PLCCS 2025 Judgments

2025 P L C (C.S.) 907

[Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal]

Before Mumtaz Ahmed, Chairman, Munir Ahmed, Member-I and Muhammad Ashraf, Member-II

IRFAN HUSSAIN

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT and others

Service Appeal No.382 of 2024 with C.M. No.301 of 2024, decided on 3rd October, 2024.

Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011)---

----S. 9---Civil service---Transfer and posting---Place of posting/transfer---Discretion of employer-Authority---Grievance of the appellant was regarding his periodical transfer from one place to another within a short span of time without assigning any cogent reason---Validity---No doubt the appellant was a civil servant governed by the terms and conditions of Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act, 2011 ('the Act, 2011'), however, as per S. 9 of the Act, 2011 desired posting was not the perpetual right of civil servant and the concerned department could transfer any civil servant to serve at the place as given in the posting /transfer order---Appellant had failed to point out any term/condition which prohibited the respondent authority to transfer him from one place to another---Employment carries with it an obligation to serve, whichever place the competent authority posts / transfers the employee for administrative reasons---Appellant failed to establish that he was transferred/posted with mala fide intention by the competent authority---Employee cannot choose the place of posting and the authority knows where and how best the services of the employee are to be utilized---Transfer of an employee is an incidence of service and no employee can claim as a matter of right to remain posted at a place of his choice for an indefinite period---Record revealed that the appellant had been serving in the billing sub-division during his entire service from 2007, so in such situation how he could say that he was made a rolling stone during his entire service---Even as per impugned notification, the appellant had been posted from "Water and Power Division Gilgit" to "Water and Power Division Gilgit "with immediate effect---Competent authority can transfer an employee from one place to another on administrative ground and such kind of order does not violate any right of the employee and the competent authority is the best judge to choose the place of posting of an employee for smooth running of the official business and to get maximum benefit of his/her capabilities---There was no bar on the respondent / department to transfer the appellant from one place to another as per terms and conditions of S. 9 of the Act, 2011---Appeal filed by civil servant, being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Tahir Mehmood Abbasi v. District Coordination Officer, Rawalpindi and others 2009 PLC (C.S.) 327 ref.

Shahid Abbas for Appellant.

Farman Wali, Law Officer present on behalf for Respondent No.1.

Shafqat Ali,Legal Advisor present on behalf of Respondents Nos.2 and 4.

Jibran Rasheed Khan for Respondent No.5.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1148

[Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal]

Before Muneer Ahmed, Member-I and Muhammad Ashraf, Member-II

JAVED SHEIKH

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT and others

Service Appeal No. 120 of 2023, decided on 6th May, 2025.

(a) Gilgit-Baltistan Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975---

----R. 4(IV)---Powers of inquiry officer---Transgression---Effect---Punishment of dismissal from service, passing of---Scope---Allegation against appellant (dismissed constable) was of taking away stolen property from an accused of an FIR---Validity---No order of appointment of inquiry officer was available on file/record---Though in a paragraph of relevant Show-Cause Notice, while mentioning a name, it was written that he (citing said name) was appointed as inquiry officer---Inquiry officer concluded the inquiry with recommendations as "To sum up the whole discussion as I conclude that accused officer found guilt and proved the charges leveled against him. However, accused sent to judicial lock up after due completion of investigation" ('recommendation-in-question'); the words "accused sent to judicial lock up" mentioned in recommendation-in-question signalized that appellant was in police custody and inquiry officer had sent him to judicial lock up by exercising the powers of Criminal Court---Even, the inquiry officer had not recommended any kind of penalty to appellant; instead, he had convicted the appellant in criminal case stating therein that he was found guilty and proved the charge levelled against him and sent the appellant to judicial lock up, therefore, he had exercised his jurisdiction not vested to---Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned dismissal orders being invalid which were issued without following the proper procedure and reinstated the appellant to his post as FC in GB Police declaring him entitled to back benefits from the date of his dismissal---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

(b) Gilgit-Baltistan Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975---

----R. 4(IV)---Documentary evidence, absence of---Dismissal from service---Scope---Allegation against appellant (dismissed constable) was that of taking away stolen property from an accused of an FIR---Validity---Respondents/Department had failed to establish that the appellant had committed misconduct by not producing supporting documentary evidence/proof as they had not attached any single piece of paper to substantiate and strengthen their arguments/contention raised in their para-wise comments---Similarly, the facts and grounds narrated in relevant paras of the impugned dismissal order were mere assertions without any proof---Hence, said grounds could not be taken into consideration because there was no documentary evidence available on case file---Even, no record of confessional statement of appellant, recovery memo(s), statement of alleged recovery witness, notice on case file regarding the hearing/personal hearing of the appellant before passing the impugned dismissal order was annexed with para-wise comments---Respondents/Department had miserably failed to present any documentary proof to substantiate their contention made in the para-wise comments and validate their arguments---Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned dismissal orders being invalid which were issued without following the proper procedure and reinstated the appellant to his post as FC in GB Police declaring him entitled to back benefits from the date of his dismissal---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

(c) Gilgit-Baltistan Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975---

----R. 4(IV)---Charges against police official---Concurrent departmental and criminal proceedings, initiation of---Acquittal from Criminal Court---Scope and effect---Dismissal from service---Scope---Allegation against appellant (dismissed constable) was that of taking away stolen property from an accused of an FIR---Validity---Record revealed that the police department had also failed to prove the allegations of taking away of stolen property in criminal case against the appellant before the concerned Judicial Magistrate and the appellant had been acquitted from the charges leveled against him in criminal case and, admittedly, no appeal against the said acquittal order had been filed before any court yet---Thus, the acquittal order had also attained its finality on the same issue/allegation---Currently, two conflicting orders were in field, one order was acquittal from the charges by the Magistrate and another order was of dismissal of appellant from service by the IGP which had been made impugned in the service appeal---It is well settled rule that the court order takes precedence over the order of IGP---Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned dismissal orders being invalid which were issued without following the proper procedure and reinstated the appellant to his post as FC in GB Police declaring him entitled to back benefits from the date of his dismissal---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

(d) Gilgit-Baltistan Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975---

----R. 4(IV)---Charges against police official, levelling of---Concurrent departmental and criminal proceedings, initiation of---Acquittal from Criminal Court---Scope and effect---Dismissal from service---Scope---Allegation against appellant (dismissed constable) was that of taking away stolen property from an accused of an FIR---Plea of the respondents (Police Department) was that acquittal from court would not constitute a bar to initiate further disciplinary proceedings against the civil servant as criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings against the civil servant were independent in nature having different consequences---Validity---Though a civil servant can be dismissed from service in disciplinary proceedings even after acquittal from the competent court if he is found guilty during inquiry, however, in the present case, the appellant had filed (present) service appeal after his acquittal from the court---Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned dismissal orders being invalid which were issued without following the proper procedure and reinstated the appellant to his post as FC in GB Police declaring him entitled to back benefits from the date of his dismissal---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2006 SCMR 554, 1994 PLC (C.S.) 834 and 2004 PLC (C.S.) 563 distinguished.

(e) Civil service---

----Reinstatement into service---Back benefits, entitlement to---Scope---Grant of back benefits to an employee having been reinstated by the Court/Tribunal or Department, is a rule and denial of such benefits is an exception on the proof that such person had remained gainfully employed during such period---Once employee is reinstated in service after his exoneration of the charges levelled against him, the period during which he remained either suspended or dismissed cannot be attributed as fault on his part as his absence during this period was not voluntary on his part but it was due to order not to attend his job/duty, because on the basis of charge sheets, he was suspended and later on dismissed---Exoneration of appellant from the charges would mean that he shall stand restored in service, as if he was never out of service.

Inspector General of Police Punjab v. Tariq Mehmood 2015 2015 SCMR 77 and 2015 PLC (C.S.) 366 ref.

Shahid Abbas and Zafar Abbas for Appellant.

Abdul Wahab, Provincial Law Officer present on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.

Shireen Khan, SP present on behalf of Respondents Nos. 2 to 6.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 300

[Supreme Appellate Court (Gilgit-Baltistan)]

Present: Sardar Muhammad Shamim Khan, CJ

Reference No. 01 of 2023, heard on 3rd May, 2024.

(a) Gilgit-Baltistan System of Financial Control and Budgeting Rules, 2009---

----R. 11(a)-Annex-I (Entry No. 1)---Gilgit-Baltistan Rules of Business, 2007, R. 3(3)-Schedule-II, Serial No. 4(7)---Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, Arts. 92, 99(1)(a) & 118---Advisory Reference before the Supreme Appellate Court---New posts in Gilgit-Baltistan, creation/upgrading of---Gilgit-Baltistan Government, powers of---Federal Government, concurrence of---Scope---Opinion sought by the Governor Gilgit-Baltistan through Reference under Art. 92 of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, with regard to the questions of law concerning creation and up-gradation of any post without prior concurrence from Federal Finance Division, Islamabad---Supreme Appellate Court opined that under R. 3(3)-Schedule-II, Serial No. 4(7) of Gilgit-Baltistan Rules of Business, 2007 and R. 11(a)-Annex-I (Entry No. 1) of Gilgit-Baltistan System of Financial Control and Budgeting Rules, 2009, the Gilgit-Baltistan Government was empowered to create new posts after approval by Finance Department, Gilgit-Baltistan---Record revealed that a meeting pertaining to Package/distribution of funds for Gilgit-Baltistan was held on 13.12.2012 under the Chairmanship of Federal Finance Secretary Islamabad wherein Sr. Minister, Chief Secretary and Finance Secretary of Gilgit-Baltistan duly participated---In said meeting it was unanimously agreed that Government of Gilgit-Baltistan shall not create/upgrade any post without prior concurrence of Federal Finance Division, Islamabad---Said decision stipulated that "Since the Federal Government has to finance the budget of Gilgit-Baltistan, Government of Gilgit-Baltistan shall not create any vacancy without prior concurrence of the Finance Division. Otherwise, Finance Division will not provide any funding for the vacancy created by Finance Department, Gilgit-Baltistan (G.B) at its own---Finance Department will convey department-wise existing sanctioned posts to Finance Division by 31.12.2012"---Record (Annexures) revealed that Federal Government through as many as four letters from time to time (spanning from the year 2015 to year 2021) issued instructions restraining G.B. Government from creation and up-gradation of any post without concurrence of Federal Finance Division Islamabad---It was further noticed that the said instructions/letters were being complied with (implemented by) G.B. Government by transmitting the cases of creation and upgradation of posts to Federal Finance Division Islamabad for their requisite concurrence---Article 118 of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, provides that in case of conflict between the Laws of Pakistan and the laws framed under GB Order 2018, laws of Pakistan shall prevail---Word "Laws", as defined in Article 99(1)(a) of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, includes ordinance, orders, rules, bye-laws, regulations and any notification and other legal instruments having the force of law---Thus, said provisions of law prima facie stipulate that the instructions/orders/policy/Notification issued by Federal Government from time to time qua restraining the G.B. Government from creation and up-gradation of any post without prior concurrence from Federal Finance Division comes within the ambit of Article 99(1)(a) of G.B. Order, 2018---Thus, Supreme Appellate Court was of the considered opinion that in the light of the summary approved by the Prime Minister of Pakistan (having been annexed) and letters instructions/Policy issued by Federal Government and the laws laid down by Federal Government, the Govt. of G.B while creating and up-grading the posts in different Departments was under an obligation to get prior concurrence of the requisite posts from Federal and Finance Division Islamabad and G.B Government/G.B. Finance Division was not competent and empowered to create/upgrade any post at its own level because G.B. Government Finance Division G.B. was legally bound to follow the laws made/issued by the Federal Government---Keeping in view the decision taken in the meeting (pertaining to Package/ distribution of funds for Gilgit-Baltistan held on 13.12.2012 under the Chairmanship of Federal Finance Secretary Islamabad wherein Sr. Minister, Chief Secretary and Finance Secretary of Gilgit-Baltistan duly participated), it was clarified that G.B. Government shall not create or up-grade any post without prior concurrence of the Federal Finance Division Islamabad, otherwise the Finance Division Islamabad shall not provide any funding for the requisite created/upgraded posts---Thus, creation and up-gradation of any post by the G.B. Government/Finance Division G.B. would be totally useless for the purpose of implementation of the judgment passed by any Court in said regard---Reference was disposed of accordingly.

(b) Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018---

----Art. 92---Gilgit-Baltistan System of Financial Control and Budgeting Rules, 2009, R. 11(a)-Annex-I (Entry No. 1)---Gilgit-Baltistan Rules of Business, 2007, R. 3(3)-Schedule-II, Serial No. 4(7)---Advisory Reference before the Supreme Appellate Court---Creation/upgrading of new posts in Gilgit-Baltistan---Federal Government, non-concurrence of---Scope---Opinion sought by the Governor Gilgit-Baltistan (G.B.) through Reference under Art. 92 of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018 with regard to the legal position of the judgments passed by the Chief Court/subordinate Courts on the matters relating to creation/ upgradation of posts---Supreme Appellate Court opined that Gilgit-Baltistan Government is not competent/empowered to create/ upgrade any post without prior concurrence of the Federal Finance Division Islamabad, therefore, G.B. Government is bound to transmit the cases pertaining to creation and upgradation of posts to Federal Government/Federal Finance Division, Islamabad, for their concurrence and thereafter in the light of requisite concurrence sought from Federal Government G.B., Government will be in a position to comply with the judgments/orders of G.B. Courts in true letter and spirit---However, the Court, which has issued the direction for creation or up-gradation of any post in the judgment, should not adopt coercive measures or issue contempt of court notice to concerned Secretary while dealing with implementation petitions till the requisite concurrence is received---Supreme Appellate Court while dealing with so many CPLAs, pending before it, has issued directions to the Chief Court not to press hard the authorities of the concerned Departments in the cases wherein the concurrence has been sought from Federal Finance Division Islamabad, by the G.B. Government, rather the Supreme Appellate Court issued directions from time to time to the Chief Court for granting sufficient time to the authorities of concerned Departments in implementation of the judgments in question till the receipt of requisite concurrence---Reference was disposed of accordingly.

Muhammad Nazir, Advocate-General, Gilgit-Baltistan.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 891

[Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan]

Before Joher Ali and Jahanzeb Khan, JJ

ALI MUHAMMAD

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Secretariat, Gilgit and 6 others

Writ Petition No.152 of 2023, decided on 7th March, 2023.

Employment---

----Government Employees' deceased quota---Appointment---Real brother of deceased---Entitlement---Admittedly, the petitioner was real brother of deceased and the children of deceased were minor, therefore, they were not eligible for appointment against the post of Sub Engineer (BS-11) while the widow of the deceased was not willing to be appointed against the said post, rather she had nominated the petitioner for appointment against the said post as he (petitioner) was the sole bread earner of the family---Moreover, the petitioner was looking after the children of the deceased, therefore, he was entitled for appointment against the post of Sub-Engineer (BS-11) [under the Prime Minister Family Assistant Package]---Furthermore, record transpired that the respondents, previously, on two instances, had appointed real brothers of deceased employees---Thus, act of the respondents against the present petitioner was discriminatory, unacceptable and misappropriate---Petitioner, being eligible and having relevant qualification/ degree, was entitled for appointment against the post of Sub Engineer (BS-11) under the PM Family Assistance Package admissible to the family members of Government employees who died during their services---Chief Court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner against the post of Sub-Engineer (BS-11) under the Prime Minister Family Assistant Package---Writ petition was allowed.

Ghulam Muhammad for Petitioner.

Muhammad Qadir, DAG for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1213

[Chief Court Gilgit-Baltistan]

Before Inayat-ur-Rehman and Jahanzeb Khan, JJ

ZEESHAN AHMED

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit Baltistan, Gilgit

Writ Petition No. 592 of 2022, decided on 26th April, 2024.

Employment Prime Minister's/Chief Minister's Assistance Package---

----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.

Ghulam Muhammad for Petitioner.

Mahmood Kamal Afandi, D.A.G., assisted by L.A. Zia-ur-Rehman for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 540

[High Court (AJ&K)]

Before Syed Shahid Bahar, J

SHOAIB MEHMOOD AWAN

Versus

OMBUDSMAN (MOHTASIB), AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR and 3 others

Writ Petition No.457 of 2023, decided on 10th June, 2024.

(a) Civil service---

----Posts relating to direct quota---Recruitment through promotion instead---Compliance report as well as written statement submitted by the official respondents showed that they (official respondents) were bent upon to fill posts in question through promotions from the other employees of the department and in said regard they had initiated proceedings and convened meetings secretly, which depicted that they had admitted the version of the petitioner regarding availability of the posts relating to the direct quota of appointment but they were not taking any steps to advertise the same for induction in accordance with rules and were delaying the matter unnecessarily---Record (of another writ petition previously filed by someone else) revealed that official respondents in the said proceedings had themselves admitted that 02 vacant posts of Section Officers relating to the direct quota of recruitment were vacant in the department---There was nothing to prolong the mater and to avoid the process of law on the part of the respondents because the petitioner had sufficiently proved the availability of the posts---Act of the respondents regarding non-advertisement of the posts for direct recruitment indicated that they were bent upon to fill in the posts in question through promotion---Thus, both the posts were liable to be advertised forthwith against the quota of direct recruitment---High Court directed the official respondents to advertise 02 vacant posts of Section Officer BPS-17 for permanent induction against the quota reserved for direct recruitment within 01 month; and till the permanent induction of the said posts, petitioner shall not be relieved or disturbed---Writ petition was allowed accordingly.

(b) Civil service---

----Posts relating to direct quota---Recruitment through promotion instead---Salary for service on ad hoc basis---Entitlement---Written statement submitted by the official respondents showed that they (official respondents) had admitted that the petitioner was still serving as ad hoc Section Officer and he has not been relieved by the competent authority---Thus, there appeared no justified reason to stop salary of the petitioner and respondents were bound to pay his salary---Furthermore, his ad hoc service shall not be disturbed till the permanent appointment in due process of law---High Court directed respondents to do needful qua payment of remaining/outstanding monthly salary of the petitioner in his capacity of Section Officer---Writ petition was allowed accordingly.

(c) Civil service---

----Posts relating to direct quota---Recruitment through promotion instead---Admission of officials/department---Effect---Record (compliance report/written statement submitted by the official respondents) showed that they (official respondents), had admitted that 02 vacant post of Section Officer fell in the quota of direct recruitment---Thus, things admitted need not be proved---Law required advertisement of the posts-in-question as well as fair and transparent selection process, resulting is meritorious appointment to such posts---Any rigmaroles, unnecessary delay and pendency in such-like matters gives birth to suspicion---Thus, both the posts were liable to be advertised forthwith against the quota of direct recruitment---High Court directed the official respondents to advertise 02 vacant posts of Section Officer BPS-17 for permanent induction against the quota reserved for direct recruitment within 01 month; and till the permanent induction of the said posts, petitioner shall not be relieved or disturbed---Writ petition was allowed accordingly.

Ch. Shoukat Aziz for Petitioner.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 36

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J

MUHAMMAD NADEEM SAJID

Versus

NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU and others

Writ Petition No.2396 of 2024, decided on 1st October, 2024.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Employee of National Accountability Bureau (NAB)---Show-cause notice---Constitutional petition challenging show-cause notice---Concealment of facts---Incorrect certificate---In certificate filed along with present petition, it was stated to be the first Constitutional petition filed by petitioner before High Court on the subject matter---However this was untrue as earlier petitioner had filed a Constitutional petition before another High Court challenging same show-cause notice which had been assailed in instant petition---High Court declined to interfere in the matter---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Sajjad Ahmad v. Chairman, Capital Development Authority 2016 CLC 896; Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan 1969 SCMR 141; Ramzan v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner PLD 1968 Lah. 258; Muhammad Saddiq v. Ruqaya Khanum PLD 2001 Kar. 60; Dilawar Hussain v. District Coordination Officer 2004 CLC 324; Shaukat Medicos v. Government of the Punjab 2005 YLR 171; Muhammad Akram v. Mansoor Sarwar Khan, Barrister-at-Law 2006 CLC 40; Bashir Ahmed v. Habib 2006 MLD 148; Lahore Development Authority v. Shamim Akhtar 2003 MLD 1543; Abdul Majid v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2024 YLR 982 and Azim Khan v. Government of Punjab 2023 MLD 1611 rel.

Ch. Afrasiab Khan for Petitioner along with the petitioner in person.

Yasir Saleem Rana, Senior Special Prosecutor and Muhammad Rafay Maqsood, Special Prosecutor, NAB for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 268

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J

Dr. ABDUR RASHID

Versus

DRUG REGULATORY AUTHORITY OF PAKISTAN (DRAP) through Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Islamabad and 30 others

Writ Petitions Nos.541, 558 and 634 of 2020, decided on 20th September, 2024.

(a) Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act (XXI of 2012)---

----S. 23---Making of rules---Expression "for carrying out the purposes of this Act"---Scope---Expression "for carrying out the purposes of this Act" implies that where provisions of Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 require for a certain matter to be prescribed by rules made by Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP) and approved by the Federal Government, it must be a fortiori be so prescribed through rules and not regulations or any other form of subordinate legislation which are not required by the provisions of Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 to be approved by Federal Government.

(b) Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act (XXI of 2012)---

----Ss.23 & 24---Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Employees Service Regulations, 2015---Rules of Business, 1973, R. 14 (1)(c)---Making of rules and regulations---Approval of Policy Board---Absence of decision of Cabinet---Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan, contended that Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Employees Service Regulations, 2015 were approved by Policy Board and had also been vetted by (i) Establishment Division, (ii) Regulations Wing of Finance Division, and (iii) Law and Justice Division---Validity---Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Employees Service Regulations, 2015, could not be elevated to the status of rules, which in terms of S. 23 of Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 had to be made by DRAP with the approval of Federal Government---Mere vetting of regulations by different Divisions could not be equated with a decision taken by Federal Government, i.e. the Federal Cabinet---As Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Employees Service Regulations, 2015 were made in exercise of statutory power, consultation with Law and Justice Division was mandatory in terms of R. 14(1)(c) of Rules of Business, 1973---Amendments in Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Employees Service Regulations, 2015 made vide notifications dated 10-09-2015 and 23-06-2017 were with the approval of Policy Board and not Federal Government.

