office order bearing No. Sec.Edu-3(3)/2019 dated 07.1.2019 to the extent of the word "immediate effect" on 13.3.2021. The cause of action (if any) accrued to appellant when the impugned office order dated 07.1.2019 was issued. The appellant has filed the instant service appeal after lapse of two and half years after issuance of the impugned office order. Therefore, the service appeals are time-barred. The appellants should have approached this Hon'ble Tribunal within prescribed time under Section 5 of Service Tribunal Act. Learned law officer argued that if the appeals are allowed a flood gate of employees will be opened and the spirit of limitation would be nullified; further maintained that where the departmental appeal/representation is time barred, without disclosing sufficient reasons for delay, service appeal would be incompetent. He placed reliance on 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1429, 2006 SCMR 453 and 2015 SCMR 165 ; argued that, even if the appellant's contention/stance is accepted as prayed for even then the appellant's case is made out as of discrimination, the matter would then be treated as a case involving claims of discrimination , which do not fall within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, therefore, this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. If the appellant claims any act of discrimination by the respondents, the proper remedy would have been to file a writ petition before the Hon'ble GB Chief Court, Gilgit ; submits that all the service appeals are barred by limitation. He lastly prayed for dismissal of appeals.

6.We have heard learned counsels for the parties and gone the record.

7.We have carefully examined the notification bearing No. Sec-Edu-2(31)/2009 dated 14.5.2011 (available at page 11), wherein the worthy Chief Minister of Gilgit-Baltistan has been pleased to approve the upgradation/re-designation of posts in Education Department Gilgit-Baltistan w.e. f 01.7.2011. In Para-(B)(d) of the said notification, it has been categorically mentioned as under: -

Moreover, vide office order bearing No. Sec. Edu-3(3)/2015 dated 03.4.2015, the Education Department has upgraded 70 teachers , in following manner: -

In the said office order the word "immediate effect" has not been mentioned and all those upgraded teachers were given the benefits of upgradation from the date of acquiring prescribed professional qualification.

Furthermore, in another office order bearing No. Sec.Edu-3(3)/2016 dated 14.11.2017, the department has upgraded 77 teachers in pursuance of the notification dated 14.5.2011 , and the word "immediate effect" has not been mentioned as well as the benefits of upgradation were given on acquiring prescribed professional qualification. Later on, the Respondents (Education Department) has issued the impugned office order bearing No. Sec.Edu-3(3)/2019 dated 07.1.2019, wherein the department has passed the following order: -

In the impugned office order the word "immediate effect" has been used in contravention of the previous two orders mentioned-above, which is based on mala fide. The respondents have wilfully and deliberately acted to undermine and deprive the appellants of their basic rights. The department in the year 2022 issued another office order bearing No. Sec-Edu-3 (3)/2019 dated 17.3.2022, in following manner:-

Through the said office order the department granted benefits to 196 teachers in view of notification dated 14.5.2011, and the word "immediate effect" was omitted.

We have carefully gone through all the notifications and office orders. The respondents willfully and deliberately have mentioned "with immediate effect" in the impugned office order dated 07.1.2019, therefore, the word "with immediate effect" is set-aside, all the appeals mentioned above are allowed and the appellants are declared equally entitled to the benefit of upgradation in view of Notification bearing No. Sec.Edu-2(31)/2009 dated 14.5.2011, with effect from the respective dates on which they have acquired the prescribed/requisite qualification.

MQ/4/GBST Appeals allowed.