' SAHIB KHAN, J.--- Through this single judgment, we intend to dispose of Writ Petitions Nos.61, 63 of 2008, 37, 75, 81 of 2009, 19 of 2010 and 28 of 2010, as identical question of law and facts are involved in all the quoted writ petitions. The gist of each and every petition is as under:--- ' Writ Petition No,61 Petitioner Ghulam Ali, in this writ petition, of 2008 appointed on the recommendation of Federal Public Service Commission, has prayed for his promotion as Director Health Service being senior most and fit for promotion. (The learned counsel appearing for him Haji Miraz Ali, Advocate requested for withdrawal of petition.)
' Writ Petition No,63 of 2008 Petitioner an appointee as a Medical Officer BPS-17 on the recommendation of Federal Public Service Commission, has prayed for his anti-dated promotion.
' Writ Petition No,37 of 2009 This petition pertains to the promotion of the petitioner, who is an appointee as Associate Professor in the service on the recommendation of Federal Public Service Commission.
' Writ Petition No,75 of 2009 The petitioners through instant writ petition have challenged Draft Service Rules submitted by respondents Nos.1 to 5 before respondents Nos.6 and 7 for approval, claiming to be contrary to the existing Civil Service Rules and relevant law.
' Writ Petition No,81 of 2009 Petitioner in this petition has asked for inclusion of service period rendered by him in Public School and College Gilgit for the purpose of all benefits in present cadre, who has been selected by Federal Public Service Commission in the Education Department Gilgit Baltistan.
' Writ Petition No,19 of 2010 Petitioners appointed as Section Officers through the process of competitive test/interview conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission, seeks relief of permanent absorption against the vacant post of Deputy Secretaries.
Writ Petition No,28 of 2010 In this writ, petitioner has challenged tentative inter-se-seniority list prepared and issued by the competent authority.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Assistant Advocate General for respondents. Considered the available record and also have gone through the Judgments referred by the Assistant Advocate General and counsel for petitioners. Mr. Amjad Hussain, learned Advocate for petitioners submitted that after enforcement of Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the order, 2009) all categories of Government Services posts and offices defined in the judgments of Courts, in connection with the affairs of Gilgit Baltistan shall deem to be the service of Government of Gilgit Baltistan. The nomenclature of Civil Servant is now replaced by the newly assigned nomenclature in the Order 2009 for the service, posts and offices, i.e, The Service of Gilgit Baltistan." He in support of this version referred sub-clauses (t), (h) and (o) of Article 2 of the Order, 2009. According to him the referred judgments of the Courts are not applicable in the cases in hand in toto. Secondly the Public Service Commission provided under Article 80 of the same (Order 2009) and Service Tribunal has not been established till yet, till the existence of Service Tribunal to address the service issues of employees of Gilgit-Baltistan, if this Court closes its doors will result injustice to the employees with regard to their precious rights in service matters, therefore this Court while exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction entertain the service matters of the employees of G.B. The learned Counsel forcefully argued that under Article 81(1) of the Order 2009, the Provincial Government for Gilgit-Baltistan has the authority to appoint and regulate the rules in connection with the terms and conditions of employees in the Service of Gilgit-Baltistan, as such the matters in hand may be considered in that sanario instead of past practice, which is now closed chapter.
' The learned Assistant Advocate-General opposed the contentions with reference to the case- laws reported 2007 SCM R 1300, 1993 SCM R 1798, judgment of this Court titled Akhtar Hussain Chanagzi and others v, Provincial Government and others decided on 20-8-2008 and Dr. Fazal Rehman and others v. Provincial Government and others decided on 28-10-2009.
3. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record we found the following points are material in the matters in hand for determination:-
(a) Whether Civil Servant, defined under section 2(1)(b) of Civil Servant Act, 1973 can invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction, provided under Article 71 of the Order 2009, in the presence of "Federal Service Tribunal" established under the relevant law, even after promulgation of the Order 2009?
(b) Whether all categories of Government Services defined in the celebrated judgments of Courts shall be deemed as service in Government of Gilgit-Baltistan after enforcement of the Order, 2009?
' The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners were-asked to meet the above points, but they could not be able to put forward any reasoned arguments or legal provision supporting to their contentions, rather they re-submitted that since at present no special forum to address the grievances of all categories of employees serving in the area has been established as such it can rightly be presumed that no alternate forum is available to provide adequate and efficacious remedy to the employees of Government of Gilgit-Baltistan, except invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction vested with this Court, for the reason this Court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the grievances faced by the employees of Government of Gilgit-Baltistan.