(c) Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act (XXI of 2012)---

----Ss.4(2), 7(m), 14(1), 15(5)(a) & 23---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114---Promotion---Previous law, applicability of---Principle of estoppel---Applicability---Petitioners were employees of Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan and sought directions for their promotions---Validity---Since petitioners had exercised options under S.15(5)(a) of Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 without any demur, protest or reservation, it would be deemed that they considered Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Employees Service Regulations, 2015 as containing all information necessary for them to have made meaningful and informed decision to opt to continue serving as civil servants---Petitioners were estopped from going back on their footsteps to challenge option that they voluntarily exercised four and a half years before filing of Constitutional petition---Options exercised by petitioners under S. 15(5)(a) of Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 in response to DRAP's office orders dated 19-05-2015 were irrevocable and petitioners were estopped from seeking reversal of such option---Office order dated 11-02-2020 issued by DRAP whereby a Departmental Promotion Board was constituted to consider Additional Directors serving in DRAP for promotion to the posts of Director did not suffer from any legal infirmity---High Court directed Federal Government, on the recommendations of Policy Board, to prescribe functions, relevant experience, qualifications, terms and mode and manner of appointment of Directors in terms of S. 4(2) of Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 within a period of two months---High Court directed Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan, with the approval of Federal Government, to prescribe rules for seniority, promotion, code of conduct, and terms and conditions of service of its employees in terms of S. 7(m) read with S. 23 of Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012---High Court further directed Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan, with the approval of Federal Government, to make rules under S. 14(1) read with S. 23 of Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 in accordance with which criteria for recruitment and selection of employees and officers would be determined by Policy Board---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2016 SC 808; Zia Ghafoor Piracha v. Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Rawalpindi 2004 SCMR 35 and Human Right Case No.752/2009 ref.

Ali Nawaz Kharal, Danish Aftab and Rana Rashid Javed for Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.541/2020 and 634/2020).

Dr. G.M. Chaudhry for Petitioners (in Writ Petition No.558/2020).

Barrister Adnan Saboor Rohaila and Umair Akram along with Dr. Obaid, Director (Admin), Usman Badar, Director (Admn), Murad Khan and Hafiz Bilal Bin Akbar, Deputy Directors (Legal), DRAP.

Atta Ullah Hakim Kundi for Respondents Nos.7 to 9 (in Writ Petition No.558/2020).

Arshid Mehmood Kiani, Deputy Attorney General along with Shoaib Ali Khan, Deputy Director (Legal) and Majid Khan, Assistant Director (Legal), Ministry of National Health Services, Regulation and Coordination.

M. Waqas Haral, Section Officer (Lit.), Establishment Division.

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

2025 P L C (C.S.) 492

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, J

Hafiz MUHAMMAD YAQOOB

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Federal Education and Professional Training, Government of Pakistan and 7 others

Writ Petition No.4163 of 2021, decided on 7th June, 2023.

(a) Employment---

----Deceased employee---Family pension---Tarka---Entitlement---Father of the deceased employee assailed concurrent findings whereby the widow of the deceased was held entitled for financial benefits---Validity---Term "Tarka" is the grant / benefit which an employee shall be entitled to / can claim during his lifetime / period of service; and the non-tarka are the benefits which have not accrued to the employee while he was alive or in service but accrue or become payable to him after his demise/service, for which nominated legal heirs of employee become entitled after his death---Pension Rules, 2018, while dealing with the matter of Gratuity and Family Pension, provide that same will be given to the wife or wives, in case of a male Government servant ; husband, in case of a female Government servant; children of the Government servant; widow or widows and children of a deceased son of the Government servant; and similarly family pension is also liable to be paid to widow of the deceased Government servant---Petitioner (father of the deceased Government employee) had failed to make any submissions on the point as to how the concurrent orders passed by both the Courts below were not in consonance with law or were without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction---Constitutional petition, filed by father of the deceased Government employee, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Federal Government of Pakistan v. Public at Large PLD 1991 SC 731; Mst. Rabia Qavi v. Mst. Hina Qavi Khan PLD 2020 Sindh 263; Muhammad Javed and another v. Mst. Roshan Jahan and 2 others PLD 2019 Sindh 1; Sher Ali v. Director General Pakistan Rangers PLD 2019 Lah. 474 and In the matter of: Succession of the Assets, Securities, Properties and Accounts of Late Javed Iqbal Ghaznavi PLD 2010 Kar. 153 ref.

(b) Employment---

----Deceased employee---Prime Minister Assistance Package---Family Pension---Tarka---Scope---Father of the deceased employee assailed concurrent findings whereby the widow of the deceased was held entitled for financial benefits---Prime Minister Assistance Package provided that pension, accommodation, employment, education, health, plot of land, house building advance etc. of the employee who died in service were to be paid to the spouse or children as defined in the said package, but father of the deceased employee was not held entitled to receive the amount which did not fall within the definition of tarka---Fund and grants announced by the employer to be paid after the death of an employee during service to compensate the untimely death of the employee, was the prerogative and discretion of the employer, which could nominate the person from his family to receive such compensation Petitioner (father of the deceased Government employee) had failed to make any submissions on the point as to how the concurrent orders passed by both the Courts below were not in consonance with law or were without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction---Constitutional petition, filed by father of the deceased Government employee, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Federal Government of Pakistan v. Public at Large PLD 1991 SC 731 and Mst. Parveen Khalid v. Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad through Executive Director and 4 others 2021 YLR Note 109 ref.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Concurrent findings, associating of---Scope---In case of concurrent findings of the Courts below, scope of the constitutional petition becomes very limited---Concurrent findings can only be interfered with when the orders of the Courts below are fanciful or based on misreading or non-reading of the evidence.

Syed Arif Ali Sabri v. Abdul Samad through L.Rs. and 2 others 2008 YLR 2309; Sadruddin v. Aslam Madad Ali and others PLD 2008 Kar. 2005 and Khuda Baksh v. Muhammad Sharif and another 1974 SCMR 279 ref.

(d) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Writ of certiorari , issuing of---Scope---High Court, while issuing a writ of certiorari, acts in supervisory, and not appellate jurisdiction---High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction will not review the findings of facts reached by the inferior Court or a tribunal.

Amjad Khan v. Muhammad Irshad (Deceased) through LRs 2020 SCMR 2155; President All Pakistan Women Association, Peshawar Cantt v. Muhammad Akbar Awan and others 2020 SCMR 260; Jurist Foundation through Chairman v. Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and others PLD 2020 SC 1; Chief Executive MEPCO and others v. Muhammad Fazil and others 2019 SCMR 919; Chairman, NAB v. Muhammad Usman and others PLD 2018 SC 28 and Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique and 2 others PLD 2007 SC 45 ref.

Sahibzada Saad ul Amin for Petitioner.

Mst. Bibi Tahira for Respondent No.3, in person.

Malik Muhammad Iqbal Kallue, Assistant Attorney General.

Dr. Agha Ghulam Haider, Deputy Director (legal), Ministry of FE and PT.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 555

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, J

MUHAMMAD TAHIR HASSAN

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others

Writ Petition No.941 of 2024, heard on 9th December, 2024.

Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019---

----Sched. VI, Rr. 2(p), 4(5), 18(3)(b) & 23---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Promotion of BPS-20 Officer of Information Group---Intelligence reports alleging financial corruption---Mixed reputation and questionable integrity---Supersession---Absence of tangible material/evidence---Effect---Principle of natural justice, violation of---Contention of the petitioner was that the reliance on unseen intelligence reports violated his right to due process, especially considering his earlier "Outstanding" and "Very Good" performance record---Validity---Consideration of an officer for promotion was to be based not only on the relevant law and the rules, but also on some tangible material, which could be lawfully taken into consideration, thus, unless the opinion of Selection Committee was backed by some tangible material, it could not be said that the case of the petitioner for promotion was considered in accordance with law---High Court questioned whether the Central Selection Board's concerns were based on personal knowledge or solely on the intelligence reports, demanding affidavits from CSB members---Identical nature of most affidavits raised doubts about their authenticity---One member admitted surprise at the intelligence reports, given the petitioner's performance record---It was found downright shocking for a system of justice to countenance a framework whereby an officer's career could be put in jeopardy on the basis of an intelligence report that was neither before his department before recommending him for consideration for promotion, nor was before the CSB members---Intelligence report were somewhat oxymoronic because there was nothing intelligent written in those reports---Court had been shown the reports while requesting for confidentiality, but nothing in the CSPR conferred confidentiality to such reports, and if any such attempt were to be made, it would be ultra vires the fundamental rights to information and due process under the Constitution, because no information could ever be confidential which adversely affected the civil rights of a person without confronting him with its contents with him being given due opportunity of making a defence---Principles of natural justice are to be read into each law regardless of being mentioned therein--- Central Selection Board, being a semi judicial forum, was required to examine the cases of officers justly and fairly---With respect to an officer, who had already put about 20 years of his life in service, one would expect, as a minimum, for such reports to be duly documented with evidence and adequate particulars of enquiries to gather that evidence---Such reports bore no authenticity in saying "reportedly" with reference to any serious allegation, especially when such damming allegations of financial corruption contradicted the service record and would stay in the petitioner's dossier, practically killing his career beyond that date---When petitioner was never confronted with any material evidence, how would he ever be able to defend himself, which was the most egregious breach of the fundamental right to due process under Art. 10-A of the Constitution---Central Selection Board's decision was completely silent as to marks allocable to integrity--Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Orya Maqool Jan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary and others 2014 SCMR 817; Secretary Establishment Division v. Aftab Ahmed Maneka 2015 SCMR 1006; I.A. Sherwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division, Islamabad and others 1991 SCMR 1041; Muhammad Zafeer Abbasi v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division 2003 PLC (C.S.) 503; Tariq Aziz-ud-Din and others: in re 2010 SCMR 1301; Managing Director (Power), WAPDA and others v. Muhammad Luqman PLD 2003 SC 175; PIA and others v. Nasir Jamal Malik and others 2001 SCMR 934; Abdul Hafeez Abbasi and others v. Managing Director PIHC 2002 SCMR 1034; Orya Maqbool Abassi v. FOP through Secretary, Establishment 2014 SCMR 817 and Government of the Punjab through Additional Chief Secretary v. Abdul Matloob Khan 1990 SCMR 1431 rel.

Mahmood A.Sheikh and Yasir Ahmed Rathore for Petitioners.

Barrister Munawar Iqbal Duggal, Additional-Attorney General along with Yasir Arfat Abbasi, Assistant-Attorney General.

Manzoor Ali Sheikh-Additional Secretary, Sajid Mehmood-Joint Secretary (CP-II), Establishment Division.

M. Asim-Joint Secretary (Lit), Aminullah Tareen Deputy Secretary (CP), Jameel Shekih, Deputy Secretary (Litigation), Abid Mehmood Ch., Section Officer (Legal), Waqas Harral, SO (Litigation) and Muhammad Sultan, Section Officer (CP), Dr. Sohail Aftab-Director (Legal).

assisted by Ms. Sakina Bangash, Law Clerk.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 652

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J

JAHANZEB SHAFIQ ABBASI and others

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of HRD and others

Writ Petition No.651 of 2016, decided on 30th September, 2022.

(a) Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)---

----Ss. 4, 6, 7 & 45---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Policy guidelines/directives of Federal Government---Scope---Role of the Federal Government in internal affairs of Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI)---Scope---Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development (OP & HRD) in the light of policy guidelines of Federal Government passed the order of withdrawal/discontinuance of allowances of the employees of EOBI---Claim of the petitioners was that Ministry of OP and HRD had no jurisdiction to pass such an order on the instructions of Finance Advisor (OP and HRD) Finance Division, as EOBI had its own independent/autonomous entity and was not bound to comply with the policy guidelines/directives of Federal Government---Validity---EOBI is an autonomous body with independent powers and has its own means and ways to invest and work for the welfare and protection of the rights of the employees---It also has independent regulatory framework and does not fall within the meaning of a person or an entity performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation---Board is responsible for general direction and superintendence of the affairs of the EOBI and it exercises, with the assistance of the Chairman of EOBI, all powers and does all acts and things, which may be exercised or done by the EOBI, thus, it is clear that the general directions and superintendence in connection with the affairs of the EOBI shall vest in the Board---Under Ss.4, 6 & 45 of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976 (Act) EOBI is an independent body corporate with perpetual succession and common seal and its own independent Board empowered to make regulations for smooth functioning of the EOBI---Under S.6 of the Act it is the Board which has been vested with independent and autonomous administrative control over the affairs of the EOBI including but not limited to the powers qua framing of the Regulations in respect of terms and conditions of the EOBI's employees which include certain allowances---Federal Government's role in the EOBI was only with respect to the provision of guidance and that too on policy matters---Order of withdrawal of allowance had not been issued by the Federal Government rather the same had been issued by the Ministry of OP and HRD, which alone could not, by any stretch of imagination, be termed as the "Federal Government" as the same could not be conflated with the Federal Government as the latter comprises of the Cabinet and the Prime Minister---Interference into the affairs of an autonomous and independent body by the Federal Government was deprecated---Federal Government could not compel an entirely independent and autonomous body to act in a way which was otherwise contrary to the applicable Regulations of such an autonomous body---Autonomous and independent bodies cannot be compelled to act on such directions/policy decisions of the Federal Government which are otherwise in contravention of the former's own Rules and Regulations---Order had been issued by the Ministry of OP & HRD and not by the Federal Government and if order had been issued by the Federal Government even then it was not tenable in the eye of law since the Federal Government could only guide the EOBI and that too on policy matters only---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

1997 SCMR 641; PLD 2007 SC 642; 2016 PLC (C.S.) 491; 2007 SCMR 1460; 2017 SCMR 838; 2020 PLC (C.S) 654 and 2011 SCMR 117 ref.

Iqbal Zafar Jhagra and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2013 SC 224; Bushra Imran v. WAPDA 2009 PLC (C. S.) 752; H.R.C. No.19731-P of 2014; C.P. No.D-4668 of 2015; Messrs Mustafa Impex, Karachi and others v. The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and others 2016 PLD SC 808; Pakistan Telecom Mobile Limited v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority PLD 2014 SC 478 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Media Network and others 2006 PTD 250 rel.

(b) Interpretation of statutes---

----Conflict between Policy and Act/Rules/Regulation---Overriding effect---Policies have no overriding effect on the Acts and/or the Rules/Regulations.

Ms. Zainab Janjua for Petitioner.

Tariq Bilal for EOBI.

Syed Nazar Hussain Shah, Asstt: Attorney-General.

Mazhar Javed Rana, Dy. Sec. and Ishtiaq Ahmed, Section Officer, Finance Division.

Raja Sheroz Abbas, Section Officer (EOBI) and Abdur Rehman, Asstt: Director (EOBI) and Hammad Nazar, Section Officer (L), Ministry of OP&HRD.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 706

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, J

Dr. MUHAMMAD HAMID ALI

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others

Writ Petition No.2872 of 2023, decided on 16th December, 2024.

(a) Civil service---

----Guide to Performance Evaluation (2004), Paras. 2.32, 2.44 & 3.10(iii)---Policy Guidelines for Selection, Appointment and Posting of Trade and Investment Officers (BS-18 to BS-20) in Pakistan's Trade Missions Abroad, dated 03.07.2023, Para.1(d)---Selection Process---Irregular Performance Evaluation Report (PER)---Eligibility criteria---Determination---Recording of PER by the reporting officer for the period when he did not have capacity/authority as a reporting officer---Legality---Powers of the Countersigning Officer to substitute his initial remarks of "Outstanding" with "Average"---Scope---Petitioner was held ineligible to participate in the competitive/selection process owing to his irregular/incomplete PER for the year 2020---Contention of the petitioner was that since his PER for a period of less than 03 months was reported upon by the reporting officer and endorsed by the countersigning officer, thus, at the belated stage such irregularity could not be made basis for disallowing the petitioner to participate in the selection process for the post of Trade and Investment Officer (TIO), and the remarks once recorded in PER could not be altered----Validity---Deficiency or an irregularity in an officer's PER could be detected and questioned at any stage if it did not fulfill the requirements of the law and/or the PER Guide---Mere fact that the petitioner's countersigning officer for the period between 04.05.2020 and 05.08.2020 had countersigned the petitioner's PER on 16.02.2021 for the said period would not attach sanctity to such PER as reporting officer of the petitioner for a period of 52 days had also recorded the petitioner's PER for the 42 days when he had not remained his reporting officer---Such an evaluation of the reporting officer could not have formed the basis for the countersigning officer to give an informed evaluation of the petitioner for the whole period of 94 days---When the countersigning officer had the benefit of the petitioner's evaluation carried out on 08.01.2024 by the reporting officer for the period between 04.05.2020 to 16.06.2020, he could in terms of paragraph 2.44 of the PER Guide agree with the evaluation carried out by either reporting officer---Countersigning officer's evaluation of the petitioner for the said period synchronized with that of his reporting officer for the period between 04.05.2020 and 16.06.2020---Recording of petitioner's PER dated 08.01.2024 for the period between 04.05.2020 and 16.06.2020 made his selection as Trade and Investment Officer out of the question as he was considered not to have satisfied the eligibility criteria of having a minimum average of "very good" PERs for the last five years---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 212 & 199---Guide to Performance Evaluation (2004), Chap. IV---Civil service---Adverse remarks---Expunction---Jurisdiction of High Court barred under Art. 212 of the Constitution---Against the adverse remarks recorded by reporting and countersigning officers, the petitioner was at liberty to apply to the competent authority in terms of Chapter IV of the PER Guide for their expunction and it was inappropriate to examine whether the said officers had any tangible basis for recording such remarks as High Court's jurisdiction was barred under Art. 212 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Afnan Karim Kundi and Muhammad Bin Abdullah along with petitioner in person.

Abdul Khaliq Thind, Deputy Attorney General.

Rizwan Shabbir Kayani for Respondents Nos.4 and 5.

Azmat Bashir Tarar, Assistant Attorney-General.

Muhammad Ashraf, Deputy Secretary and Pir Jameel Hussain, Section Officer, Ministry of Commerce.

Raja Saim ul Haq Satti, Legal Advisor and Aijaz Rasool, Section Officer, Establishment Division.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 783

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Babar Sattar, J

NAWAB ALI and others

Versus

NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, through Chairman and others

Execution Petition No.03 of 2019, Execution No.01 of 2021, in C.A. No.1119 of 2015 in C.A. No.325 of 2014 in W.P. No.2260 of 2013 and Writ Petitions Nos.3685, 4429 of 2018 decided on 29th November, 2024.

National Highway Authority Act (XI of 1991)---

----Ss. 13 & 14---National Highway Authority (Service) Rules, 1995, R.3---National Highway Authority (Appointment and Promotion) Rules, 1995, R.12(1)---Civil service---Contract employees of National Highway Authority (NHA)---Regularization---Litigation between regular employees and contract employees---Creation of independent cadre for contract employees---Legality---Authority of Cabinet Sub-Committee to issue directive for regularization of contract employees---Scope---Policy making authority of NHA---Scope---Long service of contract employees as an equitable consideration---Contention of the regular employees was that the contract employees could not be regularized as they had been appointed in breach of requirement of the NHA Act and Rules made thereunder---Validity---Absence of a written test in the initial appointment of some contractual employees of the (NHA) was not a fatal flaw precluding their regularization after serving for over a decade, especially when their educational qualifications and experience were not in question---Executive Board of NHA, guided by the National Highway Council, was the competent authority to formulate policies regarding the regularization of its contractual employees, as per the NHA Act---Decisions of the Cabinet Sub-Committee directing the regularization of employees in statutory bodies like NHA were without legal authority---It was for the Executive Board guided by the National Highway Council to make policy decision with regard to the regularization of contract employees and in doing so NHA could seek guidance from policies of the Federal Government in view of Ss.13 & 14 of the NHA Act, whereby the legislature had vested the authority to make appointments and prescribe the terms and conditions of service in the Executive Board subject to approval of the National Highway Council---It was for NHA to make such policy decision with regard to its human resource and not the Federal Government---Rule 3 of the NHA (Service) Rules, 1995, to the extent it granted the Federal Government the power to issue instruction to NHA with regard to creation of permanent or temporary posts or abolish the same, such rule was inconsistent with Ss. 13 & 14 of the NHA Act and must be read down and interpreted accordingly---Employees did not have a vested right in a particular organizational structure or human resource policy, provided their legitimate rights and terms and conditions of service were not detrimentally affected by policy changes---State cannot distribute jobs as largesse without a transparent and competitive recruitment process, as this violates the principles of public trust and equal opportunity---Long service of the contractual employees constituted an equitable consideration in favor of their regularization, rendering a requirement for a current written test as placing form over substance---Creation of a new cadre (NSSC) by NHA to accommodate regularized contractual employees without disturbing the seniority of regularly appointed employees was a valid policy decision---High Court found that the order of the Supreme Court had been duly executed by NHA qua regularization of contract employees and the decision of Cabinet Sub-Committee was held to be illegal---Executive Board and the National Highway Council had committed themselves not to induct any contractual employees without complying with all steps of the process prescribed by the NHA Act and Rules framed thereunder as such appointments could only be made against already sanctioned posts, thus, the manner in which contractual employees had been regularized could not be treated as a precedent to be emulated in future---Constitutional petitions were disposed of accordingly.

Major (R) Waqar Ali Shah v. Nawab Ali 2015 PLC (C.S.) 1137 and Syed Mubashir Raza Jaffri v. Employees Old Age Benefits Institution 2014 SCMR 949 ref.

Vice Chancellor Bacha Khan University v. Tanveer Ahmed 2021 SCMR 1995 and Administrator Market Committee Kasur v. Muhammad Sharif 1994 SCMR 1048 rel.

Muhammad Iftikhar ud Din for Petitioner (in Execution Petitions Nos.03 of 2019 and 01 of 2021).

Abdul Rahman Khan for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No.3685 of 2018).

Ch. Hasan Murtaza Mann for Petitioners (in Writ Petition No.4429 of 2018).

Barrister Muhammad Hassan Alam for Respondents (in Execution Petition No.03 of 2019).

Muhammad Umer Riaz and Umer Ijaz Gillani for Respondents Nos.7 and 12 (in Execution Petition No.03 of 2019).

Barrister Umer Aslam Khan and Barrister Tassadaq Hanif for Respondents (in Writ Petitions Nos.3685 and 4429 of 2018).

Sardar M. Haroon Sami for NHA (in Execution Petition No.01 of 2021).

Abdul Rahman Khan for Respondents Nos.5 and 8 (in Execution Petition No.03 of 2019).

Barrister Afzal Khan Shinwari for Respondents Nos.14 and 18 (in Execution Petition No.03/2019).

Sajjad Hameed Yousafzai for Respondents Nos. 7, 8 and 12.

