MALIK HAQ NAWAZ, J.---The petitioners by means of instant writ petition seeks directions of this Court to the respondents to make payment of the compensation, on account of damages of their properties. The contentions raised in the writ petition are that a committee was constituted to assess the damages. The so constituted committee assessed the damages and forwarded its recommendation to the respo ndents but since years, there is no response from the respondent side. It has further been agitated in the writ petition that another assessment committee has been constituted under the headship of Secretary Finance on the direction of Chief Secretary to re- assess the damages but secretary Finance is taking any interest in the proceedings. Lastly it is prayed that the respondents be directed to pay the compensation amount as approved by Central Assessment Committee with the markup w.e.f. 26-05-2010 to till date as the compensation has been paid to the blue eyed persons and denied to the petitioners is a discriminatory treatment, which is not permissible under law .
2. The learned Assistant Advocate-General submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable before this Court, as the compensation does. not fall within the definition of "fundamental rights". Per learned Assistant Advocate- General the compensation is always granted according to available resources and cannot be claimed by the respondents as their inherent right. The Assistant Advocate-General submitted that it was brought into the knowledge of the then Chief Secretary that the previous assessment was not carried out fairly and honestly , therefore, to ensure transparency a new committee has been constituted, which will re-asses the damages and there are many factual controversies which cannot be resolved by this Court in writ jurisdiction, therefore, the writ be dismissed being not maintainable.
3. On last date of hearing i.e. 23-05-2018 , Dy. Secretary Home and Dy. Secretary Finance were directed to appear in person and were also issued show-cause notices for their non appearance in the court on the last date of hearing. Both have submitted a detail reply to the show-cause notices and also submitted their comments.
4. We minutely examined the comments and found that the then Chief Secretary was justified to re-constitute a Committee to re-asses the compensation as, there were complaints that the earlier committee has not carried out the proceeding in a fair and transparent manner .
5. It is the prerogative of the Government functionaries to run their day to day affairs and the Chief Secretary being head of administration is well competent to order for re-assessment of compensation amount, if in his opinion, the previous assessment was not transparent. As evident from the comments submitted by the respondent some of the litigants have also filed Civil Suits, which are subjudice before the courts of competent jurisdiction. We carefully examined the pros and cons of the writ petition and we are unanimous that this Court cannot issue any order in favor of the petitioners as it involves some complicated question of law and facts, which are to be thrashed out by any Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter , where both the parties would be at liberty to adduce pro and contra evidence.
6. We would like to make it clear that writ jurisdiction of this Court could be invoked against an "established right" and not for establishment of a right. Fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 and under chapter-II of Self-Empowerment and Governance Order , 2018, such right should not and cannot be treated lightly or presumed to be interfered with in a casual manner , except when there is a State real emergency , however the policy decisions of Government is a prerogative of the Government and Courts cannot force the executive authorities to continue or discontinue a policy , when in their view, the same are not good enough for future. It is right of the Government to lay down a policy and then to enforce the same. Chief Court under Article 86(2) cannot sit in appeal in respect of a policy matter nor substitute the policy decision of the Government, unless and until the policy so made collides with the law, arbitrary or unreasonable. Compensation is not a fundamental right and it was paid to the effectees of sectarian violence but as submitted by the respondents that due to some mass level irregularities, the payments were stopped and a new committee was formed. We cannot issues any direction to respondents to release compensation to the petitioners but hope that their case will be considered fairly, honestly and justly .
7. There is no substance in the writ petition which is dismissed accordingly and show cause notices issued to Dy.
Secretary Home and Dy . Secretary Finance are discharged.
8. A copy of this judgment be sent to Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan for information.