AMIR HAMZA vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary GB, GILGIT art

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

AMIR HAMZA VS PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary GB, GILGIT art. 86(2)---Civil service---Posts of Grades I and II and Turbine Operator for a hydro power project---appointment---Local land-owners/affectees of the project, entitlement of---Doctrine of legitimate expectation---Policy statement(s) of Cabinet---Scope---Petitioners / affectees, being land-owners at the power project site, filed writ petition against the appointment of private respondents---Contention of the petitioners was they were promised to be appointed on the subject posts---Validity---Record [office letter(s) by Water and Power Division, resolution(s)/complaint(s) by affectees etc.] revealed that Hydro Power Project (in question) was approved by the Provincial Government, which was constructed on the land of petitioners; after installation of the machinery and pipe, due to the outburst of the pin stock pipe, the houses of the petitioners were damaged that and the petitioners through their formal resolution/complaint demanded the compensation from the respondents; the respondent ratified the damages that occurred to their houses during implementation of project and it had also been admitted by the respondents that due to leakage in the channel of power house the crops and trees of the petitioner had been lost; and a resolution (having been submitted by the affectees that upon approval of the PC-IV priority for jobs may be given to them) was also recommended that as per policy for appointment against the 2% provision of development projects, land donors/affected people and local inhabitants might be given priority on regular footing---Record also showed the orders issued to the petitioners by the respondents against the 2% development project, when the petitioners resisted the initiation of projects on their lands; and that after issuance of a letter dated 26th November 2014 the petitioners served the respondents on volunteer basis for a long period spreading over more than five years and the respondents in recognition of their volunteer services issued certificates of appreciation to the petitioners wherein they admitted that the petitioners were obedient hard workers rendering volunteer services---Till today remaining land is under direct grab of the project due to constant leakage and outburst of the pins stock pipe which passes over the houses and remaining lands of the petitioners---Petitioners were poor souls and only bread earners of their family, the respondents acquired their lands forcefully and against their will at a very low cost by giving them a nominal compensation and made commitment of providing employment which created a legitimate expectation that they will be compensated by means of employment when the project was completed and PC-IV approved---On the basis of said legitimate expectation conveyed by the respondents (authority) to the petitioners (beneficiaries) for their future security i.e. provision of employment as Grade-1 & 2 in the power project, the petitioners were working with respondents voluntarily with the hope that they will be appointed against the regular posts when the same will be created---Petitioners, admittedly, had eligibility (physical and academic) required for the posts of Grades I & II and belonged to the same vicinity where the power project was constructed, but the respondents failed to consider their day and night services and appointed other persons ( private respondents ), who were residents of far flung areas---Petitioners submitted an application when the respondents advertised the posts of Grades I and II and Turbine Operator for the said power project, and they were assured that they would be preferred during the process of appointment, as such the petitioner appeared before the selection committee due to commitment of respondents, but respondents after conducting interview, instead of appointing them, had appointed the private respondents by violating all rules and law and also against their own previous letter---action of the respondents was also against the policy and decision of Cabinet wherein it was held that the land donors would be given priority in appointments for the posts of Grades I & Il, as such the respondents had violated the policy by appointing the respondents beyond the local limits of the area where the project belonged, who were residents of other areas distancing 6 to 7 kilometers away from the place of duty of the Hydro Power Project---Doctrine of legitimate expectation has its genesis in the field of administrative law---Government and its departments, in administrating the affairs of the country, were expected to honor their statements of policy or intention and treat the citizens with full personal consideration, without any iota of abuse of discretion---Policy statements cannot be disregarded unfairly or applied selectively, which is akin to violation of natural justice---Doctrine of legitimate expectation is a procedural right---Claims based on legitimate expectation have been held to require reliance on representations and resulting detriment to the claimant in the same way as claims based on promissory estoppel which admittedly occurred in the present case---Official respondents were bound to appoint the petitioners on the vacant posts but they failed to abide by the policy and their commitment---Chief Court directed the official respondents to appoint the petitioners on the available posts of Grades 1 & 2 in Water and Power Department---However, prayer of the petitioners to the extent of termination of private respondents (appointees) was disallowed---Writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

AMIR HAMZA vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary GB, GILGIT art — 2024 PLC(CS) 1063 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 PLC