Asad Baloch, Assistant Director (Legal), NHA.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 861

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Tariq Mehmood Jahangiri, J

MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 22 others

Versus

FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY through Director General, Islamabad and 2 others

Writ Petition No.2396 of 2019, decided on 26th February, 2025.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.25---Civil service---Up-gradation of different posts---Discrimination---Policy decision of Executive---Interference by Court---Scope---Constitutional petition---Scope---Petitioners alleged that the BPS of ASI, HC and Constables in other federal departments had been up-graded from BPS-09, BPS-07 and BPS-05 to BPS-11, BPS-09 and BPS-07, respectively, however, ASI, HC and Constables Serving in FIA were still in BPS-9, BPS-07 and BPS-05, respectively, which was promoting a sense of despair and discrimination---Petition was filed to consider the petitioners for up-gradation to the posts of Constable from BPS-5 to 7, Head Constable from BPS-7 to 9 and ASI from BPS-9 to 11, respectively, by declaring the inaction on the part of respondents as illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority---Held, that up-gradation of a post is not a vested right, rather it stems from a policy decision intended to benefit a particular set of employees under the scheme embedded in the policy---Up-gradation cannot be mixed up with promotion---In the case of up-gradation, the employee continues to hold the same post without any change in his duties, but he is accorded a higher pay scale in order to mitigate the distress associated with stagnation due to a lack of progression or promotional avenues---Once the Government announces a policy, it is also responsible for enforcing such policy across the board to accord the benefit of the policy to all those who are eligible under it and may be benefited because of it---No doubt, the Court cannot interfere in the policymaking domain of the Government, but when a widespread and comprehensive policy is announced to benefit employees, it should be implemented bigheartedly and generously, without adding any ifs and buts or discrimination that could stifle the main objective of the policy---In the present cases, not only the department of the respondents fully supported the up-gradation, but also communicated with the concerned quarter in order to espouse the interest of their employees---Equal treatment with equal opportunity is a cornerstone for an egalitarian society, while acts of discrimination in the workplace seriously undermine a harmonious working environment and create unrest among employees discriminated who are deprived of perks and privileges---Up-gradation could not be construed as promotion, but could be granted through a policy---Petitioners had successfully established that they had been treated discriminately by the respondents in the matter of up-gradation of posts, which act of the respondents offended the mandate of Art. 25 of the Constitution---Resultantly petition was allowed and the respondents were directed to up-grade/re-designate the posts of Constable, Head Constable and ASI from BPS-5 to BPS-7, from BPS-7 to BPS-9 and from BPS-9 to 11, respectively.

1994 PLC (C.S.) 308; 1990 PLC (C.S.) 156; 1996 SCMR 1185; 2005 SCMR 499; 2009 SCMR 1 and 2009 SCMR 980 ref.

Regional Commissioner Income Tax, Northern Region, Islamabad and another v. Syed Munawar Ali and others 2016 SCMR 859 rel.

Muhammad Rustam Malik for Petitioners.

Ms. Shaista Tabassum Khan Sultan Puri, Assistant Attorney General.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 876

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, Chairman, Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb and

Tariq Mehmood Jahangir, Members

MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR AWAN

Versus

HONOURABLE AUTHORITY through Registrar Islamabad High Court

J.S.A. No.01 of 2021, decided on 6th July, 2023.

Islamabad Judicial Service Rules, 2011---

----R. 25, proviso---Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, R.6---Disciplinary proceedings---Dismissal from service---Regular inquiry, dispensing with---Non-recording of reasons---Back benefits---Appellant / judicial officer was dismissed from service on the allegation of misconduct---Plea raised by appellant / judicial officer was that no regular inquiry was conducted against him during departmental proceedings---Validity---Appellant / judicial officer did not submit any representation envisaged by R. 6(3)(c) of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999, against decision of Authority to dispense with an inquiry---Inquiry could be dispensed with where there was no dispute with respect to facts alleged against accused---Appellant / judicial officer in his reply to show cause notice disputed facts which had formed the basis of issuance of show cause notice to him---There was no separate order of Authority on record dispensing with conducting a regular inquiry against appellant / judicial officer---Show-cause notice listed the reasons which caused competent authority to take a prima facie view that appellant / judicial officer committed misconduct but they were not the reasons for dispensing with regular inquiry---Said reasons simply stated the allegations that were levelled against appellant / judicial officer and nothing more---Mandatory condition of recording reasons for dispensing with regular inquiry had not been fulfilled in departmental proceedings in question---High Court set aside order passed against appellant / judicial officer for non-recording of essential prerequisites for dispensing with regular inquiry and matter was remanded to competent authority for proceedings afresh---High Court declined to award back benefits as allegations against appellant / judicial officer were to be inquired into and his entitlement to back benefits would depend on the result of such proceedings---Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Ghulam Mustafa Shehzad v. Lahore High Court through Registrar 2007 SCMR 1786; Hassan Raza v. FBR through Chairman 2020 SCMR 994; Chief Engineer, Gujranwala Electric Power Company v. Khalid Mehmood 2023 SCMR 291; Saleem Wazir v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2019 PLC (C.S.) 224; Iqbal Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan 2019 PLC (C.S.) 475; Naseeb Khan v. D.S. Pakistan Railways 2008 SCMR 1369; Alamgir v. Divisional Forest Officer, Multan 1992 SCMR 603; Nawab Khan v. Government of Pakistan (Ministry of Defence) PLD 1994 SC 222; Basharat Ali v. Director Excise and Taxation Lahore 1997 SCMR 1543; Saad Salam Ansari v. Chief Justice of Sindh High Court 2007 SCMR 1726 and Muhammad Sharif v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab 2021 SCMR 962 rel.

Qaiser Imam Ch. and Imdad Ullah for Appellant.

Khadija Ali State Counsel.

Asif Iqbal, Departmental Representative, Islamabad High Court for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 941

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Khadim Hussain Soomro and Inaam Ameen Minhas, JJ

NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF PAKISTAN through Secretary

Versus

UNITED BANK LIMITED

I.C.A. No. 301 of 2022 in W.P. No.4797 of 2016, decided on 11th February, 2025.

National Commission of Human Rights Act (XVI of 2012)--

----S. 9(a)(i) & (ii)---Enforcement of service/pensionary rights---Jurisdiction of National Commission of Human Rights (NCHR)---Scope---Human, constitutional and service rights---Distinction stated---Filing of complaint by a retired employee of United Bank Limited (UBL) for enhancement of his pension---National Commission for Human Rights in exercise of its jurisdiction passed an order of enhancement of pension, however, that order was set aside by the Single Judge of High Court---Validity---Dispute arose between the NCHR and UBL over an issue of pension of an employee of UBL, who was neither a civil servant nor a public servant, rather an employee of a private sector commercial bank, whose rights, duties and remedies in case of disputes were governed by private sector labour laws and their employment contract, but not by the laws applicable to civil or public servants---National Commission for Human Rights was a statutory body established to promote and protect human rights under the National Commission for Human Rights Act, 2012 and its mandate included investigating complaints of human rights violations, abetment thereof, or negligence in preventing such violations by public servants, however, pension-related disputes, such as the enhancement of pension amounts, were governed by employment contracts, banking regulations and other laws to which UBL and its employees were subject and such matters were within the jurisdiction of specialised forums provided by the laws, thus, NCHR's directive to enhance the pension amount was beyond its statutory authority and constituted an overreach of its jurisdiction---Intra-Court Appeal was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

2018 SCMR 736 ref.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 981

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Khadim Hussain Soomro, J

PARVEEN AKHTAR

Versus

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 3 others

Writ Petition No.1269 of 2024, decided on 18th February, 2025.

(a) Civil service---

----Correction in date of birth---Scope---Different dates of birth in service book and Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC)---Delay in releasing pension and retirement benefits---Effect---Employee did not approach the department during the currency of his service for correction of his date of birth---Petitioner/wife of retired/deceased employee claimed family pension and retirement benefits on the basis of date of birth mentioned in CNIC---Held: Date of birth of a civil servant, once recorded in the service book and other official records at the time of entry into government service, cannot be altered except in cases where clerical error occurred in recording the correct date of birth or as permitted under the exceptions explicitly provided in the relevant Rules---Deceased employee never approached the department to rectify his date of birth during his lifetime, thus, petitioner after his death/retirement could not seek rectification of date of birth of her husband---Petitioner was held entitled to pensionary benefits of her deceased/retired husband and department was directed to release the said benefits, which were to be calculated from the entries of service book---Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

Chief Secretary Government of Balochistan, Quetta and others v. Asmatullah Kakar 2020 SCMR 1678; Qamaruddin v. Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and another 2007 SCMR 66; Dr. Muhammad Aslam Baloch v. Government of Balochistan through Secretary Health Department and others 2014 SCMR 1723, Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2015 SCMR 456; Dr. Zulfiqar Ahmed Malik v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, Chairman FBR, Islamabad and others 2019 SCMR 1973 and Muhammad Khaliq Mandokhail v. Government of Balochistan C.P. No.4428 of 2019 rel.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 9---Civil service---Pension and retirement benefits, denial of---Article 9 of the Constitution guarantees the right to life and liberty, which extends to the protection of a person's livelihood and the basic dignity of human existence---Denial of pension to a retired employee, especially one who has passed away, not only strips legal heirs of their essential means of sustenance but also significantly impacts their physical and mental well-being.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 14---Civil service---Pension and retirement benefits, denial of---Article 14 of Constitution safeguards the dignity of man, stating that no person shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment---Denial of pensionary benefits to a retired elderly person, who depends on this pension for basic survival, amounts to degrading treatment that is inconsistent with the principle of human dignity.

Ikhlaq Ahmed for Petitioner.

Azmat Bashir Tarar, A.A.G. for Respondents.

Muhammad Iftikhar, Assistant Directir (LA) Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1090

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Muhammad Asif, J

Professor Doctor HAMID MEHMOOD

Versus

Shaheed ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others

Writ Petition No. 446 of 2019, decided on 24th March, 2025.

(a) Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University Act (XV of 2013)---

----Ss. 13(6)(i) & 25---Appointment---Termination---Due process---Scope---Competent authority---Powers---Petitioner who was appointed in BPS-21 in Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University (SZBMU/University) was aggrieved of his termination by the University---Contention of the counsel for the petitioner was that the impugned notification was issued contrary to law and by an incompetent authority---Validity---SZBMU/University, is a statutory entity established under the Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University Act, 2013, ('the Act 2013')---The Vice-Chancellor is authorized to appoint, on the recommendation of the selection board, employees up to the pay scale equivalent to BPS-18 as enunciated under S. 13(6)(i) of the Act 2013---Furthermore, under S. 25 of the Act 2013, the Syndicate of the University is vested with, inter alia, the authority to appoint, on the recommendations of the Selection Board, officers to pay scale equivalent to BPS-19 and above---The Syndicate is also empowered to determine the terms and conditions of such appointments, including the pay fixation and other related matters---Thus, under provisions of the Act 2013 all appointments at BPS-19 and above, as well as the determination of terms and conditions of service, fall exclusively within the domain of the Syndicate of the University---In the present case, the petitioner was employed in BPS-21; consequently, his appointment, termination and the terms of service unequivocally fall within the purview of the Syndicate of the University, as delineated under the statutory framework of the Act 2013---Thus, it is vividly evident from the record that the said Notification was issued with the prior approval of the Syndicate, which is the competent authority to pass such orders---The impugned notification has been duly issued and the contents thereof demonstrate that the competent authority, the Syndicate, had exercised its authority and determined the employment of the petitioner in the manner permissible under the terms and conditions governing the employment of the petitioner---Petitioner failed to pinpoint any illegality in the impugned notification---Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Civil service---

----Probationary period---Right(s)of probationer---Scope---Opportunity of hearing, non-affording of---Termination of a probationer---Scope---Petitioner who was appointed in BPS-21 in University was aggrieved of his termination by the University---Contention of the petitioner was that neither the opportunity of personal hearing was afforded nor any show-cause notice was issued---Validity---Upon a perusal of the appointment letter of the petitioner, it becomes manifest that he was traversing his probationary period at University and one of the clauses of the said letter unequivocally mentions the condition that his services could be brought to an end without ascription of reasons or issuance of notice, should his performance or conduct be found unsatisfactory during this period---Thus, the petitioner's termination occurred while he was in the probationary phase---Probation is a process of testing or observing the character or abilities of a person who is new to a role or job---The very purpose of the probationary period is to assess the performance of an employee during a specified period in which the services of the employee remain purely temporary---University /Respondent has acted in conformity with the terms enunciated in the appointment letter, a document containing terms that were acquiesced to by the petitioner at the time of joining---In cases of civil servant, there exists no right during the probationary period to claim protection under the maxim "audi alteram partem" for issuance of a show-cause notice before any termination can take effect, as it is against the spirit and true meaningof putting an employee on probation---A probationer has not vested right to continue in service, therefore, his service can be terminated without a show-cause notice and the question of violation of the principle of audi alteram partem does not arise except in case of mala fides---Impugned order cannot be termed as mala fide by any standard---Simpliciter termination during the probationary period does not require show cause notice or any other legal formality and simpliciter termination order during the period of probation would be unexceptional-able and unquestionable---Petitioner failed to pinpoint any illegality in the impugned notification---Constitutional petition, being merit-less, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Gohar v. M.D SNGPL 1998 PLC (C.S.) 828; Muhammad Iqbal Khan Niazi v. Lahore High Court through Registrar 2003 PLC (C.S.) 282; Muhammad Hussain Naqshabandi v. Government of the Punjab and others 2004 SCMR 44; Muhammad Nadeem Ahmed and 18 others v. Ms. Azhra Feroz Bakhat and 58 others PLD 1968 SC 37 and Shahzada Shahpur Tan v. Auditor General of Pakistan and another PLD 1984 SC 430 ref.

PLD 1980 SC 310; 2007 SCMR 18; 2010 PLC (C.S.) 416; 2017 SCMR 683; 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1; PLD 2007 SC 52; 2012 PLC (C.S.) 701; 2017 PLC (C.S.) 676; PLD 2019 Bal. 1; PLD 2003 SC 187; 2007 SCMR 682; 1986 SCMR 1561; PLD 2004 SC 271; 2005 SCMR 678 and 2008 SCMR 114 distinguished.

Muhammad Aftab Alam Rana for Petitioner.

M. Soban Hayat, Advocate for SZABMU, Islamabad for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1254

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Muhammad Asif, J

TARIQ MEHMOOD and others

Versus

SHAZIA MUNIR and others

Writ Petitions Nos.1387, 1548 of 2023 and 1811 of 2019, decided on 30th June, 2025.

Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010)---

----Ss.2 (h), 8 & 10---Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited Staff Regulations, 2005, Regln. 17---Harassment at workplace---Proof---Reinstating in service---Petitioner / employee of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL) was removed from service on a complaint filed by respondent whose services were terminated during her period of probation---Validity---Competent authority of ZTBL terminated services of respondent while she was still serving within the prescribed period of probation---Such termination was carried out in compliance with the terms and conditions laid down in letter of appointment and in consonance with the provisions of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited Staff Regulations, 2005, without any allegation of misconduct or punitive stigma attached to the order of termination---Respondent was a probationer at the relevant time, who had not acquired any vested or indefeasible right to continue in service beyond probationary period, unless and until she was expressly confirmed in writing by the competent authority---Termination was within the legal framework and effected during subsistence of probation of respondent, which was well within the legal competence of the employer and did not suffer from any legal infirmity---Ombudsman while passing order in question had grossly misinterpreted and misapplied the powers conferred upon it under S. 10 of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010---Limited powers were conferred upon competent authority or Ombudsman, which were required to be exercised strictly within the confines of the statute and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, procedural fairness, and established legal norms---Provision of S. 10 of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 delineates the scope of authority available to Ombudsman in determining complaints of harassment as defined under S. 2(h) of Protection Against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010---Ombudsman is required to evaluate evidence, conduct hearings, and pass a reasoned and well-founded order based on credible material on record---High Court set aside the order passed by Ombudsman on the complaint filed by respondent---High Court directed the authorities to reinstate petitioner in service with all back benefits from the date of his removal from service---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Nadia Naz v. The President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, President House, Islamabad and others in (Civil Petition No. 4570 of 2019) rel.

Imran Feroz Malik, Muhammad Sajjad Baloch and Malik Mohsin Ahmed Awan for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 1387/2023) and Muhammad Imran (in W.P. No. 1548/2023).

Muhammad Umair Baloch for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 1811/2019).

Ms. Atiqa B Raza and Ch. Usama Tariq for Respondents (in W.P. No. 1387/2023 and W.P. No. 1548/2023).

Jawad Khurshid for Respondent (in W.P. 1811/2019).

Muhammad Younas, for ZTBL, Islamabad, M. Imran and Ms. Shaista Tabassum, A.A.G. for the State.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1401

[Islamabad High Court]

Before Muhammad Azam Khan, J

AMBREEN and others

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and others

Writ Petition No.3496 of 2018, decided on 19th May, 2025.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Contractual employee---Breach of contract by the employer---Terms and conditions of contract, enforcement of----Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise of---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---High Court exercised its Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter due to element of patent illegality and perversity apparent on the record---Fact in brevity were that the petitioners were employed on contract under the project supervised by Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) and were later on constrained to filed the present constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution after their salaries were unilaterally reduced by the respondents through an office memorandum and also deducted previously paid salaries and issued revised contracts---The petitioners argued that the executive could not retrospectively alter or rescind vested rights accrued under valid contracts without lawful authority---Held:---The office memorandum in question for implementation of the revised standard pay package for the project staff directly recruited for development projects could not be made effective onto the petitioners without obtaining the mandatory approval from the competent forum---Prior approval from competent forum was essential before implementing the revised standard pay package on the petitioners---Since the salary slips were issued earlier in accordance with the pay package approved, the subsequent instructions/orders of Finance Division could not be made applicable on salaries fixed prior in time, especially in the absence of approval from the competent forum---Respondents, under the law, were neither empowered to recover the over payment drawn by the employees of the project, nor were they authorized to withhold the salaries of the petitioners, especially when the terms and conditions were settled inter se the parties, therefore, the same were binding upon them---The remunerations fixed by respondent No. 2 under the contracts with the petitioners were completely independent of any Finance Division's orders---Thus, any subsequent order by the executive could not threaten the vested rights of the petitioners already accrued under the settled contracts---Action of recovering the over-payments drawn by the employees of the project was highly unwarranted, unjustified and illegal---Issuance of subsequent office memorandum could not renounce and/or retract the remuneration already settled earlier---Office memorandum in question was not applicable on the petitioners, as the same was never approved by the competent forum,---The act of ordering recovery of alleged over-payments from the petitioners, and the arbitrary implementation of the said office memorandum was thus perverse, unlawful, and unjust, as it infringed upon the vested rights of the petitioners which had accrued under the mutually settled terms and conditions between the parties---Hence, the act of reducing the salaries of the petitioners was thus illegal, unconstitutional and void ab initio---Impugned letter was set aside, with strict directions to the respondents to refrain from recovering the over-payments from the petitioners---The respondents were further directed to release the amounts already recovered from the petitioners by returning them forthwith---Despite the matter relating to breach/enforcement of terms and conditions of a contract, the present Constitutional petition was maintainable given the patent illegality and perversity floating on the face of record---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Government of West Pakistan through Secretary, Irrigation, Communications and Works Department, Lahore v. Kazi Khan and others 1968 SCMR 921 rel.

Maqbool Ahmad Bhutta v. Secretary Local Government and others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 1262; Hamayun Safdar Khan and others v. Planning and Development Division and others 2016 PLC (C.S.) 642; Naeem Rizwan and another v. Government of Punjab and 4 others 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1176 and Abdul Hayee EX SST(G) v. The Accountant General Balochistan Sariab Road, Quetta and another 2024 PLC (C.S.) 393 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Breach of contract---Matters concerning enforcement of contractual obligations---Terms and conditions of contract, settlement of---Scope---High Court while exercising its constitutional jurisdiction cannot settle the terms and conditions of a contract between the parties, nor can it direct the Executive to incorporate or omit any specific stipulation therein, as such matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Executive---It is equally well-established that in matters concerning the enforcement of contractual obligations, High Court ordinarily refrains from exercising constitutional jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of the contract and/or to provide a remedy for its breach---The constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be ousted, especially where an element of perversity or patent illegality is prima facie apparent on the face of the record---It is a recognized principle of law that albeit the constitutional jurisdiction should not be exercised ordinarily in matters arising out of breach of contract, however, an exception exists where the breach has been committed by the Government, a semi-Government body, or a Local Authority, necessitating the resolution of intricate and disputed legal questions---In such circumstances, the grievance may appropriately be addressed through the exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution.

Messrs Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-E-Azam International Airport, Karachi and others 1998 SCMR 2268; Mahmood Ali Butt v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 10 others PLD 1997 SC 823; Hazara (Hill Tract) Improvement Trust through Chairman and others v. Mst. Qaisra Elahi and others 2005 SCMR 678 and Shaukat Ali and others v. Government of Pakistan through Chairman, Ministry of Railways and others PLD 1997 SC 342 rel.

Messrs Ameer Khan & Co. v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Local Government, Lahore PLD 2010 Lah 443 ref.

(c) Locus poenitentiae, doctrine of---

----Contractual employee---Subsequent reduction in salary against the settled pay fixed under the contract---Locus poenitentiae, doctrine of---Applicability---The terms and conditions already settled between the parties, qua fixation of salaries, rendered the contracts as past and closed transactions by virtue of which certain vested rights were already accrued; this further brings forth the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, whereby the Executive is barred from unilaterally rescinding and retrieving the benefit availed by its recipients---Thus, any subsequent unilateral decisions taken by the State functionaries cannot supersede and/or replace the already agreed upon stipulations contained in the contracts to the disadvantage of the employees.

Fazal Din and Sons Private Limited v. Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad 2009 SCMR 973 rel.

(d) Employment---

----Vested right accrued prior in time cannot be subsequently taken away with retrospective effect.

Fazal Din and Sons Private Limited v. Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad 2009 SCMR 973 rel.

(e) Interpretation of statutes---

----Executive order affecting vested rights---Retrospective effect---Scope---Where any existing rights are jeopardized by giving an executive order retrospective effect, further causing inconvenience or injustice so as to hamper the vested rights, then the courts will not favour an interpretation giving retrospective operation to the same.

Abdul Hayee EX SST(G) v. The Accountant General Balochistan Sariab Road, Quetta and another 2024 PLC (C.S.) 393 ref.

(f) Administration of justice---

----When a law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it has to be done accordingly.

Abdul Haseeb Afridi for Petitioners Nos.1 and 2.

Petitioners Nos.3, 4, 5 and 7 in Persons.

Raja Zamir ud Din, A.A.G for Respondents.

Saeed Ahmed Zaidi for Respondent No.2.

Assisted by Ms. Amna Danial Khawaja, Law Clerk.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Muhammad Abdur Rahman, JJ

Mst. NAJMA KHOKHAR and another

Versus

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, GHOTKI and 3 others

Constitution Petition No.D-552 of 2022, decided on 14th May, 2024.

Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---

----R.11-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.27 & 199---Appointment---Deceased quota---Criteria for public employment---Writ petition against administrative decisions of Administrative Committee of High Court of Sindh---Maintainability---Petitioner's other son had already been appointed as driver availing the deceased quota, however, his services were dismissed owing to bogus driving license---Petitioner claimed the appointment of her second son against deceased quota---Validity---Subordinate judiciary in Sindh should make appointments to all posts based on open merit and quotas for invalidated, incapacitated, minority, differently-abled and deceased employees and should also ensure that no citizen is discriminated against in public employment, as guaranteed by Art. 27 of the Constitution---Government is obligated to create quotas for less privileged classes to ensure their adequate representation in the civil service and R. 11-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974, as amended, addresses this requirement by accommodating these categories of civil servants---Appointment in the public office can only be made through the competitive process on merit as provided under the recruitment rules and not otherwise---Appointments in public office are to be made strictly under applicable rules and regulations without any discrimination and in a transparent manner, thus, all appointments in the public institution must be based on a process that is palpably and tangibly fair and within the parameters of its applicable rules, regulations, and bylaws, however, if the candidate has applied based on R.11-A of Rules, he/she can be accommodated subject to his/her qualification for the post---Writ under Art.199 of the Constitution does not lie against the administrative decision of the Administrative Committee of the High Court of Sindh---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Yaseen v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 132; Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana v. Pakistan 2013 SCMR 1159; Tariq Azizuddin: in re, 2010 SCMR 1301; Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2013 SC 195; Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary Sindh and others 2013 SCMR 1752 and Syed Mubashir Raza Jafri and others v. Employees Old-age Benefits Institution (EOBI) 2014 SCMR 949 rel.

Mian Mumtaz Rabbani for Petitioners.

Liaquat Ali Shar, Additional Advocate General Sindh for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 12

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Muhammad Abdur Rahman, JJ

GHULAM SARWAR CHANG

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Agriculture Department Bureau of Supply Government of Sindh, Karachi and 7 others

Constitutional Petition No.D-1157 of 2022 (and other connected petitions), decided on 15th May, 2024.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts.9 & 199---Civil service---Pensionary/service benefits/family pension---Fundamental right---Withholding and delay in releasing pensionary benefits / family pension to the employees of autonomous bodies---Effect---Violation of judicial and government directives---Plea of lack of funds to pay the pensionary/service benefits to the retired employees and their families taken by the respondents---Legality---Pension, like salary, is a regular source of livelihood and thus is protected by the right to life enshrined in and guaranteed by Art.9 of the Constitution---Right to life of a person/citizen shall include the right to livelihood and such right, therefore, cannot hang on to the fancies of individuals in authority; pension is not a bounty from them i.e. individuals in authority, nor can its survival be at their mercy---Long and unjustified delay in payment of pensions has been a source of tremendous hardship and humiliation for retiring officials and their families---Despite strictures and orders passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its various pronouncements and simplified guidelines laid down by the Government, petitions on account of delay persist---Merely relying on lack of funds was not sufficient to deny the rights of the pensioners---Pension granted or continued to the pensioner was not liable to seizure by the department under Pension Act, 1871, and the rules framed thereunder---Government has no power to withhold gratuity, pension or any service benefits at any stage either before the proceeding or after the conclusion of the proceedings, if any---Petitioners had the qualifying length of service to their credit and they gave various reasons to claim the interest on the delayed payments on the premise that they stood retired from services in their respective years, however, in violation of law, they had been denied the pensionary benefits and in some of the cases arrears, which had triggered the cause and hardship to the petitioners to approach High Court---Pensionary benefits could not be stopped or withheld without assigning any cogent reason---High Court directed the Chief Secretary of Sindh to form a Committee to address and resolve pension and service benefits issues for petitioners, including recalculating any arrears and the committee must act according to the relevant Supreme Court ruling on the matter and ensure timely payments---Disciplinary action was also suggested against officials, who neglected these responsibilities---Constitution petition was disposed of accordingly.

I.A. Sherwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others 1991 SCMR 1041 and and Re: Pensionary Benefits of the Judges of Superior Courts PLD 2013 SC 829 rel.

Sarfraz Ali Akhund, Syed Mujahid Ali Shah, Sikandar Ali Junejo, Ziaul Haq Kamboh, Muhammad Nasir, Saifullah Soomro, Yaseen Ali Ghunio, Abdul Naeem Pirzada, Athar Hussain Abro, Faiz Muhammad Brohi, Yameen Ali Khoso and Daim Hussain for Petitioners.

Liaquat Ali Shar, Ali Raza Balouch, Ghulam Mustafa Abro Addl. A.G and Assistant A.G Sindh along with Rashid Hussain Chachar, Secretary Market Committee Mirpur Mathelo, Ravi Kumar Chairman Market Committee Mirpur Mathelo for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 42

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Muhammad Abdur Rahman, JJ

Ms. FIRDOS NOOR MALIK

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Education and Literacy Department Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 3 others

Constitution Petition No.D-23 of 2020, decided on 16th May, 2024.

Civil service---

----Appointment---Teachers Recruitment Policy on Union Council basis---Petitioner qualified the test and obtained first position amongst female candidates---Petitioner was not considered for appointment on the ground that she did not approach the office of the respondents to submit her required documents, because she did not possess her domicile and Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) Form-D within cutoff date or time as set forth in the advertisement---Validity---Domicile certificate was issued to petitioner much before the cutoff date, which showed that the petitioner was a resident of the concerned area, thus, mere submission of PRC a little bit late could not debar her from considering her case for appointment, for the reason that certificate of domicile is issued under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 read with the Pakistan Citizenship Rules, 1952; a PRC in Sindh is issued under the Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971, and to obtain the job, the candidate would require PRC, which showed his/her place of residence as Sindh, which might at best be a piece of evidence in considering his/her eligibility for the aforesaid purposes, thus, decision of respondents was erroneous and not sustainable under the law---Government has the domain to frame policy of appointment and also provide qualification for appointment against a particular post, and thus, appointment against such post through initial appointment or otherwise cannot be claimed without fulfillment of criteria and the requisite qualifications as provided under the Recruitment Rules, however, the case of petitioner was quite different as she had already been declared successful candidate in written test and interview for the requisite post, but her appointment had been withheld on the premise that she did not submit her PRC within cut-off---Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

Alam Sher Bozdar for Petitioner.

Ghulam Mustafa G. Abro Additional A.G. Sindh along with with Dilawar Soomro AEO/Focal Person District Education Officer (ES&HS), Ghotki for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 55

[Sindh High Court (Hyderabad Bench)]

Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam and Yousuf Ali Sayeed, JJ

ADIL and others

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH

C.P. No.D-293 of 2020, heard on 15th October, 2024.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 199 & 212---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Bar of jurisdiction---Scope---Illegal appointment as constable---Departmental proceedings---Discharge from service---Petitioners assailed their discharge orders before the departmental appellate authority, Service Tribunal and Centralized Re-examination Committee, but remained unsuccessful, then they filed present Constitutional petition with the contention that they had been discriminated and instead of proceeding against them under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Sindh Ordinance, 2000, they had been discharged from service under the Police Rules, 1934---Validity---Matter fell within the competence of the Service Tribunal, thus, notification could not be challenged before High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution in view of the bar set out in Art.212 of the Constitution---Petitioners themselves had approached the Tribunal and accepted the manner in which their appeals were decided as they had awaited the outcome of proceedings before the Centralized Re-examination Committee prior to approaching High Court---If the petitioners were aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal and wished to advance their challenge to being discharged from service, the appropriate course for them was to have approached the Supreme Court---Since grievance of the petitioners had arisen out of the proceeding of the Re-examination Committee, which had not been impugned before the High Court, thus, the plea of discrimination that respondents had been unduly appointed did not even otherwise serve to advance the cause of the petitioners for their own appointment---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Ashfaque Nabi Qazi for Petitioners.

Rafique Ahmed Dahri, A.A.G. for Respondents Nos.1 to 4.

Nemo for Respondents Nos.5 to 7.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 68

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Muhammad Abdur Rahman, JJ

GHULAM MUSTAFA MALLAH

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Works and Service Department, Sindh and others

Constitution Petition No.D-08 of 2020, decided on 23rd April, 2024.

Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---

----Rr. 10-A & 11-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.27 & 199---Appointment---Deceased quota---Cut of date for making application for appointment in the deceased quota---Determination---Petitioner applied for his appointment against the deceased quota after the death of his father---Respondent-department took a plea that father of the petitioner passed away in the year 2001, whereas, R.11-A was inserted in the year 2002, thus, petitioner was not entitled for his appointment owing to non-existence of policy/deceased quota at that point in time---Validity---Right accrued to the children of deceased civil servants against deceased quota in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court through its order dated 10.08.2016 passed in C.Ps.Nos.482-K and 503-K of 2016, whereby it was held that those candidates under the above quota whose right of employment had already occurred and the clog of two years for making the application for employment under the deceased quota for the children, who had already applied for employment before making this rule, was done away with---Thus, the plea of the respondent-department was not tenable---Public employment is a source of livelihood, thus, no citizen should be discriminated in the said matter on the grounds as provided under Art.27 of the Constitution---Government is bound to make certain quotas in appointments or posts in favor of any less privileged class of citizen which in the opinion of the government is not adequately represented in the services under the State, thus R.11-A of Rules as amended up-to-date was introduced to cater to such situation to accommodate the aforesaid categories of civil servants---Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

Sohail Ahmed Khoso for Petitioner.

Ali Raza Baloch, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 83

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Ms. Rashida Asad, JJ

Dr. ABDUL ALEEM UQAILI and 18 others

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 3 others

C.P. No.D-2674 and C.M.As. 13647 and 12213 of 2024, decided on 21st June, 2024.

Employment---

----Temporary appointment of doctors during the period of covid epidemic---Candidature of the petitioners were referred to Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) to assess their suitability for appointment by only conducting their interviews---Petitioners were declared unsuccessful---Contention of the petitioner was that SPSC had not adjudged the suitability of the petitioners through an interview in terms of the directions given by the High Court---Validity---Directions given by the High Court were only to the extent that SPSC may assess their suitability for the appointment via interview keeping in view the judgment reported as Dr. Naveed Tufail and 72 others v. Government of Punjab (2003 SCMR 291) and SPSC in compliance with the directions of High Court conducted the interviews and assessed the suitability of the candidates, which were adjudged accordingly and petitioners were not declared as successful---High Court declined to further probe the matter since earlier petition was disposed with certain directions, which were complied with by virtue of press release---High Court could not be a substitute of SPSC by assuming the role of interviewing panel and adjudging the suitability of the candidates for the appointment, who were adjudged accordingly and not recommended---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Dr. Naveed Tufail and 72 others v. Government of Punjab 2003 SCMR 291 rel.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 93

[Sindh High Court]

Before Yousuf Ali Sayeed, Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry and Agha Faisal, JJ

MUHAMMAD ARIF and 196 others

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others

Constitution Petition No.D-875 of 2020 (and other connected petitions) decided on 22nd April, 2024.

(And connected matters, particularized in the Schedule1 hereto.)

Per Agha Faisal, J.; Yousaf Ali Sayeed and Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, JJ., agreeing with their own reasons.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 189 & 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Judgment of Supreme Court---Applicability---Contractual appointments---Individual claim---Determination---Petitioners rendered contingent / contractual services to respondent / Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, through third party companies or otherwise and had claimed regularization in respondent / company---After decision of Supreme Court in the matter, petitioners sought determination of their individual claims by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction---Validity---Petitioners had already been non-suited by High Court earlier on account of maintainability---Matter was remanded by Supreme Court and High Court was also invited to express its view on the issue of entitlement---Separate pleas of each of the three thousand three hundred and fifty nine claimants were not individually appraised and jurisdiction had been declined---Full Bench of High Court declined to render findings in respect of individual entitlement as the same was not merited and petitioners could approach appropriate forum in accordance with law---High Court was bound by an authority illumined by Supreme Court, in application of enunciation of principles of law enshrined in its judgment---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

case law referred.

Yousaf Ali Sayeed, J.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Contractual appointments---Regularization---Statutory provision, absence of---Effect---Petitioners rendered contingent / contractual services to respondent / Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, through third party companies or otherwise and had claimed regularization in respondent / company---Validity---Subject of regularization was not a part of terms and conditions of service---Question of maintainability of such claim did not turn on whether service rules of respondent / company were statutory or non-statutory so much as whether any statute or other instrument having force of law conferred such right so as to admit to its enforcement through a petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution---From the stand point of Art. 199 of the Constitution, subject of entitlement to regularization and question of maintainability of a petition brought on such subject were intertwined---In absence of any statute or other instrument having force of law requiring respondent / company to regularize service of petitioners, no entitlement had arisen so as to enable them to bring and maintain petitions under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. PLD 1975 SC 244; Hadayat Ullah and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2022 SCMR 1691; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Workers Welfare Board through Chairman v. Raheel Ali Gohar and others 2020 SCMR 2068; Messrs Suit Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Zeeshan Usmani and others 2021 SCMR 609; Khushal Khan Khattak University and others v. Jabran Ali Khan and others 2021 SCMR 977; Vice-Chancellor, Bacha Khan University Charsadda, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others v. Tanveer Ahmed and others 2022 PLC (C.S.) 85; Faraz Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others 2022 PLC 198; Deputy Director Finance and Administration FATA through Additional Chief Secretary FATA, Peshawar and others v. Dr. Lal Marjan 2022 SCMR 566 and Vice-Chancellor Agriculture University Peshawar and others v. Muhammad Shafiq and others (Civil Petition No. 2270/2019) rel.

Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, J.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199(5)---Constitutional petition---Term "person"---Scope---Per Art. 199(5) of the Constitution, "person" includes any body politic or corporate, any authority of or under the control of Federal Government or of a Provincial Government---Provision of Art. 199(5) of the Constitution makes no distinction between a body corporate created by a statute by legal fiction and a body incorporated under Companies Act, 2017---Even if it is the latter and is under control of Government and performs functions in connection with affairs of Federation, a Province or a local authority, such body is open to a writ.

Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. PLD 1975 SC 244; Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Lt. Col. Jawaid Ahmed 2013 SCMR 1707; Muhammad Dawood v. Federation of Pakistan 2007 PLC (C.S.) 1046; Pir Imran Sajid v. Managing Director, Telephone Industries of Pakistan 2015 SCMR 1257 and PTCL v. Masood Ahmed Bhatti 2016 SCMR 1362 rel.

(d) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 9, 25 & 199---Constitutional petition---Object, purpose and scope---Contractual appointments---Regularization---Fundamental right, violation of---Proof---Petitioners rendered contingent / contractual services to respondent / Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, through third party companies or otherwise and had claimed for regularization in respondent / company---Validity---For issuing a writ under Art. 199(1)(a) of the Constitution, a petitioner has to establish that he is guaranteed a fundamental or legal right---Object of Art. 199 of the Constitution is enforcement of a legal right and not establishment of a legal right---In absence of a specific provision in contract or law providing for regularization, contract employees do not have vested right for regular appointment solely due to long and satisfactory contractual service---While exercising jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution, High Court cannot extend scope of a contract or alter terms and conditions of employment in favour of an employee---There was no statute or Government policy applicable to respondent / company requiring or enabling it to regularize contract employees and no writ could be issued to respondent / company to do so under Art. 199(1)(a) of the Constitution---Refusal of respondent / company to regularize petitioners did not infringe their fundamental rights in Art. 9 or 25 of the Constitution and did not entitle them to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Toto and others v. Federation of Pakistan (C.P. No.D-405/2019); Muhammad Arif v. Federation of Pakistan (C.P. No.D-875/2020); Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee PLD 1995 SC 423 and Fauji Fertilizer Company Ltd. v. National Industrial Relations Commission 2013 SCMR 1253 ref.

Khwaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2014 SC 206; Anwar Hussain v. Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan PLD 1984 SC 194; Principal, Cadet College, Kohat v. Muhammad Shoab Qureshi PLD 1984 SC 170; Karachi Development Authority v. Wali Ahmed Khan 1991 SCMR 2435; Shagufta Hashmat v. Federation of Pakistan, 2018 PLC (C.S.) 619; Imran Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan, 2019 PLC (C.S.) Note 19; Muzaffar Khan v. Government of Pakistan 2013 SCMR 304; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Workers Welfare Board v. Raheel Ali Gohar 2020 SCMR 2068; Owais Shams Durrani v. Vice-Chancellor Bacha Khan University 2020 SCMR 1041; Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. v. Zeeshan Usmani 2021 SCMR 609; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Saeed ul Hasan 2021 SCMR 1376; Khushal Khan Khattak University v. Jabran Ali Khan 2021 SCMR 977; Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah 2021 SCMR 998; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman 2022 SCMR 406; Deputy Director Finance and Administration FATA v. Dr. Lal Marjan 2022 SCMR 566; Major (R) Waqar Ali Shah v. Nawab Ali 2015 PLC (C.S.) 1137; Abdullah Mangi v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation 2005 SCMR 445; SSGC v. Saeed Ahmed Khoso 2022 SCMR 1256; State Oil Company Ltd. v. Bakht Siddiqui 2018 SCMR 1181; Pir Imran Sajid v. Managing Director, Telephone Industries of Pakistan 2015 SCMR 1257; 2017 PLC (C.S.) 1192; Ikram Bari v. National Bank of Pakistan 2005 SCMR 100; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Muhammad Azam 2016 SCMR 1375; C.P. No.2270/2019; Ejaz Akbar Kasi v. Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 2011 PLC (C.S.) 367; Rizwan Javed v. Secretary Agricultural Livestock 2016 SCMR 1443 and Qayyum Khan v. Divisional Forest Officer, Mardan 2016 SCMR 1602 rel.

Malik Naeem Iqbal, Mohamed Vawda, Hamza Hidayatullah, Muhammad Nasir, Talha Abbasi, M.B. Khatyan, Imran Taj, Syed Shoa-un-Nabi, Saqib, Khan Zai, Khurram Memon, Ameer Ali, Saqib Soomro, Muhammad Khan Lakho, Ghulam Shabir Shar, Muhammad Asif Arain, Atia Kausar, Ravi Pinjani, Vera Awais, Chaudhry Muhammad Ashraf Khan, Uzma, Khadim Hussain, Syed Hussain Haider, Inayat Ali Mirza, Imtiaz Ali Mirza and Ghulamullah for Petitioners.

Ijaz Ahmed Zahid, Ghazi Khan Khalil, Qazi Umair Ali, Aleena Ahmed, Ameer Nausherwan Adil, Zeeshan Ahmed, Abdul Hakeem Junejo, Abdul Razzaque, Hayat Muhammad Junejo, Kumail Abbas, Muhammad Inzimam Sharif, Faisal Mahmood Ghani, Nida Faisal Ghani, Asim Iqbal, Farmanullah, Mukesh Kumar G. Karara, Nabi Bux Leghari, Sajid Ali, Kashif Hanif, Waqar Ahmed Zahid and Hashmatullah, Advocates; Qazi Ayazuddin Qureshi (Assistant Attorney General), Amaar Saleem Butt (Manager Legal SSGC), Raja Love Kush (Deputy Manager Legal), Syed Asad Abbas Naqvi (Deputy Chief Manager Legal), and Asma Zehra (Deputy Manager, Legal, SSGC) for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 136

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Muhammad Abdur Rahman, JJ

TARIQUE MUBEEN

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Government of Sindh and 3 others

Constitution Petition No.D-74 of 2024, decided on 7th May, 2024.

Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---

----R.12(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Appointment---Age limit---Policy decision---Judicial review---Scope---Delay in advertising vacancies and conducting examination---Crossing of upper age limit---Petitioner sought relaxation in upper age limit on the pretext that in other province relaxation in upper age limit was granted, however, the petitioner was left in lurch---Validity---Government of Sindh could relax the age of the petitioner, which had been categorically denied to the candidates appearing through combined competitive examination, thus, High Court could not substitute its view as the law on the subject was very clear, as such relaxation could be made applicable in the upper age limit to the applicants applying for the vacancies in all the departments in Government of Sindh except Police Service and the posts to be filled through combined competitive examination by the Sindh Public Service Commission---No design or ill-will was found behind belated advertisement of vacancies and holding of examination, thus, High Court declined to interference with the action of the Sindh Public Service Commission, as the issue of age relaxation laid with the Government of Sindh and for that purpose they had already issued the notification, which was a policy decision supported by the R.12(2) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---High Court while exercising the powers of judicial review cannot substitute its own view for that of the policy makers unless of course it is shown to be arbitrary or an unreasonable policy decision.

Suo-motu case No. 18 of 2016 rel.

Petitioner in person.

Ali Raza Baloch, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 172

[Sindh High Court]

Before Salahuddin Panhwar, J

Dr. ASIF AHMED QURESHI and 2 others

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of National Health Services and 2 others

Suit Nos.2916 of 2021 and 1513 of 2023, decided on 8th December, 2023.

(a) Good governance---

----Welfare State---Maxim "Salus populi suprema lex esto" and "Salus populi suprema lex"---Connotation---Welfare state must serve larger public interest---Salus populi suprema lex esto means "let the welfare of the people be the supreme law" and "Salus populi suprema lex", translates to "the health of the people is the supreme law"---State instrumentality must serve the society as a whole and must not grant unwarranted favour(s) to a particular class of people without any justification, at the cost of others---In order to serve larger public interest, State instrumentality must be able to generate its own resources, as it cannot serve such higher purpose while in deficit.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts.37, 38 & 146(1)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Suit for declaration and injunction---Good governance---Welfare State---Rights, duties and obligations---Parties not at issue---Plaintiffs assailed change of status of Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre (JPMC) from a Federal institution to a Provincial institution---Plaintiffs also assailed rights of employees of JPMC which were changed from Federal to Provincial employees---Validity---Rights under Arts. 37 & 38 of the Constitution may cover, means of livelihood, healthcare and general well-being of all sections of people in society, especially those of the young, the old, the women and the relatively weaker sections of society---Such groups generally require special protection measures in almost every set up---Happiness of the people is the ultimate aim of a welfare state, and a welfare state would not qualify as one, unless it strives to achieve the same---Plaintiffs could not be allowed to take advantage of a Federal issue in order to hamper and frustrate main aim and object of MoU entered into between the Federal and Provincial Governments in accordance with the provisions of Art. 146(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 in order to cater with the emergent needs of hospital to provide treatment to people round the clock---Plaintiffs did not have prima facie case in their favour, nor balance of convenience was in their favour---If recruitments purely on contract basis were not made, the public at large would suffer irreparable loss rather than the plaintiffs---High Court declined to frame issues as there were no material propositions of law and fact, on which issues, evidence of parties could be recorded---Government of Sindh was at liberty to make recruitments purely on contract basis in accordance with MoU entered into between the Provincial and Federal Governments---High Court directed that all rights and privileges of plaintiffs in respect of their services would not be prejudiced on the reason of contractual recruitments of the employees as per MoU executed between the Federal and Provincial governments and the rights of plaintiffs as to their due promotion would not be taken away on the basis of recruitments of the contract employees---Suit was disposed of accordingly.