4. There is no ambiguity in the historic back ground that the territory defined under sub-rule (t) of Article (2)(1) as Gilgit-Baltistan in the Order 2009 was called Federally Administered Northern Areas of Pakistan in the past. Ultimately the area being under the direct control of Federal Government had no independent legislative body or provincial setup, therefore the laws extended to the area by the Federal Government are mainly consisting of the federally legislated/ laws, likewise the Civil Servant Act, 1973 (hereinafter called as Act 1973) was also extended to the area and that regime, applicable to the related matters of the Government employees serving in Gilgit-Baltistan, irrespective of categories defined in the Judgments of Courts till the enforcement of the Order, 2009. However, the point agitated by the learned counsel, about the legal status of the Act, 1973, after ,the promulgation of the Order, 2009 and other extended law is needing answer in the light of provisions contained in the Order, 2009 through this judgment.
5. We feel it convenient to attend the second legal point marked as (b) raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the light of related provisions of the Order, 2009. As stated supra that in the Order, 2009, all categories of service, post and office have been held to be the service of Government of Gilgit-Baltistan. In sub-Article of Article (t) of Article 2(1), the territory of Gilgit- Baltistan, in Sub-Article of Article 'h of Article 2(1) the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan and in Sub- Article of Article 'o' of Article 2(1), service of Gilgit-Baltistan have been defined in the Order, 2009.
Since the point involved in the instant cases is limited upto the extent of availability/non- availability of remedy through Writ Jurisdiction to a civil servant hence we would like to confine the decision upto that extent. It would not be out of the place, rather it is proper to reproduce the sub- head (0) of sub-Article (1) of Article 2, Article 80 and Article' 84 of the Order, 2009 which are inter- alia related with each other, besides being relevant with subject under discussion and helpful for fair conclusion of the issue and reads:---
(o) Services of Gilgit-Baltistan , means any service, post or office in connection with the affairs of Gilgit Baltistan including the Council, but does not include service as Chairman of the Council, Governor, Speaker, Deputy Speaker, Chief Minster, Minister, Federal Minister incharge of the Council Secretariat or Advisor to the Minister or a member of Assembly or members of the Council and (h).
Section 81 Services.--- (1) Subject to this order, the appointments to, and the terms and conditions of service of a person in the service of Gilgit-Baltistan may be regulated by law.
2. Until an Act of the Council in respect of persons in the service of Gilgit-Baltistan employed in connection with the affairs of the Council, or an Act of Assembly in respect of such persons employed in connection with the affairs of Government makes provision for the matters referred to in clause (1) all rules and orders in force immediately before the commencement of this order, shall continue to be in force and may be amended from time to time by the Council or as the case may be, the Government.
3. Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (1) or (2) the position, or vacancy sharing formula between the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan and Government of Pakistan i.e, Gilgit-Baltistan Civil service and All Pakistan Unified Grades or District Management Group shall be as specified in fifth schedule.
' Article 84 (Part XIII- General ) of the Order, 2009 reads as under: ---
84. Continuance of existing Laws.--- Subject to the provision of this order, all laws which immediately before the commencement of this Order, were in force in Gilgit-Baltistan shall continue to be in force until altered, replaced or amended by an Act, of the appropriate authority.
(a) The expression laws includes Ordinance, Orders, rules, bye laws, regulations and any notifications and other legal instruments having the force of law, and
(b) The expressions in force , in relation to any law , means having effect as law whether or not the law has been brought into operation.
6. In the fifth Schedule annexed with the Order, 2009, vacancy/position BS-17 and onward a sharing formula for each grade has been formulated in between Government of Gilgit-Baltistan and APUG/DMG/APS by providing a chart specifying the percentage and the share earmarked for APUG/DMG/APS out of total numbers of vacancies in the service of Gilgit-Baltistan.
7. It is admitted on the part of the parties that no Act by the Gilgit-Baltistan Council, Assembly has been enacted or order by the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan has been passed with regard to the terms and conditions of the service of the employees, as envisaged under Article 81(1) of the Order 2009. The legislature wisely forecasted the position provided special Article special provisions to meet the such gap, in the shape of Article 81(2) and Article 84 (Parte-XIII General) reproduced supra in the Order 2009. The bare readings of the above reproduced provisions reveals that Acts, all the Orders, Regulations, Rules and Notifications applicable/enforced immediately before the commencement of Order 2009, 'until an Act of the Council in respect of a person in the service of Gilgit Baltistan employed in connection with the affairs of the Council, or an Act of Assembly in respect of such persons employed in connection with the affairs of Government makes provisions for the matters referred in clause (1.). Resultantly all the statues, instruments already enforced coupled with the forums created under those are still in existence and having effect as those are creation of the Order 2009.
