ZEESHAN AHMED vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit Baltistan, Gilgit Unmarried deceased Government employee — 2025 PLC(CS) 1213 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court

Case information

Citation: 2025 PLC(CS) 1213 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
Year: 2025
Reporter: PLC
Parties: ZEESHAN AHMED vs PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit Baltistan, Gilgit Unmarried deceased Government employee
Subject matter: Constitutional

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

Judgment text as reported

ZEESHAN AHMED VS PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit Baltistan, Gilgit Unmarried deceased Government employee---Adopted son of a deceased--- Entitlement for appointment--- Parents of deceased employee, nomination by---Scope---Claim/narration of the petitioner, adopted son of the deceased employee, is that parents and other uncles of deceased have no objection if he is appointed---Validity---Admittedly, the petitioner is an adopted son of the deceased, however, the Chief Minister's/Prime Minister's Assistance Package ('the Assistance Package") unequivocally speaks that in case of death of unmarried Government servant, the nominee of parents should be the real child of the parents of the deceased employee; and the parents of deceased unmarried employee may avail employment under the Assistance Package only by nominating one of their children for appointment/ adjustment under the Assistance Package---Claim /narration to the extent of grandparents of the petitioner is untrue, misleading and unfounded for the simple reason that the record (LRs), certificate of the deceased employee and relevant affidavit, does not mention that parents of the deceased Government Employee are alive and deceased left them behind as his surviving LRs---Thus, an adopted son is not eligible to be appointed against a post after death of the Government employee under the Assistance Package and even the parents of the deceased Government employee if they are alive have no legal authority to nominate the petitioner/a grandchild for appointment under the CM Assistance Package----Hence, the petitioner cannot claim his appointment against the post of LDC BS-11 under CM/PM's Assistance Package---Writ petition, being misleading and meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC

2025 PLC(CS) 1593 SUPREME-COURTPROVINCE OF SINDH VS AMANULLAH 'Mutatis mutandis'---Connotation---Expression mutatis mutandis generally applies for making certain adjustmen…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION R. 11---Identical cases, entertaining of---Scope ---Petitioner, while relying on R. 11 o…
2025 PLC(CS) 606 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRGHAZANFAR ALI VS VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR Principle---adequate alternate remedy----Under common law, remedy of…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Conduct of the party invoking writ jurisdiction of High Court---Scope and effect ---Peti…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION administration of justice---Points ascertained at time of admission of case---Subsequent…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Doctrine of laches---Indolence of aggrieved party---Effect---Petitioner filed the writ p…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English