2020 SCMR 1 and PLD 2017 Sindh 347 ref.

Waqar Ali Baloch for Plaintiff (in Suit No.2916 of 2021).

Abdullah Azzam Naqavi and Waqar Ahmed for Plaintiff (in Suit No.1513 of 2023).

Syed Muhammad Khurram and Muhammad Rahib Lakho for Defendant No.3/JPMC (in both suits).

Zeeshan Adhi, Additional Advocate General Sindh and Ghulam Sarwar Baloch, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 192

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary General and another

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Aviation Division and 3 others

Suit No.2999 of 2021, decided on 21st March, 2022.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 42 & 54---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 6---Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance (XXX of 1982), Preamble---Pre-selection of officers of Civil Aviation Authority by the Board for Promotion---Repeal of Ordinance---Effect---Plaintiff / Civil Aviation Authority Officers Association of Pakistan contended that provisions of repealed Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 2021 and Pakistan Airports Authority Ordinance, 2021 were applicable---Plea raised by defendant / Authorities was that after repeal of the two Ordinances, no benefit could be derived by plaintiffs---Validity---Repealed Ordinances were never acted upon and plaintiffs could exert for transfer of employees / officers of two divisions to their respective authorities---Law that stood prior to repeal of two Ordinances under consideration was revived and two Authorities were deemed to be working under common umbrella of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982---High Court declined to take any step as repeal of Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 2021 and Pakistan Airports Authority Ordinance, 2021, left no triggered or concluded rights for the employees of Civil Aviation Authority---High Court declared that after repeal of two Ordinances, the original Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982 was revived and Civil Aviation Authority with all its authorities was operating and functioning thereunder---High Court directed Board of Directors of Civil Aviation Authority to convene its meeting for pre-selection of candidates for their promotion---Suit was disposed of accordingly.

PLD 1960 Lahore 236; PLD 1964 (WP) Lahore 202; Government of Punjab v. Zia Ullah Khan 1992 SCMR 602; Mehreen Zaibun Nisa v. Land Commissioner PLD 1975 SC 397; Muhammad Arif v. The State 1993 SCMR 1589; Jannat-ul-Haq v. Abbas Khan 2001 SCMR 1073; Federation of Pakistan v. Dr. Mubashir Hassan PLD 2012 SC 106 and Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Muhammad Fahad Malik 2018 SCMR 1956 rel.

Faizan H. Memon for the Plaintiffs.

Khursheed Jawed, D.A.G. for Defendant No.1.

Khalid Mahmood Siddiqui for Defendants Nos.2 to 4.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 221

[Sindh High Court]

Before Zafar Ahmed Rajput and Rashida Asad, JJ

Capt. MUHAMMAD ALI KHAN

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary for Ministry of Maritime Affairs, Government of Pakistan Islamabad and 4 others

Constitutional Petition No.D-5060 of 2023, decided on 21st August, 2024.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.199---Port Qasim Authority Employees Service Regulations, 2011 [as amended in 2013], Sched. II---Service Cadre of Port Qasim Authority (PQA)---Judicial review of administrative actions---Scope---Locus standi---Departure from seniority based postings---Violation of departmental practice---Legitimate expectancy, principle of---Contention of the petitioner was that his juniors had been posted to higher posts but as per departmental practice petitioner being the senior most officer was a legitimate expectant for the higher post---Validity---Petitioner was much senior to respondents, who were holding managerial posts of Dock Master and Deputy Harbour Master, while the petitioner was posted as Pilot/Tug Commander---As per past practice the seniors in rank had been posted on the said positions, thus, petitioner had legitimate expectation of being treated in the same way owing to uniform practice and policy made and adopted by the administrative authorities of the PQA, and since such legitimate expectation had been eliminated, it had afforded locus standi to petitioner to challenge the administrative action of the respondents through the constitutional petition---PQA Service Regulations itself provided a pattern and design of posts in ranks one to six under Operations Cadre (Marine Operations) of PQA, which were to be assigned as per seniority roll; otherwise, it would cast doubts over the fair and square acts of the respondents in all matters encompassing legitimate expectation, thus, High Court repelled the plea of the respondents that past practice could never substitute codified law---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances, with directions to respondents to assign a post to petitioner as per seniority roll.

Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen and others v. Pakistan Bar Council and others PLD 2017 SC 231; Dr. Muhammad Saleem v. Government of Baluchistan and others 2023 SCMR 2119 and Uzma Manzoor and others v. Vice-Chancellor Khushal Khan Khattak University, Karak and others 2022 SCMR 694 distinguished.

Uzma Manzoor v. Vice-Chancellor, Khushal Khan Khattak University 2022 SCMR 694 and National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) through Chairman, Islamabad and others 2023 SCMR 1381 rel.

Malik Naeem Iqbal for Petitioner.

Shah Hussain Asstt. Attorney General for Pakistan for Respondent No.1.

Khalid Mahmood Siddiqui for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.

Respondents Nos.4 and 5 in person.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 241

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Mohammad Abdur Rahman, JJ

Syed MUHAMMAD MUNEER SHAH and another

Versus

SHAH ABDUL LATIF UNIVERSITY KHAIRPUR MIRS through Vice-Chancellor and 26 others

Constitution Petition No.D-1569 of 2023, decided on 2nd May, 2024.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 199(1)(b)(ii), 199(1)(a)(ii) & 199(5)---Writ of quo warranto---Scope---Out of cadre appointments---Distribution of administrative posts amongst the teaching cadre on Additional/Acting/OPS---Legality---Types of writs---Distinguished---Petitioners challenged the appointments of the private respondents belonging to the teaching cadre of the university for having no qualification to hold the administrative/cadre posts for being appointed in violation of the Recruitment Rules of the subject posts and due to arbitrariness of the respondent-university in posting them---Validity---Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur, is a public sector statutory university established under the Shah Abdul Latif University Act, 1986 and performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Province under Art. 199 (1) (a) (ii) read with Art. 199(5) of the Constitution, thus, the constitutional petition was maintainable---For issuance of the writ of quo warranto any person can lay information to the court regarding a public office being illegally occupied---Person laying such information does not necessarily have to be aggrieved---There is much difference between the writ of quo warranto and mandamus---Mandamus also differs from writs of prohibition or certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed, for the performance of public duty and commands the person to whom it is addressed to perform some public or quasi-public legal duty, which he has refused to perform, and the performance of which cannot be enforced by any other adequate legal remedy and in that situation party should be an aggrieved party having no other adequate and efficacious remedy---Article 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution shows that a person performing duties in connection with affairs of the Province could be required to show under what authority he is holding a particular public office and for that purpose, the petitioner therein may not be required to be an aggrieved person----In the present case direction sought by the petitioners was not merely confined to the issuance of writ of quo warranto rather the same included the issuance of directions like the writ of mandamus and prohibition against the private respondents requiring them to show their fitness to hold the administrative post without fulfilling the criteria as outlined in the recruitment rules---Administrative posts could only be filled as per recruitment rules and subject to eligibility and entitlement and not otherwise for the simple reason that the administrative cadre is different from the teaching cadre of respondent-university and recruitment rules for the subject post were already in the field---Private respondents were required to go back to their original position and work in their own cadre as the practice of transfer and posting out of the cadre based on purported Additional/Acting/OPS charges was not permissible under the University Act or Higher Education Commission---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh and others 2013 SCMR 1752; Ali Azhar Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2015 SCMR 456; C.P. No.D-4434, C.P. No.D-5842 of 2020; C.P. No.D-1459 of 2022; Secretary Finance and others v. Ghulam Safdar 2005 SCMR 534; Muhammad Bachal Memon and others v. Syed Tanveer Hussain Shah and others 2014 SCMR 1539; 2017 SCMR 2051; Ajmal Hassan Khan and another v. Government of Sindh and others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1153; Muhammad Yaseen v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2012 SC 132; Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana v. Pakistan 2013 SCMR 1159; Tariq Azizuddin: in re, 2010 SCMR 1301, Mahmood Akhtar Naqvi v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2013 SC 195; Syed Mubashir Raza Jafri and others v. Employees Old-age Benefits Institution (EOBI) 2014 SCMR 949; The Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others v. Ghulam Shabbir and others 2023 SCMR 686; Province of Sindh and others v. Ghulam Fareed and others 2014 SCMR 1189 and Khan Muhammad v. Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan Quetta and others 2018 SCMR 1411 rel.

Ghulam Shabbir Shar for Petitioners.

Nisar Ahmed Bhambhro for Respondents Nos.1 and 6 to 11 and 13 to 27.

Asfandyar Kharal, Assistant A.G. Sindh.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 293

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ

ABDUL SHAKOOR ABRO

Versus

PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN through Principal Secretary and 3 others

Constitution Petition No.D-2701 of 2022, decided on 16th April, 2024.

(a) Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules, 2019---

----Rr. 7(i) & 7(j)---Revised Promotion Policy, 2007, Para. 1(b)(iii)(iv)---Deferment of promotion---Scope---Criminal charges against civil servant---Effect---Petitioner (civil servant of BPS-19) by challenging his deferment of promotion sought direction to the official respondents to reconsider his case for promotion against the post of BS-20 with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted---Plea of the petitioner was that he had been acquitted from the criminal case against him, and his deferment on the continual various grounds was no more in the field---Validity---Petitioner, un-deniably, was facing a NAB reference and he was acquitted under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C, by the Accountability Court in the Reference filed against him---If any civil servant was facing an enquiry, investigation, NAB reference, his case could be deferred---Reasons assigned by the Central Selection Board (CSB) on the said analogy appeared to be reasonable and did not call for deliberation---In the meanwhile the petitioner had also failed to earn Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) in the year 2021 and did not submit his assets declaration for the last about four years---Record revealed that the petitioner managed to retain his deputation with the Sindh Government despite the issuance of a repatriation letter issued by the Establishment Division as informed, but he remained adamant, as such prima facie he had defied the directives of the competent authority which action fells within the ambit of disciplinary proceedings under the law---Petitioner, admittedly, was considered for promotion in the CSB meetings but was deferred on account of many factors---Case of the petitioner for promotion was rightly deferred by the competent authority / CSB and such decision did not call for any interference by the High Court, however, his further deferment if any shall be subject to the ceasing of reasons based on which the deferment took place---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Civil Servants Promotion (BPS-18 to BPS-21) Rules 2019, Rr. 7(i) and 7(j)---Revised Promotion Policy, 2007, Para 1(b)(iii) (iv)---Deferment of promotion of civil servant, matter of---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court, invoking of---Scope---Petitioner (Civil Servant of BPS-19) by challenging his deferment of promotion sought direction to the official respondents to reconsider his case for promotion against the post of BPS-20 with effect from the date when his juniors were promoted---Plea of the petitioner was that he had been acquitted from the criminal case against him and his deferment on the continual various grounds was no more in the field---Validity---Petitioner, admittedly, was considered for promotion in the Central Selection Board (CSB) meetings but was deferred on account of many factors---High Court was not meant to compel the competent authority to promote a civil servant against whom prima facie involvement in serious charges of misconduct was available, for the reason that any such direction would be disharmonious to the principle of good governance and canons of service discipline, causing undue interference which would hamper the smooth functioning of the departmental authorities---Promotion cannot be claimed as a vested / fundamental right---Case of the petitioner for promotion was rightly deferred by the competent authority/CSB and such decision did not call for any interference by the High Court, however, his further deferment if any shall be subject to the ceasing of reasons based on which the deferment took place---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Mst. Ifat Nazir v. Government of Punjab and others 2009 SCMR 703 ref.

Ali Asadullah Bullo for Petitioner.

Kashif Nazir, Assistant Attorney General for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.

Ali Safrdar Depar, A.A.G. for Respondent No.4.

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

2025 P L C (C.S.) 520

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Muhammad Abdur Rahman, JJ

NADEEM ABBAS MALLAH

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Schools Education Department and 5 others

Constitution Petition No.D-96 of 2019, decided on 25th April, 2024.

Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---

----R. 11-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Appointment---Deceased quota---Petitioner sought appointment against quota reserved for children of deceased employees, as his father passed away while serving the Education Department---Respondent took the plea of delayed claim as the father of the petitioner died in the year 2003, whereas, the petitioner applied for his appointment in the year 2008---Validity---Action of the respondent department did not align with the law laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan on the subject at hand and the petitioner had been subjected to hardship by the department as his father passed away in the year 2003 during service and the petitioner applied in the year 2008 within the policy terms, and his application was although processed, yet nothing had been done---Respondents had failed and neglected to look into the matter in its true perspective and violated the command of the Constitution and law---Thus, constitutional petition was allowed with a direction to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, and respondents to take into consideration the verdict of the Supreme Court on the subject issue as well as keeping in view R.11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974, whereafter, if the petitioner was found eligible in all respects for appointment against the quota reserved for deceased civil servant, he should be accommodated in any suitable ministerial post by allowing him to complete all legal and codal formalities as required under the law and the relevant rule, procedure and policy---Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Fakir Muhammad Arain for Petitioner.

Ghulam Mustafa G. Abro, Assistant A.G. Sindh. for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 547

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Muhammad Abdur Rahman, JJ

ZEESHAN

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Home Department and 3 others

Constitution Petition No.D-1689 of 2021, decided on 14th May, 2024.

Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---

----R.11-A---Appointment against deceased quota---Eligibility criteria---Determination---Petitioner being brother of deceased Constable claimed his appointment in Police Department against deceased quota---Deceased brother of petitioner had already been appointed as a Constable against deceased quota---Candiature of the petitioner was rejected due to deficiency in chest measurement---Claim of the petitioner was that he could avail deceased quota for second time---Validity---Petitioner was required to first meet the eligibility criteria for the post of Police Constable as provided under the Recruitment Rules as well as Police Rules, 1934, before being appointed on a designated post, which in the case of the petitioner was lacking---Police Constable can only be appointed on merit not based on deceased/Shaheed quota as every candidate has to meet the criteria as set forth in the recruitment rules notified by the Government of Sindh for such appointment in police force---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Riaz Ali Shaikh for Petitioner.

Liaquat Ali Shar, Additional Advocate General Sindh.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 580

[Sindh High Court]

Before Yousuf Ali Sayeed and Arbab Ali Hakro, JJ

ENGINEER ANWER ALEEM and others

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH and others

High Court Appeal No.47 of 2024, heard on 10th October, 2024.

Civil service---

----Post of Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE)---Appointment---Appellant not a party in suit/proceeding below---Court of leave to appeal---Test and scope---Not being parties to a suit pending before the Single Judge of High Court, the appellants professed to be aggrieved by the order made in said suit matter by Single Judge whilst seizing of an Application for temporary injunction ('the impugned order')---Appellants, in order to prefer appeal, cited the principle laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case reported as H.M. Saya & Co., Karachi v. Wazir Ali Industries Ltd., Karachi and another PLD 1969 SC 65 ('H.M. Saya case')---A suit having been filed by the appellants was also pending adjudication---Grievance of the appellants was said to stem from an observation made by the Single Judge in relevant paragraph of the impugned order where, whilst considering the contention of the plaintiff, the Court made certain observations---Plea of the appellant was that such observation was prejudicial to the outcome of their suit and conferred a carte blanche for the official functionaries of the provincial government to take steps towards their dismissal from the posts held by them---Validity---A perusal of the impugned Order reflected that the suit was filed under circumstances, different from the appellants, as matter in said suit related to assigning of additional charge of Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE), to the plaintiff, wherein while dismissing the interlocutory application, the Single Judge went on to direct the Secretary, Universities and Boards Department, Government of Sindh, to initiate process of appointment of posts of Chairman(s), BISEs, which was/were lying vacant on urgent basis in terms of relevant Rules within shortest possible period after completing all codal formalities"---Whereas the plaint submitted by appellants in their own suit reflected the matter to have been instituted by them with the ultimate end being that of preserving their status in relation to the posts held by them, of Controller /Deputy-Controller /Secretary Officer of Examinations of the BISE ; hence, unaffected by the direction given in the impugned order by the Single Judge---Particular observation-in-question did not relate to the appellants per se, and was even otherwise not binding in matter of adjudication of their suit; hence, the principle laid down in the H.M. Saya case relied by the appellants, was of no avail in the matter at hand in as much as "the test applied in granting leave to appeal, in such cases, is that if the person who wants to prefer the appeal must be a party in the suit or proceeding then he may obtain leave to appeal"; thus, the appellants fell short of that standard---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Syed Ali Ahmed Zaidi, for Appellants.

Zeeshan Adhi, Additional Advocate General Sindh, along with Abbas Balouch, Secretary, University and Boards, Government of Sindh.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 589

[Sindh (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Arbab Ali Hakro, J

Mst. NIGHAT BANO

Versus

PUBLIC AT LARGE and 3 others

Succession Appeal No.S-09 of 2022, decided on 23rd February, 2024.

(a) West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963---

----Rr. 4.7, 4.8(d) & 4.10(2)(b)(iv)---Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), Ss. 372 & 384---Family pension---Succession Certificate---Eligibility of unmarried sister to receive monthly pension of her deceased and retired sister---After death of her sister, (retired lecturer) petitioner applied for issuance of succession certificate qua pensionary benefits of her deceased sister, however same was refused by the Trial Court---Validity---Dependents, who apply for financial provision, are the deceased wife, husband and children or a child of a family in relation to any marriage or any other person who immediately before the death of the deceased is mentioned, whereas, in the case at hand, appellant was admittedly a government employee and was receiving a pension following her retirement, which implied that she was not reliant on the deceased, as she was earning her income as a government employee---Term "dependent" is defined as an individual with no personal earnings and entirely reliant on his/her sister's income---Simply being an unmarried sister did not automatically qualify the appellant as a dependent of her deceased sister---Dependency is not determined by marital status but by financial reliance---Despite the familial relationship, appellant's financial independence negated her status as a dependent---Succession Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

The Province of Punjab through the Secretary, Finance Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others v. Kanwal Rashid and others 2021 SCMR 730 Distinguished.

(b) West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963---

----R.4.7(1)---Word 'family'---Definition provided.

(c) Words and phrases---

----Word 'dependent'---Connotation---Term "dependent" carries a significant meaning, denoting an individual who is reliant on another for support---This reliance could be emotional, financial, or physical, underscoring a fundamental inability to exist or sustain oneself independently--Dependent person requires another individual's power, aid, or assistance to navigate life's challenges---This dependency could be a result of various factors such as age, health conditions, financial circumstances, or emotional needs---For instance, a child depends on their parents, requiring their support for survival and growth, similarly, an elderly or ill person may be dependent on a caregiver for his daily needs---In a broader sense, the concept of being "dependent" highlights the interconnectedness of human society, where individuals often rely on each other for survival and prosperity.

Safdar Ali Bhatti for Appellant.

Ahmed Ali Shahani, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents.

Dates of hearings: 22nd January, 2024 and 2nd February, 2024.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 634

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Sana Akram Minhas, JJ

ZAKIR HUSSAIN SAMO

Versus

The PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and others

Constitutional Petition No.D-6200 of 2022, decided on 18th December, 2023.

(a) Civil service---

----Promotion---Pro forma promotion, Entitlement, Government servant filed constitutional petition (on 14.10.2022), eight (08) days before his date of retirement---Contention of the petitioner was that the post in Grade-19 was sanctioned in the Budget for the year 2022-2023, whereas, time and again requests were made to consider his case for promotion but no response was given, hence, in the alternative, petitioner was entitled for a pro forma promotion---Version of the respondents was that delay in conducting a meeting of the Promotion Committee had occurred due to non-finalization of promotion rules for the newly created post---Validity---If a person is not considered due to any administrative slip-up, error or delay when the right to be considered for promotion is matured and without such consideration, he reaches the age of superannuation before the promotion, then obviously the avenue or pathway of pro forma promotion comes into field for his rescue---If he lost his promotion on account of any administrative oversight or delay in the meeting of DPC or Selection Board despite having fitness, eligibility and seniority, then in all fairness, he has a legitimate expectation for proforma promotion with consequential benefits---If due to any non-vigilance and insensitivity of a department, promotion of employees who are on the verge of retirement has been delayed, then the employees are not to suffer, entitling them to claim proforma promotion---Undisputedly, the petitioner was at Serial No.1 of the last seniority list issued by the respondents / Department whereas, it was also not in dispute that a post of Additional Director (BS-19) had been created and sanctioned, however, it was asserted by the respondents that the same (post) was not yet operationalized; but, for this the petitioner could not be blamed---Regarding the version of the respondents (that delay in not conducting a meeting of the Promotion Committee due to non-finalization of promotion Rules for the newly created post), was again not the fault of the petitioner---Therefore, in the given facts, the petitioner appeared to have been subjected to discrimination and had been deprived to claim his right to be considered for further promotion---Though the law did not confer any vested right to a Government servant to seek promotion but he surely had a right in law to be considered for grant of promotion---In Government service claiming a higher grade or promotion to the next positionis not a matter of right, but at the same time, one being otherwise eligible, has a right to be considered for such promotion in accordance with the relevant law and rules---Thus, a case for exercising discretion by the High Court had been made out in the present case---Since the Petitioner stood retired now, his eligibility should be considered for pro forma promotion to Grade-19, and if found eligible he shall be promoted---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Federation of Pakistan v. Jahanzeb and others 2023 PLC (C.S.) 336 and Sectretary Agriculture Peshawar v. Anees Ahmad 2021 SCMR 1266 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), Ss. 4(b) & 9(1)---Sindh Service Tribunals Act (XV of 1973), S. 4---Civil service---Promotion---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Undisputedly, the petitioner was only asking to be considered for promotion to the post (of Grade-19) which was created while he was in service---According to S. 9(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, a civil servant is to be considered for promotion if he is eligible on account of possessing the prescribed minimum qualification---This requires determination of his eligibility first and then whether he is fit to be promoted---As per S. 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the right to prefer an appeal to the Tribunal can be invoked subject to the fulfillment of two pre-conditions i.e. (i) in case a departmental appeal, review or representation is provided under the law, no appeal to the Tribunal shall lie unless such a remedy is availed by the aggrieved civil servant and (ii) a period of 90 days has elapsed since such departmental appeal, review or representation has been preferred---Admittedly, neither any final order had been passed by the departmental authority against the petitioner, nor against such order any appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority had been provided under Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, or any rules thereof---Similarly, S. 4(b) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, also prohibited an appeal in that no appeal laid to the Tribunal against an order of a departmental authority determining fitness or otherwise of a person in respect of promotion---In the present matter, the petitioner's eligibility was yet to be determined and his claim for promotion to Grade-19 had not yet been decided finally by anyone---Rather, an excuse had been given that certain rules were to be framed which had not been done and since the petitioner was retired now, his eligibility could not be decided now , which did not appear to be the correct approach---Nothing had prevented the respondents from deciding petitioner's fate in said regard and failure on their part could not be attributed to the Petitioner---Therefore, in such circumstances the petitioner could not have approached the Tribunal for rederessal of his grievance---Thus, a case for exercising discretion by the High Court had been made out---Since the petitioner stood retired now, his eligibility should be considered for pro forma promotion to Grade-19, and if found eligible, he shall be promoted---Constitutional Petition was allowed accordingly.