8. We once again desire to re-consider the point whether the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is available to adjudicate the matter of terms and service of Civil Servant, in the light of newly introduced legal document? For the purpose of easy approach to the point, it would be proper to go through the provisions of law and related abstract of the judgment of the Courts. Firstly the definition of Civil Servant as defined in the Civil Servant Act 1973 and reads:--- "Civil servant" means a person who is a member of an all Pakistan Service or of a service of the Federation, or who holds a Civil Post in connection with the affairs of the Federation including any such post connected with the affairs of the defence, but does not include, I, ... (II) ... And III ..."
10. The superior Courts of the country have further elaborated and interpreted the actual abstract and scope of the provision in the series of cases reported in the legal Journals, the closely related portion of judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan with the subject and context of those case can be read as under:--- I. In a case reported 2007 SCM R 1300 the august Supreme Court of Pakistan after though probe had observed that:- "From the above resume, we are of the opinion that appellants area, Civil Servants within the meaning of section 2(1) (b) of Civil Servants Act, 1973, as such the Federal Service Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide the matters relating to the terms & conditions of their service. Accordingly the impugned Judgment dated 18-12-2000 is set aside and both the appeals are allowed with no orders as to costs."
II. In the same case referred supra at page 1306. The august Court described that:- The Case of Muhammad Riaz referred supra decided by this Court in Civil Appeal 48 of 2001 is distinguished with that case of appellant as in that case Muhammad Riaz was the member of Police Establishment of the Northern Areas which was established by the Administration of Northern Areas which had its own rules and regulations of service, whereas appellant Mir Ghias Khan was appointed by Government of Pakistan KA/NA Division in a selection conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission and approved by the competent authority.
' In the light of above judgment coupled with many others the Division Bench of this court in the case titled "Akhtar Hussain Changazi and others v. Provincial Government and others" in Writ Petitions 5 to 7 and 12 of 2008, had hold that:--- "The identical ratio decidendi in the cited Judgments is that the employee in the Northern Areas serving as deputationists and the employee in the area, who have been appointed by the Federal Govt. Through KA/NA Division Islamabad or have been appointed on the recommendation of Federal Public Service Commission have remedy to their grievances pertaining to terms and condition of their service from Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad as this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain writ petition in respect of the employees coming with in the ambit of category (1) and sub category (a) of category (2) as being Federal employees coming within the meaning of the definition of Civil Servants, hence they could invoke jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad while the sub category (b) of Category (2) does not come within the meaning of definition of civil Servant, hence they could not invoke jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad."
11. On the basis of the above Judgments coupled with many other case-laws we feel no hesitation to agree and rely on the above findings of Court which are sufficiently embodied the legal position on the point of writ jurisdiction of this court in the matters of the terms and condition of Civil Servants. Although some identical cases involving similar point have been decided by this Court, wherein the jurisdiction of Court was not seriously pressed, or prior to the announcement of referred Judgment by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Jurisdiction, however, those are past and closed transaction and can not be re-opened.
12. In the light of what has been discussed above, we are of the considered opinion that:--
(a) That the laws/rules/regulations/orders/notifications etc. Enforced immediately before the promulgation of the Order, 2009 are still in force and shall remain in force unless and until the concern legislative quarter of Gilgit-Baltistan may not enact enforce/ adopt any alternate legislation or pass orders/rules in respect of relevant law. Hence the judgments of the Courts are having same effect and force as were prior to promulgation of the Order, 2009. All the institutions created under the enforced laws are still having legal effect and entity as they are creation of Order, 2009.
(b) The Civil Servant as defined in section 2(1) (b) can invoke the jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal for related matters of terms and condition of their service and not by Writ Jurisdiction of this Court, which is barred due to availability of alternate forum, competent to provide adequate and efficacious remedy to them.
13. All the petitions have been filed challenging the matters relating to terms and conditions of their service. All the petitioners being the Civil servants as defined in Civil Servant Act, 1973 are having alternate forum to provide adequate, and efficacious remedy to redress their grievances agitated in the petitions by the specially created forum known as "Federal Service Tribunal" .This court lacks jurisdiction over the matters, hence all the petitions except Writ Petition No,61 of 2008 dismissed.
Writ Petition 61 of 2008 stands dismissed as withdrawn.