ALI BAIG, J.---- This writ petition under Article 71(2) of Gilgit-Baltistan (Self Empowerment and Governance) Order , 2009 read with enabling Articles of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed by the petitioners, namely Israr Ahmad son of Habib Ur Rehman and Zia Ud Din son of Mir Wali, claiming that the petitioner No.1 was appointed by the respondent No.2 vide Office Order No.KIU-E stt-2(4)1201 1/22264 dated 14th June, 2013, and the petitioner No.2 was appointed by the respondent No.2 vide Office Order No.KIU-Estt- 2(4)/201 1/21864 dated 12th April, 2013 for a period of six months with a fixed pay of Rs.10,000/- per month.
Thereafter , the present petitioners were appointed as Office Assistants (BPS-14) on contact basis by the respondent No.2 vide Office Order No.KIU-Estt-2(4)/2014/23663 dated 1st April, 2014 and Office Order No.KIU- Estt-2(4)/2014/23665 dated 1st April, 2014 respectively , for a period of six months. The contractual services of the petitioners have been extended from time to time. Meanwhile, the post of Office Assistant has been upgraded from BS-14 to BS-16 vide Order dated 18-8-2016, but the petitioners were upgraded to BS-15 vide Order dated 31-03- 2017. On 12-12-2017, the petitioners requested the respondents to regularize their services on permanent basis, but the respondents are reluctant to regularize the petitioners on one pretext or other , whereas, the petitioners are entitled to be adjusted/regularized as per Office Memorandum No.F.53/1/2008-SP dated 11th May 2017, issued by Cabinet Secretariat Establishment Division Islamabad, hence, this writ petition.
2. Copy of this writ petition was provided to the respondents with the direction to file parawise comments in this court, which were accordingly furnished by the respondents on 07-5-2019, wherein, they repudiated the averments/contents of writ petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are performing their duties since their initial appointment on contract basis to the entire satisfaction of their senior officers; therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be regularized. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further argued that the respondents have already regularized services of several contractual employees vide different notifications/of fice orders, but the respondents are reluctant to appoint the petitio ners on regular basis which is discrimination against the petitioners on the part of the respondents, therefore, by accepting this writ petition, the respondents may be directed to regularize the contractual services of the petitioners in the interest of justice.
4. On the other hand, the learned Legal Advisor Karakuram International University has controverted the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners by contending that the petitioners should appear before the recruitment committee with other candidates and preference would be given to the petitioners, keeping in view their contractual services.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions / arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.
6. Admittedly , the petitioners were appoi nted against the posts of Office Assistant (BPS-14) vide separate office orders dated 1st April 2014 on contract basis and the petitioners are performing their duties from their initial appointment till to date to the entire satisfaction of their senior officers, as evident from office notes submitted by Director Estate Care and Controller of Examination, whereby , the above named officers have requested to convert the contract services of the petitioners into permanent footing. The petitioners have gained sufficient experience in their relevant fields; therefore, they are entitled to be appointed on regular basis. Moreover , the respondents vide Notification No.KIU.Adm-1(1)/2013/22320, Notification No.KIU-Adm-1(8)/2004 / 15422 and Notification No.KIU- Adm-1(1)201 1/19817 have regularized the contract services of more than hundred contractual employees against various posts, hence, the petitioners are also entitled to be regularized in the interest of justice.
7. In view of the above discussion, we are inclined to accept this writ petition. Consequently , the respondents are directed to regularize the contractual services of the petitioners within two months of passing of this judgment under intimation to this court. Civil Miscellaneous No.491/2019 is also disposed of along with this writ petition. File.