' MUHAMMAD ALAM, J.--- This is a writ petition seeking the following directions against the respondents:- "It is therefore humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be given directions to the respondents to issue/continue the pay / salary of the petitioner from date of the discontinues (July 2011) to meet the ends of justice."
2. The admitted state of affairs is that through order No,E16/Admn/IX/1874/2010, issued from the office of the then respondent No,4, petitioner was appointed against the post of Road Coolly (BPS- 02) and the following office order was passed:- No,E-16/Admn/IX/1874/2010 GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN EXECUTIVE ENGINEER B&R DIVISION GB PWD Gilgit dated 12 Aug, 2010.
OFFICE ORDER Subject: APPOINTMENT OF WC STAFF ' With immediate effect Mr. Attaullah s/o Mast Khan r/o Minawar Gilgit (WC) is hereby appointed as R/Coolly BPS-2 on running pay against the maintenances A-13602 others plus others usual allowances and till further orders. Other terms and conditions of work charge services will remain the same.
Sd/xxx (Engr. Basharatullah)
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Distribution
1. SDO-II.
2. DAO.
3. P/Concerned.
4. Office copy SDC Iqba l Get joining report and depute on duties through S/Engr Naqshbar.
SD/- 27/X/X Petitioner joined his services in the light of said order. The ex-facie perusal of above referred appointment order of petitioner clearly shows that his appointment was as work Charge Staff (WC). Parties are not at dispute on the meaning of work charge appointment and the same means a person appointed against any project which is underway through any contractors of the respondents. The services of such appointee terminate as and when the contractor completed construction of such project. In the last lines of the above reproduced appointment order of petitioner, it is evident that the terms and conditions of work charge services were applicable to the case of petitioner. We specifically asked the counsel for petitioner for pointing out any violation of terms and conditions of work charge services, in connection with suit services of the petitioner, but the learned counsel for petitioner miserably failed to point out any such violation. Obviously, parties agreed to strictly adhere to such terms and conditions and petitioner is bound to establish any violation thereof on the part of respondents. Moreover, through the petition in hand, petitioner has simply prayed for continuation of his services but did not show any prima facie proof of continuation or otherwise of his services from July 2011 till today. It is also not disputed that there is no office order showing discontinuance of salaries of the petitioner from July 2011 onwards. We further directed the counsel for petitioner for presenting any case law showing that the petition in hand is competent in the light of the circumstances of the petition in hand.
3. We, therefore, hold that the petition in hand is not maintainable in the present form. We, therefore, dismiss this petition but with liberty to the petitioner to move any forum for the remedies sought through this petition, if the relevant law allows so. Petition is dismissed. This file be consigned to record.