Dr. Sayyid A.S.Pirzada v. The Chief Secretary 2023 SCMR 1087 ref.

Muhammad Arshad Khan Tanoli for Petitioner.

Ali Safdar Depar, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 683

[Sindh High Court (Larkana Bench)]

Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Zulfiqar Ali Sangi, JJ

MAZHAR ALI KALHORO

Versus

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and 3 others

Constitutional Petition No.D-260 of 2018, decided on 8th January, 2025.

Sindh (Regularization of Ad hoc and Contract Employees) Act (XXV of 2013)---

----Ss.2(b), 2(d), 2(e) & 3---Constitution of Pakistan---Arts. 25 & 204---Contract employee---Regularization of service in terms of Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013---Permanent vacant post---Recommendations for regularization of petitioner in view of his satisfactory long service---Undertaking before the court qua regularization upon lifting of ban---Contention of petitioner was that he was treated discriminately and was not being regularized in disregard of the undertaking given before the court---Validity---Respondents on various occasions made statements before the Court that the petitioner's services should be regularized, however, the needful had not been done on one pretext or the other---Petition was filed in 2018 and more than six years had passed; he had been roaming from pillar to post to achieve his legitimate right, accrued pursuant to the undertaking and assurance by the respondents---When an order is passed, direction given or process issued by a court on the basis of an undertaking, the person in whose favour such assurance is given acquires a valuable right and the person(s) who violate such orders make themselves liable for prosecution for contempt in terms of Art.204 of the Constitution---High Court, to overcome the miseries and agonies suffered by the petitioner, converted the contempt application into one under S. 151, C.P.C. and directed respondents to regularize petitioner's services as per their undertaking---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Dr. Iqbal Jan and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2014 PLC (C.S.) 1153; Hakim Ali Ujjan and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 127; Chairman, Pakistan Railways and others v. Arif Hussain and others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 240 and Ayaz Ahmed Memon v. Pakistan Railways, Ministry of Railway, Islamabad through Chairman and another 2011 PLC (C.S.) 281 rel.

Petitioner in person.

Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, Additional Advocate General, Sindh along with Shoaib Ahmed, ADLG Ratodero, on behalf of RDLG Larkana for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.

Rafique Ahmed K. Abro for Respondent No.4.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 732

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ

ABDUL LATEEF

Versus

SERVICES, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION AND CO-ORDINATION DEPARTMENT through Secretary and 4 others

Constitutional Petition No.D-4484 of 2023, decided on 26th December, 2024.

Fundamental Rules---

----F.R. 54-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.9---Civil service---Pensionary benefits---Fundamental right---Withholding and delay in releasing pensionary benefits---Petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years retired from service on 21.08.2023 but the respondents withheld all the emoluments of the petitioner including pensionary benefits due to pending departmental proceedings against him---Validity---Pension was not a bounty or an ex-gratia payment but a right acquired in consideration of past services---Pension was a vested right and a legitimate expectation of a retiring civil servant, the same being a right conferred by law and it could not be arbitrarily abridged or reduced except in accordance with law---Fundamental Rule 54-A of Fundamental Rules made it absolutely clear that after the superannuation of the petitioner the disciplinary proceeding against him would abate---Since the petitioner had superannuated, thus the disciplinary proceedings against him had abated and as such the impugned letter was of no legal effect---Said rule also made it absolutely clear that once the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner had abated, the petitioner shall retire with full pensionary benefits---Employee could not be penalized for any action which was subject-matter of an inquiry which was not completed before his retirement---Rule 54-A of the Fundamental Rules of Service provided that on attaining the age of superannuation disciplinary proceedings which had not been completed, automatically abate and the civil servant was entitled to receive all pensionary benefits---High Court set aside the impugned letter holding that the subject inquiry against the petitioner as alluded to in the impugned letter had abated and that the petitioner was entitled to all pensionary benefits---Petition stood disposed of accordingly.

Mrs. Riffat Sattar v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary and 6 others 2016 PLC (C.S.) 472; Abdul Karim Daudpota v. Trade Development Authority of Pakistan and others (C.P No.D-1014 of 2019); Haji Muhammad Ismail Memon, Advocate's case PLD 2007 SC 35; Irshad Ahmed v. Port Qasim Authority through Chairman and 2 others 2019 PLC (C.S.) 557; Muhammad Zaheer Khan v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment and others 2010 SCMR 1554; Abdul Wali v. WAPDA through its Chairman and others 2004 SCMR 678 and Parveen Javaid v. Chairman Wapda and 5 others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1527; Irfan Naseer Baig and another v. Province of Punjab through Secretary, S&GAD and 2 others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1537 and Ghulam Nabi v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 5 others 2018 PLC (C.S.) Note 69 ref.

Abdul Hameed v. General Manager (Operation), Pakistan Railway Headquarter Office, Lahore and another 2012 PLC (C.S.) 209; Secretary, Government of Punjab, Finance Department and 269 others v. M. Ismail Tayer and 269 others 2015 PLC (C.S.) 296; Parveen Javiad v. Chairman WAPDA 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1527; Muhammad Anwar Bajwa, Executive Director, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, 1-Faisal Avenue, Zero Point Islamabad v. Chairman, Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Faisal Avenue, Zero Point, Islamabad 2001 PLC (C.S.) 336; Bilquis Nargis v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1141; Syed Abdus Salam Kazmi v. Managing Director WASA, Multan and another 2005 PLC (C.S.) 244; Haji Muhammad Ismail Memon Advocate Complainant's case PLD 2007 SC 35 and Muhammad Zaheer Khan v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment and others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 559 rel.

Raj Ali Wahid Kunwar for Petitioner.

Ali Safdar Depar, Assistant Advocate General, Sindh for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 773

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi and Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, JJ

MUMTAZ ALI and 6 others

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Education, Sindh Secretariat Karachi and 2 others

Constitution Petition No.D-2135 of 2024, decided on 18th March, 2025.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.199---Civil service---Appointment of primary school teachers---Allegation of biasness in recruitment process---Petitioners securing insufficient marks to qualify for merit list---The petitioners filed a Constitutional petition challenging the non-issuance of appointment orders for the post of Primary School Teacher (PST BPS-14) despite having applied through a public advertisement and passing the test---They alleged that the official respondents favored other candidates based on bribes or personal preference, unlawfully depriving the petitioners of their rightful appointments---The core grievance of the petitioners was that despite securing passing marks, they were not appointed as primary school teachers in (BPS-14),however, the official record reflected that while the petitioners did indeed pass the test, their scores were insufficient to qualify within the merit list---The last appointed candidate from the relevant union council had obtained 51 marks, whereas each of the petitioners scored below that benchmark---Initially in that Recruitment Policy, 2021 for teaching and non-teaching staff of School Education and Literacy Department Government of Sindh the recruitment for primary school teacher (BPS-14) were on Union Council basis, whereas, subsequently, the Government of Sindh amended the aforementioned policy, column No.2 of which reflected that the appointment of primary school teachers were based upon Taluka basis instead of Union Council---Policy matters fell within the exclusive domain of the executive and judicial interference was warranted only in cases where such policy was in violation of fundamental rights---The petitioners failed to establish a case warranting judicial intervention---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Watan Party v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 697; Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif v. President of Pakistan 1993 SCMR 473; Gadoon Textile Mill v. WAPDA 1997 SCMR 641; Sher Aman v. The State 2022 SCMR 406; Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary Lahore v. Prof. Dr. Javed Iqbal and others 2022 SCMR 897; Punjab Public Service Commission and others v. Mst. Aisha Nawaz and others 2011 SCMR 1602 and Abdul Hameed and others v. Water and Power Development Authority through Chairman Lahore and others 2021 SCMR 1230 rel.

Abdul Ahad Buriro for Petitioners.

Ali Raza Baloch, Addl. A.G. Sindh for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 815

[Sindh High Court]

Before Yousuf Ali Sayeed and Arbab Ali Hakro, JJ

Syed MAHMOOD JAFFAR ZAIDI

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance Division, Islamabad and 2 others

C.P. No.D-5990 of 2023, decided on 20th November, 2024.

(a) National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973---

----R. 36(c)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Employment---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Rules governing the service of employees of National Bank of Pakistan (NBP)---Whether statutory or non-statutory---Determination---Laches---Petitioner being aggrieved of his demotion to a lower grade without specifying any period sought reinstatement to his original position---Respondent-Bank pleaded non-maintainability of the constitutional petition on the counts of laches and non-statutory Rules of National Bank of Pakistan---Validity---Petitioner had impugned memorandums of his demotion and dismissal of his departmental appeal decided on merits without being time barred---Computation of time relevant to the doctrine of laches would commence from the date of the later memorandum---Constitutional petition was filed a mere 18 days subsequent to memorandum of dismissal of appeal of the petitioner, thus, constitutional petition was not hit by laches---National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, were held to be statutory---Departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in the year 2011, which were culminated upon passing of his demotion order in the year 2013, thus, Rules of 1973 being statutory applied to the petitioner's case, meaning thereby that NBP, as a statutory corporation, was subject to the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, predicated on substantial evidence and an exhaustive examination of the case, were immune from interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction---Interference in such findings would egregiously undermine the integrity of the administrative process and the inviolable principle of finality of administrative decisions---It is imperative that the judiciary respects the meticulously established processes to handle such inquiries, except where there is compelling evidence of procedural impropriety or a palpable violation of fundamental rights---Punitive measures, including demotions, must not be of an indefinite duration, thus, impugned memorandums were modified to the extent that the punitive measure of degradation to a lower stage/grade was specified to be an effective for two years from the date of initial memorandum---Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

2010 PLC 323; C.P. No.D-4598 of 2021; C.P. No.D-973 of 2022; 2020 SCMR 1218; 2019 PLC SC 189 and 2024 SCMR 92 ref.

Muhammad Naeem v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2023 SCMR 301; Muhammad Tariq Badr and another v. National Bank of Pakistan and others 2013 SCMR 314 and Qamar Ali v. Federation of Pakistan and others (C.P No.D-973/2022) rel.

(b) Interpretation of statutes---

----Change in substantive law---Retrospective effect---Scope---Changes in substantive law, which divest or adversely impact vested rights, must be applied prospectively unless the legislature explicitly indicates retrospective applicability.

Rafiq Ahmed Kalwar and Muhammad Yasir for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Ashraf and Ch. Azhar Elahi for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.

Imran Rind for Respondent.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 837

[Sindh High Court]

Before Zafar Ahmed Rajput and Rashida Asad, JJ

SAMI UDDIN

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Aviation and 3 others

Constitution Petition No.D-7277 of 2021, decided on 8th May, 2024.

Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Conversion) Act (XV of 2016)---

----Ss. 3(6) & 4(4)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 (1) (a)(ii) & 199(5)---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Employee of Pakistan International Airline Corporation Limited (PIACL)---Claim for release of pensionary benefits---Respondent-Corporation raised objections as to maintainability of the constitutional petition as its employees were not governed by statutory rules and also contended that the petitioner worked four years beyond his superannuation date receiving excess salary and benefits due to wrong entry of his date of birth---Validity---Pakistan International Airline Corporation Limited (PIACL) is a public sector company created under the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (Conversion) Act, 2016 (Act)---Federal Government makes appointment and plays a pivotal role in its policy making---It being a statutory body performs some of the functions of the Federation/State and through the exercise of public power, it creates public employment---Though PIACL has no statutory service rules yet, its employees are "persons in corporation services" within the scope of S. 3(6) of the Act, thus, PIACL is a "person" within the meanings of Art.199 (1) (a)(ii) read with Art. 199 (5) of the Constitution---If the actions or order passed by a statutory body were violative of the statute creating it and/or Rules/Regulations framed under the Statute, the same could be interfered with by the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Since the petitioner had sought enforcement of his right and privileges as to his pensionary benefits, the constitutional petition was maintainable---Date of birth of an employee recorded in his service book/record was the date to determine his age for attaining the superannuation---Petitioner served PIACL for considerable period of 40 years, however, PIACL never raised any objection regarding his actual date of birth during his entire period of service and after his retirement such objection had been raised making a claim of recovery on account of petitioner working beyond his actual superannuation date, whereas it was an admitted position that even for the said period the petitioner served PIACL---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Pakistan Defence Officer's Housing Authority and others v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed 2013 SCMR 1707 rel.

Haroon Shah for Petitioner.

Muhammad Qasim, Deputy Attorney General for Respondent No.1.

Harchand Rai for Respondents Nos.2 to 4.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 857

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi and Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, JJ

NISAR AHMED NAGREJO

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Karachi and 4 others

C.P. No.D-621 of 2023, decided on 16th April, 2025.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.199---Civil service---Appointment of Primary School Teachers---Filing of Constitutional petition in 2023, questioning the recruitment process held in 2012---Laches, applicability of---Right not pursued in time would be deemed waived---Principle---No automatic appointment in case of non-joining of candidates placed above in the merit list---Scope---The petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of primary school teacher under the Recruitment Policy, 2012, after applying through an advertisement issued by the education department where four vacancies were available---After having secured 77 marks in the test the petitioner asserted that at least two vacancies remained unfilled due to selected candidates not joining, therefore he should have been appointed, whereas, Respondent No.5 (district education officer) clarified that four seats were available (two male, two female) and the final merit list closed at 87 marks and the petitioner's 77 marks fell below the cutoff---Held: After hearing the parties and examining the record, it was manifest that the recruitment process for primary school teachers in which the petitioner had participated was conducted in the year 2012---The present petition was filed in the year 2023 after a delay of eleven long years without any plausible explanation for such extraordinary and unexplained inaction---It has been a settled principle of law that courts do not lend assistance to a party who remains indolent in the assertion of their rights, therefore, the doctrine of laches squarely applied to the present case---A right not pursued in time, particularly in matters relating to public employment, would deemed to have been waived---Besides the involvement of laches, there appeared no case on merits---The merit list clearly demonstrated that the last appointed candidate had secured 87 marks, 10 marks more than the petitioner---No illegality, procedural impropriety, or violation of recruitment policy could be pointed out by the petitioner---Moreover, the policy relied upon did not contain any clause mandating automatic advancement to the next candidate in case of non-joining by selected individuals---High Court found no merit in the present petition, which was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Arif v. Province of Sindh (Civil Petition No.186-K of 2013) and State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and another v. Imtiaz Ali Khan and others PLJ 2012 SC 289 rel.

Asghar Khan and 5 others v. Province of Sindh through Home Secretary Government of Sindh and others 2014 PLC (C.S.) 1292 ref.

Sikander Ali Junejo for Petitioner.

Shahriyar Imdad Awan, Assistant Advocate General Sindh for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 872

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Abdul Mubeen Lakho, JJ

Mst. RUBINA TUFAIL

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Islamabad and another

C.P. No.D-3853 of 2023, decided on 4th December, 2024.

Pakistan Defence Housing Authority Service Rules, 2008---

----R.8(b)(4)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Employment---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Employee of Pakistan Defence Housing Authority---Termination from service---Non-statutory rules of service---Effect---Contention of the employee was that her case was not considered within the parameters of Pakistan Defence Housing Authority Service Rules, 2008 (Rules) as she was not issued show cause notice---Validity---Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority had non-statutory Service Rules, thus, constitutional petition was not maintainable---Petitioner was given a show-cause notice, which was replied by her and then the order of termination followed as per R.8(b)(4) of the Rules, thus, it could not even be argued that the petitioner's case was not considered within the parameters of the Rules, which had been fully complied with in the petitioner's case---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Mrs. Itrat Sajjad Khan and others 2017 SCMR 2010 rel.

Muhammad Ramzan for Petitioner.

Malik Naeem Iqbal and Talha Abbasi for Respondent/DHA.

Khaleeq Ahmed, D.A.G.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 902

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Sana Akram Minhas, JJ

ASADULLAH KHAWAJA

Versus

INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (ICP) through Managing Director

High Court Appeal No.123 of 2020, decided on 31st May, 2024.

Investment Corporation of Pakistan Ordinance (IV of 1966)---

----Ss.12(1)(d) & 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Civil service---Retirement benefits---High Court Appeal against order passed in suit for declaration and recovery---Retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in Scale M-1---Doctrine of promissory estoppel, applicability of---Dispute regarding retirement benefits on the basis of salary drawn on the cutoff date---Effect of revision of fixation of salary in scale M-1 by the Federal Government and Investment Corporation of Pakistan (ICP) on the retirement benefits of the appellant---Scope---Appointment of appellant as Managing Director was made by the Government of Pakistan and the applicable law at the time of appointment was Investment Corporation of Pakistan Ordinance, 1966 (ICP Ordinance, 1966)---Since the appointment was made in pursuance of ICP Ordinance, 1966, therefore, the governing law, as of now, could only have prospective effect, unless the specific law in this regard was expressed---Since the appointment terms and conditions of the appellant were provided by the Federal Government, his terms and conditions could only be determined by the Federal Government---Appointment under the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974 [as amended by the Banks (Nationalization) (Amendment) Act, 1997] is to apply only on new appointments, made in pursuance of and in accordance with the criteria laid down in the Amendment Act, 1997---Appellant on his own acceptance was also stopped from seeking such privileges and the doctrine of promissory estoppel would also come in his way---Appellant failed to make out a case, therefore, appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Zila Council Jehlum through District Coordination Officer v. M/s. Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited and others PLD 2016 SC 398 and Mst. Alia Riaz v. Government of Punjab and others 2015 CLC 1640 rel.

Khalid Mehmood Siddiqui for Appellant.

Nabeel Kolachi for Respondent.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 916

[Sindh High Court (Larkana Bench)]

Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, JJ

ABDUL HUSSAIN

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Agriculture Department Sindh and 4 others

Constitution Petition No.D-468 of 2019, decided on 22nd April, 2025.

Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---

----Rr. 10-A & 11-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 9, 27, 34, 35 & 199---Appointment---Deceased quota ---Eligibility of legal heirs for appointment after death of employee---Petitioner applied for his appointment against deceased/father quota but his claim was not decided by the competent authority---Denial of job to the petitioner under deceased quota would be an act of discrimination, as it appeared from record that the petitioner was not dealt in accordance with law, he suffered due to red-tapism and lethargy of the department, which violated his fundamental rights enshrined under Arts. 4, 5, 9, 25 & 27 of the Constitution---Case of the petitioner was pending adjudication before competent authority for consideration since 2002 and at that time policy regarding employment of children of ex-employees, who died while in services or retired being incapacitated to further perform services, was in force, therefore, the same shall not be affected in any manner---Court being the custodian of the fundamental rights of citizens could not shut its eyes when it reached a conclusion that action on the part of a statutory body or organization resulted in infringement of fundamental rights of a person---Though the appointment process was an internal mechanism of the department wherein the High Court sparingly interfered but the Court would not hesitate to step in when a right to job otherwise available under the law was declined in a slipshod manner---Petition was allowed accordingly.

General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 ref.

Irfan Badar Abassi for Petitioner.

Liaquat Ali Shar, Addl. A.G. along with Asadullah Solangi, Deputy Director Agriculture for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 921

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ

Dr. ITRAT MALIK

Versus

STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN through Chairman and 3 others

C.P. No.D-1168 of 2020, decided on 11th February, 2025.

State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973---

----Reglns. 30 & 31---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---"Misconduct"---Imposing minor/major penalties---Censure---Non-conducting of inquiry---Petitioner was employee of State Life Insurance Corporation (SLIC) and her dismissal from service was set-aside by the High Court, which was upheld by the Supreme Court---Subsequently the petitioner was censured by the SLIC and her period out of service was treated as leave without pay---Validity---Censure is generally considered a minor disciplinary action, often a formal reprimand or expression of disapproval for misconduct or poor performance---Proposed penalty against petitioner required proper inquiry under Regln. 31 of State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973---Respondent-company failed to conduct such inquiry before issuing minor penalty of censure---Inquiry officer's attempts to find petitioner guilty on all charges led to her reinstatement by competent authority without looking into the factum of misconduct---Censure order was unsustainable because the inquiry was not conducted according to State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, could not convert such flawed penalty into a different one---Unconditional setting aside of dismissal or demotion necessitated back benefits---Granting back benefits to illegally removed employees was the rule, and denial was the exception---Reinstatement after illegal dismissal meant continuous service, entitling the employee to back pay---Only exception was where employee had other employment or profitable business during the dismissal period and such earnings could be an offset against back pay---High Court directed the Insurance Corporation to pay back service benefits as petitioner was entitled to the same and set aside order in question---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

M. Sharif v. IG Punjab 2021 SCMR 962; Khalid Mehmood v. State Life Insurance Corporation 2008 SCMR 376; Muhammad Arif Khan v. Dy. ENC, EIN-C's Branch GHQ, Rawalpindi 1991 SCMR 1904; Muhammad Sharif v. IGP and others 2021 SCMR 962; Lahore Development Authority and others v Muhammad Nadeem Kachloo and another 2006 SCMR 434; Qadeer Ahmed v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore and another PLD 1990 SC 787; Maqbool Ahmed Qureshi v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice and others PLD 2019 SC 37; Messrs Arshad and Company v Capital Development Authority, Islamabad 2000 SCMR 1557; DIG, NH & MP, Karachi v. Ghulam Mustafa Mahar and another 2019 SCMR 95; Ijaz Akbar v. The Director General L&DD, Punjab Lahore and others 2024 PLC (C.S.) 129; Pakistan Defense Housing Authority 2013 SCMR 1707; Abdul Wahab 2013 SCMR 1383; Ramna Pipe 2004 SCMR 1274; LDA v. Nadeem Kachloo 2006 SCMR 434; Director-General, I.B. v. Muhammad Javed, and Sharif Abbasi v. WAPDA 2013 SCMR 903 and Secretary, Government of Punjab, and others v. Khalid Hussain Hamdani and 2 others 2013 SCMR 817 ref.

