Qazi Alam Zeb Vs Govt

JUDGWIEIITT SI{EET

PESSAWAII.HIGH COURT,

ABBOTTABAD BENCH

JUDICIAL DEPA RT]I,TEN7'

Writ Petition No.l012-,4 of 2AM

JUDGMENT

Date of hearing............... I 8. I 0. 20 1 B.

Pet it ioneusttQazi Alam Zebt in pcrson Respondent(s). (Goverr,ment of KPK & others) bjt A,ly. yasit, Zahoor Abbasi, Assist: AG.

SYED MUHAMMAD ATTIOUE SHAH. J.-

Qazi Alam Zeb, the petitioner, through the instant Constitutional petition urrder Adicle 199 of the Constitution of Islarnic Republic of Pakistan 1973 has prayed for:-

"Thttl the impugned olJice order bearing No. ^lO (LG-1)2-343/reuuit/201 5 dated: 04.04,2016 to the exte t of the petitioner ma), glaciottsly lte declared rrs unconstitutional, based on malalide, discriminalory, politicaily motitated, illegal, without lawful authority, lravi,rg fio legfll elfecl hence be slrucl; down and the respondenls may please be directed lo pay lhe salary of lhe pelilioners wilh e.f/bcl from Febrory,20l6 onward or anj, other wril, order or relief which m&! deem ftt and oppropriflte i,, I circt n startces of lhe c$e, ,a)' ulso be passedlissued".

lhe

2.Brief but relevant lbcts as per contents of the petitions are that in response to the advertisement floated by the respondents for appointments of class-IV, tlie petitioner being eligible candidate applied for his appointment for post of Naib Qasid (BPS-1) on the basis of village council as well as union council and atler going through the process of interyiew by the selection committee, he was duly appointed as class-lV (BPS-l) by the respondent No. 5 and then a{ter completion of all the codal formalities,, he started to perform his duties at the place ofhis posting but he was not paid any saiary and ir.r the n.reanwhile, respondent No. 5without mentioning ally reason r.vithdrawn the appointment order of the petitioner. Hence. the present writ petition.

3.Heard and record perused.

4.Perusal of the record reveals, that the present petitioner rvas appointed as class-iv in respondents' department. However, later-, his services were terminated by respondent No. 5 vide impugned order bearing No. SO (LG- 1)2- 343/recruitl20l5 dated: 04.04.2016. However, it transpires frorn the appointment order of the petitioner that his position and status was of civil servant, thus, the impugned orders of respondent No.5 directly relates to the tenns and conditions of his services, rvhich is not amenable to the u,rit jurisdiction of this Court undel Article 199 of the Constitution in view of the bar contained in Articie t 212 crf the Constitution of 1973. Reliance is placed on case tilled 'Pit Muhantmud Ys. Governnreut of

J

Balushistan through ChieJ' Secretary urd olhers' 2007 scMR.54

5.Moleover, it is also evident trorri record of the case, that the petitioner has not ttade departmental appeal/tepresentation against the impugned older. Rather, he has straightaway impugned the same before this Court through present petition. Theretbre, in the peculiar l'acts, circumstances of the present writ petition, this Cout in the larger interest of justice, and in the light of case larv reported as 2017 PLC (C.S), 692 and 20{}4 PLC (C.S) 1240, tteats the present petition as departmental representation/ appeal of the petitioner with directions to respondent No' 2 to consider the grievance of petitioner and decide the matter, strictly in accordance rvith tlie larv, and also provide an opportunity of hearing, u'ithin a period ofthirty days, trom the date ofreceipt ofthis judgment/order, and decision so made be als<; communicated to the petitioner.

p1J8J0.291&

,KK

.I{'DGE

4rehal Ali' Hon'ble Jtr"ttice, Syetl lfuhammari ,lttique Shah <ft Hon'ble 'hrtice Sy?d