Ameeruddin and Shoaib Moihuddin Ashraf for Petitioners.

Muhammad Assadullah Shaikh for Respondents.

Ms. Wajeeha Mehdi, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 944

[Sindh High Court]

Before Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Muhammad Abdul Rehman, JJ

ALI JAN PANHWAR and others

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Sindh Small Industries, Corporation, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 5 others

Constitution Petition No.1691 of 2017 (and other connected petitions) decided on 14th May, 2024.

Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---

----Rr. 10-A & 11-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 27, 34, 35 & 199---Appointment---Deceased quota---Cut-off date for making application for appointment in the deceased quota---Determination---Petitioners applied for their appointment against the quota reserved for deceased employees and/or who were declared invalidated or incapacitated for further service---Respondent-departments initially took a plea that the petitioners did not apply for their appointment within time, thus, petitioners were not entitled for their appointment, however, subsequently, they sought disposal of the cases in terms of the ratio of order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Supreme Court in C.Ps. Nos.482-K and 503-K of 2016---Validity---High Court observed that in view of notification dated 16.09.2014 the clog of two years for making the application for employment under the deceased quota for the children, who had already applied for employment before making this rule was done away with, thus, the respondents could not make this excuse to refuse the appointments as they were required to go through the order of the Supreme Court and make up their mind to consider the candidature of the petitioners strictly under law and decision made by the Supreme Court on the subject issue---Public employment is a source of livelihood, thus, no citizen should be discriminated in the said matter on the grounds as provided under Art.27 of the Constitution---Government is bound to make certain quotas in appointments or posts in favor of any less privileged class of citizens which in the opinion of the government are not adequately represented in the services under the State, thus R. 11-A of Rules, 1974 as amended up-to-date was introduced to cater to this situation to accommodate the aforesaid categories of civil servants---Primarily, the purpose of making beneficial policies about appointment against deceased quota is to minimize the miseries of the family of the deceased on the death of a serving employee, however, by introducing such a policy a citizen cannot be deprived of his/her protected rights---Under Art. 35 of the Constitution, the State is under obligation to protect the family of the deceased, thus, any policy that violates guaranteed rights cannot be sustained and if such a policy is approved, it will amount to defeating another constitutional guarantee provided under Art. 34 of the Constitution---It is an inalienable right of every citizen to have the protection of the law and also to be treated and dealt with under the law with the particularity that no one can take action against him/her detrimental to his/her life and liberty and cannot be prevented from an act which is not prohibited by law---Respondents-/Government of Sindh has to make recruitment to every post applied by the candidates under the law as discussed supra as well as based on invalidated or incapacitated/minority/differently-abled and deceased quota reserved for those employees by issuing appointment order by invoking either R.11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, or policy/guidelines of Government of Sindh on the subject issue---Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

C.Ps. Nos. 482-K and 503-K of 2016. rel.

Irshad Hussain Dharejo, Achar Khan Gabol, Khan Muhammad Sangi, Riaz Ali Shaikh, Abdul Raheem Mahar, Abdul Salam Shaikh, Zubair Ahmed, Shahid Ali Memon, Ubedullah Malano, Yaseen Ali Ghunio, Shafique Ahmed Leghari, Saeed Ahmed, Ali Gul Abbassi, Abdul Naeem Pirzda, Khuda Bux Chohan, Niazuddin Memon, Abdul Ahad Buriro, Sheeraz Fazal, Rehmat Ali Shaikh, Shewak Ram Valeecha, Altaf Ahmed Ansari, Mansoor Ali Maitlo, Ghulam Mujtaba Jakhar, Muhammad Nawaz Qazi, Saleem Ahmed, Sikandar Ali, Shabbir Ali Bozdar and Ali Akber for Petitioners.

Sanwan Khan Jagirani, Legal Advisor SIDA.

Liaquat Ali Shar along with Malik Dino Mallah, DFO Sukkur, Lal Muhammad Mahar, Assistant Engineer S.B Bund Sub-division Sukkur and SIP Ali Murad Narejo on behalf of SSP Khairpur.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 976

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ

YOUNUS PARWANI and 6 others

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Finance Secretary and 2 others

Constitutional Petition No.D-42 of 2017, decided on 17th April, 2025.

Banks (Nationalization) Act (XIX of 1974)---

----S.11(10)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art, 199---Promotion policy, challenge to---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Promotion policy matters of banks---High Court lacking necessary expertise in evaluation of promotion assessment---Setting promotion eligibility criteria fundamentally an administrative function---Promotion Policy, 2015 introduced by National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) was challenged---It was contended that the policy unlawfully allocated 20 marks for interviews for management cadre promotions, enabling favoritism and bypassing merit---A promotion list was announced based on this allegedly illegal policy---Further objections were raised against the President of NBP being allowed to promote 25 employees annually under discretionary powers later approved by the board of human resources---The petitioners claimed that 47 deserving officers were denied promotion despite better performance, while 26 officers were promoted based on favoritism---It was contended by means of the present Constitutional petition that the discretionary promotions violated the established promotion policies and infringed constitutional/service rights and on that basis nullification of the discretionary powers and promotion of the petitioners were sought---Held: Considering the bank's stated policy on promotions, employees did not have inherent or guaranteed right to promotion based solely on seniority---Promotion decisions which hinged on performance and integrity depended on multiple factors evaluated by the bank's authorized body---High Court lacked necessary expertise in such evaluations---Legal precedent in service matters established that promotion involved assessing both eligibility (meeting basic criteria) and fitness (a subjective evaluation) based on seniority, eligibility, fitness, promotion, and other employment terms rests solely with the competent authority, as defined by the relevant laws and rules---According to S. 11(10) of the Banks (Nationalization) Act, 1974, all employee selections, promotions, and transfers (excluding president), as well as decisions regarding their pay and benefits, were to be made by the president of the respondent bank---Such decisions must align with the evaluation criteria and personnel policies established by the board---In the present case, respondent bank had indeed formulated a promotion policy for its regular employees, covering advancements from clerical positions to officer grade and higher ranks, up to executive vice president, and this policy included specific criteria---High Court emphasized the competent authority's established legal right to formulate rules for efficient service and resolve inconsistencies within the service rules---Setting promotion eligibility criteria was the responsibility of the service rules committee and was fundamentally an administrative function within the respondent bank's exclusive policy-making authority---Therefore, High Court normally would not interfere in such promotion matters as bank employees lacked a guaranteed right to promotion or the rules defining their eligibility and fitness---Moreover, in banking cases, the High Court typically lacked jurisdiction to invalidate such policies via a writ petition, except when the policy contradicted public interest, which was not the situation in the present case---Constitutional petition being without merits, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Nishat Warsi for Petitioners.

Rashid Anwar for NBP.

Mrs. Wajiha Mehdi, A.A.G.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 992

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ

HUSNAIN BROHI

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others

C.P. No.D-1804 of 2022, decided on 4th February, 2025.

Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2020---

----R.11---Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R.6-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 13(a)---Civil service---Revisional powers of Prime Minister to initiate de novo proceedings---Scope---Double jeopardy---Imposition of minor penalty of withholding of annual increments of two years---Setting aside of penalty order by the Federal Service Tribunal with the observation to reconsider the matter within a period of 02 months---Disappearance of alleged offence---Initiation of de novo proceedings against the petitioner upon the direction of the Prime Minister with a delay of 07 years---Validity---Prime Minister's reference to R. 6-A of Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 1973, (Rules-1973) in the order was misconceived as his power only flowed to the extent of revision under R. 11(3) of the Civil Servants (E&D) Rules, 2020, (Rules, 2020), which specifically barred the Prime Minister to call for a disposed of case if that case had been disposed of for more than one year---In the case the delay was 7 years and as such the Prime Minister's order to reopen the case against the petitioner on a de novo basis was misconceived based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case and particularly under the proviso to R. 11 (3) of Rules-2020---Exercise of such power might be contrary to Art. 13 (a) of the Constitution as it would lead to a person, who had served out his punishment again being subjected to a further and potentially greater punishment based on the same allegations/offences which he had already been exonerated from, which might prima facie amount to a case of double jeopardy---Prime Minister should have been more cautious in exercising his power of review under R. 11(3) of Rules, 2020 even if he was acting within the stipulated time limit of one year by seeking proper assistance from the concerned department keeping in view the particular facts and circumstances of each case---Department failed to act upon the order and did not lodge any appeal against the same which had attained finality----Order was passed 3 years after the notification awarding the minor penalty on the petitioner which punishment had already been served/carried out by the petitioner albeit he was later exonerated---Petitioner was promoted by the department after serving out his punishment from which he was later exonerated and the Company which allegedly had been illegally benefitted by the petitioner's alleged inefficiency, misconduct and corruption had been exonerated of any wrong doing---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Riffat Hassan and 9 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue/Secretary, Revenue Division and another 2011 PLC (C.S.) 562 and Rajabuddin v. Federation of Pakistan (Appeal No.171(K)/CS/2021) rel.

Malik Naeem Iqbal for Petitioner.

Ms. Wajiha M. Mehdi, Assistant Attorney General and Zafar Imam for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1018

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi and Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, JJ

MUMTAZ ALI ANSARI

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Local Government Department, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 10 others

Constitution Petition No.D-940 of 2024, decided on 8th April, 2025.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Judicial process, misuse of---Submitting ficticious documentation before the Court---Petitioner asserting himself as a regular and confirmed employee of the respondents (concerned Town Committee, Local Government) filed Constitutional Petition seeking the release of outstanding salaries---Validity---Record reveals that the petitioner had earlier approached High Court seeking identical relief, which Petition was disposed of ; however, rather than abiding by the judicial pronouncement, the petitioner sought to re-agitate the matter by misusing judicial process and submitting fictitious documentation---High Court categorically deprecated the petitioner's conduct and the reprehensible attempts to manipulate the judicial process---Thus, present constitutional petition, being tainted by suppression of material facts and devoid of merit, was dismissed with costs.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Concealment of facts---Judicial process, misuse of---Effect---Petitioner asserting himself as a regular and confirmed employee of the respondents ( concerned Town Committee, Local Government) filed Constitutional petition seeking the release of outstanding salaries---Validity---Record revealed that many facts were consciously suppressed by the petitioner including an FIR that had already been lodged against the Petitioner in connection with the theft from the public library---Such deliberate concealment was reprehensible and constituted a grave abuse of the judicial process---It was equally alarming that the counsel appearing for the petitioner in the prior litigation failed to disclose the previous proceedings while the other / present counsel representing the petitioner herein, also withheld these critical facts---Such conduct was entirely unbecoming of an Advocate---Courts rightly repose trust in officers of the court and expect the highest standards of professional candour---Any deviation from such ethical standards warrants serious censure---High Court observed that should such unethical behavior persist in future, the matter will be referred to the Bar Council for disciplinary action---High Court categorically deprecated the petitioner's conduct and the reprehensible attempts to manipulate the judicial process---Thus, present constitutional petition, being tainted by suppression of material facts and devoid of merit, was dismissed with costs.

Jawad Hussain Rajper associated of Syed Jaffar Ali Shah for Petitioner.

Muhammad Yasin Khaskheli for Respondents Nos.3 and 4.

Shahid Hussain Jogi for Respondents Nos.2 and 5.

Shahryar Imdad Awan, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1080

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ

SAJJAD ANWAR SUNNY and 77 others

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 2 others

Constitutional Petition No. 5887 of 2024, decided on 10th December, 2024.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 199 & 212---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Bar contained under Art. 212 of the Constitution---Scope---Appointment of Police Inspectors (Investigation)---Postings limited to Investigation Branch excluding Operational Branch---Validity---Petitioners were appointed as Inspectors (Investigation) (BPS-16) in the Sindh Police Department and their appointment letters specifically stated that they would work only in the Investigation Unit and would not be transferred to other agencies like ACE, FIA, or Motorway---Transfer of Investigation Officers to the Executive Branch contradicts the Supreme Court's judgment in the Gul Hassan Jatoi case as their appointment letters as Inspector Investigations limiting their transfer and posting to the Executive Branch was a matter of their terms and conditions of service and was outside the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 212 of the Constitution---Thus, the petitioners could not be allowed to be transferred from the Investigation Wing to perform their service in the Executive Branch of the Police Department---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Gul Hassan Jatoi and others v. Faqir Muhammad Jatoi 2016 SCMR 1254 rel.

G. M. Bhutto for Petitioners.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1084

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, JJ

NISAR HUSSAIN SHAIKH

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 2 others

Constitutional Petition No. 5412 of 2022, decided on 7th March, 2025.

(a) Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---

----R. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 175 & 199---Fundamental Rules, F.R. 17---Promotion---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Post of Chief Chest Specialist (BS-20)---Eligibility criteria---Determination---Fixation of ratio between Post Graduate Doctors and Diploma Holder Doctors for appointment and promotion in Specialist Cadre---Petitioner during his service claimed promotion against the post of Chief Chest Specialist, which was regretted due to non-availability of vacancy in his cadre---Petitioner after his retirement filed constitutional petition for grant of proforma promotion concealing the factum as to rejection of his earlier claim of promotion---Validity---Promotion is not a vested right of a civil servant---Case of petitioner having been considered for promotion to the said post was regretted on account of availability of any vacancy under the Category of Diploma Holder Doctors---Petitioner instead of challenging such decision of Provincial Selection Board before competent forum/(Services Tribunal) filed constitutional petition before High Court by concealing the said decision, which, prima facie, established that petitioner had approached the High Court with unclean hands---To seek equitable relief under writ jurisdiction petitioner was to demonstrate his bona fides---Department had dealt with the petitioner in accordance with law---Petitioner failed to point out departure by respondents from rules while dealing with the case of petitioner, thus, no declaration could be granted in favour of petitioner as he had been dealt with by the Department in accordance with law---Criteria laid down by the Health Department for appointment and promotion of Specialist Cadre Doctors was well within the bounds of law, in line with statutory provisions and did not require interference---It is prerogative of the executive bodies to make rules---Courts have always respected mandate given to legislative and executive bodies to make laws and frame rules, provided that the subordinate legislation/rules are not in conflict with the statutory provisions or are person specific or based on mala fides---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Walayat Ali Mir v. Pakistan International Air Lines Corporation 1995 SCMR 650 and Abid Hassan v. P.I.A.C. 2005 SCMR 25 distinguished.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 175, 199---Fundamental Rules, F.R. 17---Proforma promotion---Entitlement---Scope---Proviso to F.R. 17 was omitted by Finance Division, as such benefit of proforma promotion under F.R. 17 was only available to civil servants retiring before cut-off date and as the petitioner retired after the cut-off date of the said notification, thus, such benefit was not available to him---Concept of proforma promotion or promotion with retrospective effect to a retired civil servant is alien to the scheme of law---Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, being governing laws in matters of appointment and promotions do not contain any provision entitling a civil servant for proforma promotion after retirement and in absence of any laws conferring rights of proforma promotion to the retired civil servants, High Court cannot issue writ directing the public sector organizations/entities/departments to do an act otherwise not permissible under the law.

Secretary Ministry of Finance, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan v. Muhammad Anwer 2025 SCMR 153; National Bank of Pakistan through its President v. Sajjad Ali Khaskhelli and another 2024 PLC (C.S.) 276 and Inspector General of Police Punjab v. Waris Ali 2024 SCMR 1109 rel.

Ali Asadullah Bullo for Petitioner.

Ali Safdar Depar, A.A.G. for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1098

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, JJ

DOST MUHAMMAD LAGHARI through Lawful Attorney and 2 others

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Agriculture, Supply and Prices Department, Karachi and 3 others

Constitutional Petition No. 1279 of 2025, decided on 8th May, 2025.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199(1)(b)(ii)--- Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Quo warranto---Scope---Transfer of pension fund consequent to transfer of service---Regulatory framework---Constitutional petition would not be maintainable on mere apprehensions of likelihood of happening of a future event---Misjoinder or non-joinder of proper/necessary parties---High Court did not exercise discretion against a party not impleaded in the lis---The petitioners who were employees of the Market Committee Karachi in BPS-13, BPS-10, and BPS-11 challenged the transfer of respondent No.4 (employee of Market Committee Larkana in BPS-11) to Market Committee Karachi shortly before his retirement, alleging that his post-retirement benefits had not yet been transferred from Larkana and would financially burden Karachi's funds---Petitioners sought relief under Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) on the basis of quo warranto, but did not allege any lack of eligibility, disqualification, or unlawful appointment of respondent No.4---Held: As per the law applicable to the Market Committee employees every Market Committee was required to have a separate pension fund and maintain an account under the title "Pension Fund Account of Market Committee" for the members of service---Where a member of service retired, the Market Committee concerned was to be responsible for payment of all post-retirement benefits to the member by collecting the outstanding amount of the pension fund, if any, against the other Market Committee---On transfer of a member of service, the relieving Market Committee was to also transfer his pension fund contribution to the successor Market Committee for the period he has rendered his services in the said Committee---With regards to the plea of quo warranto taken by the petitioners, none of the grounds (a) to (d) provided under Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution were made against the respondents Nos.3 and 4---It cannot be argued that respondent No. 4 had no authority to hold public office in the Market Committee Karachi in BPS-11---Nor could it be argued that respondent No.1 and the Market Committee Larkana did not have the authority to transfer respondent No.4---This was not articulated in the petition---It was also not the case of the petitioners that respondent No.4 was not eligible for the office or that he had subsequently become disqualified or that he was appointed by a person not competent in law to appoint him---The aggrieved petitioners had not challenged the holding of public office of respondent No.4 in itself---It was the petitioners' case that they were only aggrieved that the Market Committee Larkana had not transferred the post-retirement funds to the Market Committee Karachi along with the transfer of the respondent No.4---The filing of the present petition also appeared to be pre-mature based on supposition and surmises that the Market Committee Larkana would not (a future event, which was yet to take place) transfer the post-retirement funds of respondent No.4 to the Market Committee Karachi (respondent No.3)---Present petition could not be maintained on mere apprehensions of the petitioners of the likelihood of happening of a future event---No lis could be sustained in law when no cause of action accrued at the time of filing the petition---Notwithstanding certain exceptions, a lis filed on a future cause of action could not be brought to life after its filing due to the cause of action subsequently arising during its pendency---While a Court could take judicial notice of the changed situation and circumstances and can also mould and modify the relief, yet in the facts and circumstances of the case, no exception was present in the case for the High Court to exercise its discretion and save the petition, especially one which was entirely misconceived---Relief of quo warranto was a discretionary relief, and, if the subject-matter of the petition fell outside the scope of Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) of Constitution, then such matter was also not a fit case for the exercise of discretion in favor of the petitioners and/or against the respondents---Finally, petitioners not impleading the Market Committee Larkana in the array of respondents was pertinent too---Under R. 14(6) of Sindh Market Committee Unified Code Service Rules, 1983, the Market Committee Larkana must transfer funds to the Market Committee Karachi---As discussed above, the petitioners had challenged the transfer made by the Market Committee Larkana in this context---But the Market Committee Larkana was not made a party---High Court was not inclined to exercise its discretion against a party, i.e. the Market Committee Larkana, which the petitioners themselves had elected not to implead in their lis, when they clearly should have made it a party---No grounds for quo warranto were made out---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Ahmed Ali Ghumro for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent No.1.

Nemo for Respondent No.2.

Nemo for Respondent No.3.

Nemo for Respondent No.4.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1103

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ

Syed ZEESHAN ALI

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary (IT & Telecom), Ministry of Information Technology, Government of Pakistan and Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others

Constitutional Petition No. D-138 of 2018, decided on 17th April, 2025.

(a) Civil service---

----Willful absence from duty---Removal from service---Petitioner remained absent from duty for a period of five months without any explanation---Petitioner was an employee of PTCL (employer) and was granted earned leave which he utilized to travel abroad---Upon expiry of the sanctioned leave, the petitioner (employee) applied for two years' extraordinary leave without pay, citing a job offer abroad---His leave request was rejected by PTCL advising him to resume duties immediately to avoid disciplinary action---Despite this direction, the petitioner (employee) remained absent and only communicated his willingness to rejoin PTCL five months after being instructed to resume duty, without offering any explanation for the delay---Petitioner (employee) was served with the impugned removal from service order allegedly passed without any formal charge sheet or opportunity of personal hearing, leading to the present Constitutional petition---Held: It was significant to note that five months after being told to resume duty immediately or else face disciplinary proceedings without giving any explanation for the five month delay the petitioner (employee) was again willing to join the respondents (employer) despite his request for two years extension in leave being refused five months earlier---During the five month period the respondents (employer) were left without the service of the petitioner (employee) which they might have vitally needed and his absence might have adversely affected their business as they might have had to find a suitable replacement---After not hearing from the petitioner (employee) for over five months after his request from extended leave was declined the respondents (employer) had every reason to believe that the petitioner (employee) would not be returning to work from them as he had informed the respondents (employer) that he had found a new job abroad---In fact the petitioner (employee) by his conduct and attitude over five months period did not appear to have cared less about the situation which he had left his employer in what to speak about deliberately and willfully violating his terms and conditions of service---Interest of the petitioner (employee) in returning to his job with respondents (employer) appeared to be tainted with mala fide and such conduct did not allow him to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court as he did not invoke the same with clean hands---The petitioner (employee) was served with a show cause notice which he failed to reply to and was thereafter lawfully removed from service---Deliberate absence from service without explanation was sufficient ground for removal from service---Disciplinary proceedings were taken by the respondents (employer) against the petitioner (employee) on account of his unexplained absenteeism which was violation of his terms and conditions of service which led to his removal from service following a show cause notice---Petitioner's (employee) removal from service was upheld given his prolonged absence from duty without explanation which was willful and deliberate---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Chairman Pakistan Ordnance Factories, POF Board, Wah Cantt. v. Akhtar Tanveer and others Civil Petition No.1017 of 2022 and Muzammal Khan v. Inspector General of Police, Lahore and others (Civil Petition No.1354 of 2023) rel.

(b) Civil service---

----Employee's duty to abide by the terms of service---Scope---An employee is subject to the terms and conditions of service as laid down by his employer and he is expected to abide by them failing which disciplinary proceedings might be initiated against him---It is the obligation of the employee to abide by his terms and conditions of service to enable the smooth functioning of his employer's organization and discourage others from not complying with their terms and conditions of service---Without such compliance by all employees the employer's business is likely to be adversely affected and loss might even be caused to the business.

Talha Abbasi for Petitioner.

Ms. Wajiha M. Mehdi, Assistant Attorney General for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1117

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi and Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, JJ

SALMAN AHMED and 7 others

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Education and Literacy Department, Sindh and 6 others

Constitution Petition No. D-597 of 2025, decided on 30th April, 2025.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.199---Civil service---Recruitment of junior elementary school teachers---Constitutional petition challenging recruitment process filed after a delay of four years---Effect---Laches, doctrine of---Applicability---The petitioners being candidates for the post of junior elementary school teachers challenged the recruitment process alleging that despite holding the Associate Degree in Education diplomas, they were not awarded the additional 2 marks mandated under the Recruitment Policy, 2021---They claimed that this omission unfairly excluded them from selection while others with lower scores were appointed---Held: The petitioners challenged the appointment process carried out under Recruitment Policy, 2021 after a lapse of four years---Although they claimed to have approached the official respondents multiple times, no cogent documentary evidence supporting this assertion was found in the record---Their alleged efforts remain unsubstantiated---This conduct suggested that the petitioners never formally sought redressal from the authorities---The present petition, filed after a delay of four years, was marred by inordinate and unexplained laches---Though delay alone might not be fatal, once rights accrued in favour of others, a belated challenge by the petitioners could not be entertained---Recruitment having already concluded fours years ago and appointments made accordingly, the petitioners' long and unexplained silence rendered their claim abandoned---Present petition was hit by the doctrine of laches---The petitioners were aware of the policy provisions, yet failed to act in a timely manner---Discretionary relief could be denied where there was unexplained and unreasonable delay---The maxim 'delay defeats equity' was squarely attracted to the present case---Accordingly, the petitioners' delay of four years in asserting their claim rendered the present petition incompetent---Present petition, thus, failed on the ground of laches and was liable to be dismissed---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199--- Constitutional petition--- Maintainability--- Laches---Applicability---Equitable relief must be sought with diligence, and unreasonable delay may result in dismissal of a petition on the ground of laches---The law universally favours the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights---Doctrine of laches, rooted in equity and fairness, presumed that persons aware of their rights must act promptly to enforce them---Courts do not aid the indolent who sleep over their rights.

State Bank v. Imtiaz Ali Khan and others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 218 ; Jawad Mir Muhammad and others v. Haroon Mirza and others PLD 2007 SC 472 and Chairman PCSIR v. Dr. Mrs. Khalida Razi 1995 SCMR 698 rel.

Asghar Khan and 5 others v. Province of Sindh through Home Secretary Government of Sindh and 4 others 2014 PLC (C.S.) 1292 ref.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.199---Constitutional petition---Laches---Justification for delay---Verbal assertions that authorities were approached on regular basis do not justify delay---Tangible proof of vigilance on the part of litigant, requirement of---Importance of producing documentary evidence in substantiating and justifying the delay---Scope---Where a litigant institutes a belated petition and seeks to justify the delay by claiming that efforts were made to assert the alleged right before the competent authorities, such claims must be supported by credible documentary evidence---Mere verbal assertions, unaccompanied by substantiating material, are inadequate to excuse the delay.

Waseem Ahmed Sundrani for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1123

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ

ABDUL RAZZAQUE MEMON

Versus

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President, Karachi and 5 others

Constitution Petition No. D-1979 of 2013, decided on 23rd April, 2025.

Civil Service Regulations (CSR)---

----Art. 371-A(i)---Appointment letter issued but employee not allowed to assume duty---Retroactive seniority and appointment validation, according of---Subsequent denial of seniority, financial benefits, and service entitlements---Prior service rendered in another department for the purpose of pension, pay fixation, and service benefits, recognition of---Petitioner directed to be treated at par with similarly situated employees---The petitioner (employee) was appointed to a Grade-III officer position at the National Bank of Pakistan through an appointment letter dated back in 1996, but was prevented from joining the bank's service allegedly due to a politically motivated dismissal of the government, whereas, his similarly qualified peers joined and were promoted---After the enactment of Ordinance No. Act II of 2009, petitioner filed a constitutional petition and was allowed to join the bank in 2011 through a compromise between the parties made before the court in the said petition that validated his appointment w.e.f. 1996 with retroactive seniority, however, since joining, petitioner stated to have faced discrimination, denial of seniority and financial benefits from original appointment to date, lower pay, denial of medical leave, and refusal to acknowledge prior service for retirement benefits---Held: At first glance, the previously reached settlement between the parties could not be revisited---However, the court order passed in 2011 and the terms of their compromise agreement, which had become final, must be strictly followed---Therefore, attempting to appoint the petitioner to a new category was unwarranted---As the petitioner, formerly a Labour Inspector, was relieved from his duties specifically to join the National Bank of Pakistan under this compromise (endorsed by this Court in 2011 in a prior Constitutional Petition), as such his prior service must be taken into account for pension, pay determination, and other employment benefits in terms of Civil Service Regulation (CSR) Art. 371-A(i) as well as in terms of compromise application---The bank was directed to strictly adhere to the terms of the compromise order passed in the previous Constitutional petition, and to treat the petitioner's service from his initial appointment date in the Labour Department as continuous for pension and pay fixation in the bank---In the interim, the petitioner was to be considered equitably with his batchmates for seniority and promotion, provided his service record was satisfactory and the matter of arrears for the intervening period was to be considered for payment to the petitioner---Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

Nafees Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan and others 2000 SCMR 1864; Ch. Muhammad Azim v. The Chief Engineer, Irrigation and others 1991 SCMR 255; Chairman, Central Board of Revenue and others v. Nawab Khan and others 2010 SCMR 1399 and 2021 SCMR 1546 rel.

Shah Bakht Pirzada for Petitioner.

Ch. Azhar Elahi for Respondent.

R.D. Kalhoro, Assistant Attorney General.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1132

[Sindh High Court (Larkana Bench)]

Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, JJ

NOMAN ALI MEMON

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 4 others

Constitutional Petition No. D-287 of 2025, decided on 8th May, 2025.

(a) Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---

----Rr.10-A & 11-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 5, 9, 25, 27 & 199---Appointment under deceased quota, right of---Appointment of legal heirs upon demise of employee during service---Eligibility and scope---The petitioner's father was serving as a Superintendent (BS-17) in the District Education Office when he passed away during service on 02.12.2019---The petitioner, as a surviving legal heir applied for appointment under the deceased quota---Respondents reluctance in appointing the petitioner prompted him to file the present constitutional petition---The respondents opposed the claim, citing that R. 11-A, which governed such appointments, had been omitted following the Supreme Court's judgment reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276, resulting in the withdrawal of Rr. 10-A & 11-A of the APT Rules, 1974, thereby extinguishing the deceased/son quota policy---Validity---Held: Perusal of record revealed that the case of the petitioner for appointment under deceased quota was pending decision with the department since five years for unknown reasons though his father died on 02.12.2019 and Rr. 10-A & 11-A were inserted in the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 (the APT Rules) through sub-ordinate legislation---Admittedly, a right in favor of the family of the deceased employee accrued when policy to accommodate the children of deceased employees was introduced---Rules 10-A & 11-A of APT Rules were beneficial provisions aimed at supporting the bereaved families of deceased civil servants who died during service---The department acted with gross negligence in petitioner's case and he should have been given equal treatment as meted out to the children of other employees who became entitled to get benefit of the Rules mentioned above during the applicable period---The case of the petitioner was not affected by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as PLD 2024 SC 1276, because of the reason that father of the petitioner died while in service in the year 2019 and such right accrued to him in year 2019 and subsisted until 26.09.2024 when the decision of the Supreme Court was passed---The Supreme Court in the said case protected the appointments made during the intervening period of 2002 to 2024 meaning thereby that the rights of a bereaved family for appointment under said provision of law during the above period remained unaffected---Denial of job to the petitioner under deceased quota was an act of discrimination and he was not dealt with in accordance with law thereby violating his fundamental rights enshrined under Arts. 4, 5, 9, 25 & 27 of the Constitution---Case of the petitioner was pending adjudication before the competent authority since 2019 and by that time the policy regarding employment of children of ex-employees who died while in service or retired being incapacitated to further perform services was in force---Respondent authorities were directed to consider the case of petitioner for appointment in accordance with law and applicable rules---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

C.Ps. Nos. 482-K and 503-K of 2016, decided on 10-08-2016 and General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 rel.

(b) Civil service---

----Legal heir's entitlement to service benefits upon death of employee during service---Scope---Employment in civil service is a source of earning livelihood for the families; denial of such a right in a casual manner is never warranted under the law---It is the duty of the administrative department in which deceased employee worked to inform in time to his family the accrual of any of the benefits or rights in their favor on account of bereavement of employee while in service.

(c) Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---

----R. 11-A---Appointment under deceased quota---Liberal interpretation of deceased quota rules/policy in favor of legal heirs---Scope---The provisions of employment under deceased quota were a beneficial subordinate legislation and cleared an ambiguity in the existing service rules regarding the appointment of children of employees who died during service or became incapacitated to perform the service further, thus the interpretation of such legislation would be construed in a liberal perspective.

(d) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.189---Judgments of the Supreme Court---Prospective application---Judgments of the Supreme Court operate prospectively unless declared otherwise.

Zahida Parveen v. The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others C.P.L.A. No.556-P of 2024 decided on 17-03-2025 rel.

(e) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.199---Employment---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise of---Appointment under deceased quota---Fundamental rights---Scope---High Court being custodian of the fundamental rights of the citizens cannot shut its eyes when it reaches to a conclusion that action on the part of a statutory body or organization resulted in infringement of fundamental rights of a person---Though the appointment process is an internal mechanism of the department wherein High Court sparingly interferes but would not hesitate to step in when a right to job otherwise available under the law was declined in a slipshod manner.

Javed Ahmed Soomro for Petitioner.

Liaquat Ali Shar, Additional Advocate General, Sindh along with Sanaullah Aghani, Deputy Director, School Education (ES&HS), Larkana Region, Larkana /Focal Person for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1138

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ

DANISH AHMED

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis, Islamabad and 4 others

Constitutional Petition No. D-1362 of 2014, decided on 3rd April, 2025.

(a) Overseas Pakistanis Foundation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1993---

----Reglns. 3.20, 3.21, 3.22 & 3.23---Probationary service, termination of---Qualification discrepancies---Probationer, right of---The petitioner was appointed on a one-year probation after advertisement, proper interview, verification of documents, background checks, and police verification---However he received an explanation memo raising concerns about qualification discrepancies and domicile---The petitioner clarified that his qualifications (Bachelor of Commerce and a Diploma in Civil Technology) were disclosed, verified, and suitable for the post---Nonetheless, he was terminated for allegedly lacking the requisite qualification without any extension of the probationary period---He challenged the termination as unlawful, arbitrary, and without due process, seeking reinstatement---Held: Petitioner did not meet the advertised requirement for the post i.e. second class bachelor degree in social sciences and experience, however, he had commerce degree and for that petitioner claimed that it was at par with the social sciences, more particularly the subject of economics was common---This assertion of petitioner could not be accepted in terms of definition of social science, which related to man/woman as a member of society, or of any component part of society, as the State, family or any systematized human institution and or any field of knowledge dealing with human society, as economics, history, sociology, education, politics, ethics, etc.---However, so far as economics as a subject was concerned, that needed to be looked into by respondent department if they found social science degree at par with commerce degree based on the certain subject as the High Court was not in a position to decide the case in favor of the petitioner based on the aforesaid analogy for the reasons that High Court could not act as appellate body over statutory decisions regarding qualification recognition---The authority designated by law held the exclusive power to determine if a qualification met specific requirements---The argument that possessing a similar qualification in commerce or economics automatically made the candidate eligible, even if he did not meet the advertised requirements, was without merits---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Sadiq and others v. University of Sindh and another PLD 1996 SC 182 and Fida Hussain v. The Secretary, Kashmir Affairs and Northern Affairs Division, Islamabad PLD 1995 SC 701 rel.

(b) Overseas Pakistanis Foundation Employees (Service) Regulations, 1993---

----Reglns. 3.20, 3.21, 3.22 & 3.23---Probationary employees, rights of---Termination of a probationary employee without a notice or stated reason---Legality---If a probationary employee's termination is not due to misconduct, there is no legal requirement to provide reasons or conduct a formal inquiry---Probationary employees cannot claim the right to a show-cause notice based on the principle of audi alteram partem before termination/discharge from service as this contradicts the very nature of probation period.

Agha Salim Khurshid's case 1998 SCMR 1930 and Rizwana Altaf v. Chief Justice High Court of Sindh and others 2020 SCMR 1401 rel.

(c) Civil service---

----Probationary service--- Scope--- The fundamental purpose of probation is to assess a new employee's ability and potential to succeed within the organization and to determine if his/her services will benefit the employer---Probation provides a mutual evaluation period, allowing both the employer and employee to decide if continued employment is desired---This understanding of probation, when applied for a reasonable duration, cannot be considered discriminatory---Only upon successful completion of the probation period, deemed satisfactory by both parties, should an employee's service be considered for confirmation.

Muhammad Iqbal Khan Niazi v. Lahore High Court through Registrar 2003 PLC (C.S.) 282 rel.

(d) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Employment---Recruitment---Scope of assessment---Domain of competent authority---Interference of High Court in recruitment matters---Judicial review---Scope---High Court refrains from interfering in recruitment decisions unless tainted by mala fides, arbitrariness or violation of law---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court does not extend to substituting the authority's assessment with that of Court---Judiciary as the ultimate protector of individual rights and obligations under the Constitution has the authority to mandate the proper formulation of policies to ensure fairness and transparency---However, it is settled law that it is within the domain of the competent authority to prescribe the required qualifications and experience in the recruitment process for any post---The Courts cannot force acceptance or interchange any other qualification equivalent to the specific post with a specific qualification advertised for inviting applications for recruitment or setting the benchmark for promotion of employees to any particular post or grade on attaining any particular length of service---It is crucial to understand that unless explicitly stated in the job advertisement or the recruitment policy, the High Court cannot assume that a higher/minimum/equivalent qualification automatically implies the acquisition of a lower one, or that a candidate with a higher qualification is inherently more suitable than someone meeting the specific requirements advertised or equivalent degree as the High Court's role in recruitment matters is limited---However, it can assess the legality of the recruitment process but cannot substitute its judgment for the employer's regarding design, needs, or selection criteria---The Court should not attempt to compare different degrees, determining the equivalence or suitability of academic qualifications for a particular position---This is a specialized area best handled by the employing institution itself, based on its specific needs and requirements---Courts are not equipped to make such determinations under Art. 199 of the Constitution.

Muhammad Nishat Warsi for Petitioner.

Ms. Wajiha Mehdi, Assistant Attorney General.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1163

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, JJ

NUDRAT BULAND IQBAL and 30 others

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 8 others

Constitution Petition No. 4251 of 2019, decided on 29th May, 2025.

(a) Civil Service---

----Upgradation of post---Withdrawal of upgradation/downgrading, challenge to---Upgradation lacking legal basis which did not create vested rights---Upgradation to a post does not automatically lead to promotion---Scope---The petitioners were audit/account officers who were upgraded from BPS-16 to BPS-17 in 2013---This upgrade remained in place for over six years, whereafter, through an office order the upgradation was withdrawnby downgrading the petitioners to BPS-16---Petitioners claimed the upgradation was policy-based, not person-specific, and its withdrawal violated natural justice and lacked lawful authority---They also challenged the legality of appointments of certain governing body members and sought regularization and further upgradation to BPS-18---Held: In 2013 there was no specific "Upgradation Policy" relevant to the petitioners, nonetheless, it was a standard legal principle that any upgraded position required corresponding amendments to its recruitment rules, detailing the method of recruitment and necessary qualifications which rules should also lay out the procedure for such upgrades---A key point was that an upgraded post did not automatically lead to the incumbent's promotion---Notably, the 2023 recruitment rules which categorized the position in question as promotion-based, meaning direct "upgradation" was no longer applicable---However, re-grading (a change in the grade of a post) might have still occurred---This shift in policy which led to recalling the petitioners' earlier upgradation was potentially to align with the Supreme Court's decision and the updated rules---Upgradation issued in 2013 did not create a vested right for the petitioners, as it lacked legal sanction or authority---Therefore, the doctrine of locus poenitentiae (the ability to withdraw a flawed decision) did not apply---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Civil service---

----'Upgradation of post' and 'promotion'---Distinction---Up-gradation refers to improving a position's grade, often to address issues like stagnation for employees in roles with no clear promotion path, despite long and satisfactory service---Promotion, on the other hand, typically involves moving to a higher position within an established career ladder.

(c) Civil service---

----'Upgradation of post' and 'promotion'---Scope and distinction---Upgradation cannot be claimed as a matter of right but it is in fact based on a policy decision of the competent authority for its implementation across the board for the particular categories of employees jotted down in the scheme/notification who fulfilled the required qualification which is normally a particular length of service in a particular pay scale---The promotion involves advancement in rank, grade or a footstep en-route for advancement to higher position, whereas the facility or benefit of upgradation simply confers some monetary benefits by granting a higher pay scale to ventilate stagnation---Benefit of upgradation is normally granted to the persons stuck-up in one pay-scale for considerable period of their length of service either having no venue for promotion or progression---In order to minimize the anguish or suffering being stuck-up in particular pay scale for a sizeable period, the mechanism of up-gradation as a policy decision comes in field for redress and rescue.

Fida Muhammad v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2021 SCMR 1895 rel.

(d) Civil service---

----Upgradation of post---Pre-conditions---Upgradation cannot be made to benefit a particular individual in terms of promoting him to a higher post or further providing him with the avenues of lateral appointment or transfer or posting---In order to justify the upgradation, the government is required to establish that the department needs restructuring, reform or to meet the exigency of service in public interest---In the absence of these pre-conditions, upgradation is not permissible.

Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2015 SCMR 456; Regional Commissioner Income Tax v. Syed Munawar Ali 2016 SCMR 859 and Federal Public Service Commission through Secretary v. Anwar-ul-Haq (Private Secretary) Islamabad and others 2017 SCMR 890 rel.

(e) Civil service---

----Upgradation of post---Withdrawal of upgradation/downgrading---Doctrine of locus poenitentiae, applicability of---Where upgradation lackslegal sanction or authority, it does not confer vested rights in favour of the employee,and in such circumstances, doctrine of locus poenitentiae (the ability to withdraw a flawed decision) would not apply.

(f) Administration of justice---

----Benefit incorrectly granted due to misunderstanding, error, misinterpretation of law, or lack of proper authority is not sacrosanct and can be withdrawn---A wrongful benefit extended beyond the bounds of law and policy cannot be claimed indefinitely.

Muhammad Arshad Khan Tanoli for Petitioners.

Ali Safdar Depar, Assistant Advocate General along with Muhammad Aziz Rana, Law Officer.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1169

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi and Abdul Hamid Bhurgi, JJ

ALTAF HUSSAIN

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Education and Literacy Department, Karachi and 4 others

Constitution Petition No. D-2505 of 2016, decided on 20th March, 2025.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Employment---Recruitment process---Disputed questions of facts---Interference by High Court---Scope---Laches---Claim of the petitioner was that he being successful candidate was placed at serial No.17 of the merit list, however, respondent, who was placed at serial No.80 of the merit list was appointed due to her familial connection in the Education Department---Validity---Claim of the petitioner being a successful candidate was effectively controverted by documentary evidence, thus, High Court in constitutional jurisdiction could not adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact---Constitutional petition suffered from incurable delay as recruitment process pertained to the year 2012 while the constitutional petition was instituted in 2016 without any satisfactory explanation regarding delay of four years, thus, doctrine of laches squarely applied---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mst. Kaniz Fatima through legal heirs v. Muhammad Salim and 27 others 2001 SCMR 1493; Anjuman Fruit Arhtian and others v. Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and others 2011 SCMR 279 and State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and another v. Imtiaz Ali Khan and others 2012 SCMR 280 = 2012 PLC (C.S.) 218 rel.

Muhammad Nasir Malik for Petitioner.

Zulfiqar Ali Naich, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents.

Nemo for Respondent No.5.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1190

[Sindh High Court]

Before Yousuf Ali Sayeed and Sana Akram Minhas, JJ

ALTAF HUSSAIN BUTT through Constituted Attorney

Versus

FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE through Chairman, FBR and 5 others

Constitution Petition No. D-2394 of 2018 ,decided on 22nd May, 2025.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.199---'Pension Fund Trust', abolition of---Constitutional petition, maintainability of---Public limited company---Public limited company not amenable to Constitutional jurisdiction---Factual controversies involving disputed questions---Recording of evidence, requirement of---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, scope of---Factual controversies cannot be entertained under Constitutional jurisdiction as same require recording of evidence and recording of evidence cannot be undertaken in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction---Brief facts of the matter were that the petitioner was a former employee of a public limited company who challenged the alleged unlawful abolition and winding up of the "Pension Fund Trust" and further disputed a document claiming his signature upon it was obtained without free consent and under coercion---He sought to invalidate these documents which were allegedly obtained by the company---Held: The public limited company was incorporated under the relevant company laws and was not amenable to constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution since it did not fall within the definition of a "person" as contemplated in Art. 199(5) thereof---Furthermore, the question of whether the petitioner's signature on the document in question was obtained through coercion or without free consent involved disputed questions of facts and required recording of evidence which could not be undertaken in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Moreover, the validity and enforceability of the 'declaration' though which the petitioner allegedly opted for a lump sum payment and other service benefits involved contested factual issues that fell outside the scope of Constitutional proceedings---Constitutional petition failing to meet the threshold for the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Anwar Hussain for Petitioner

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1192

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi and Abdul Hamid Bhurgi, JJ

GUL SHAIR JALBANI

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Karachi and 3 others

Constitution Petition No. D-595 of 2025, decided on 30th April, 2025.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.199---Civil service---Transfers and postings of government servants---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exercise of---Courts interference in matters of transfers and postings---Exclusive domain of executive/competent authority---Scope---Employee seeking posting of his choice---Legality---The petitioner was a BS-16 government servant appointed as town officer who challenged his transfer order which relocated him to another station and his previous post was assigned to another officer---Initially the first transfer order was issued which subsequently was withdrawn by the authority before issuing the second transfer order which was impugned in the present Constitutional petition---The petitioner claimed that the transfer was arbitrary, violative of natural justice, and infringed upon his constitutional rights, prompting him to seek relief from the Court including suspension of the impugned order and reinstatement to his original post---Held: The conduct of the petitioner (employee), on the face of the record, prima facie suggested an attempt to have his initial transfer order annulled through political influence---Upon withdrawal of the said order by the competent department, the petitioner then approached the High Court seeking to retain his current posting at the same location where he had been stationed previously---Clause 'c' of the prayer in the petition clearly revealed that the petitioner was desirous of continuing his previous posting rather than assuming charge at the location to which he was duly transferred---Such practices, whereby civil servants sought to manipulate their postings through extraneous and unauthorized means, had to be firmly discouraged---The judicial forum could not be used to legitimize such conduct which undermined the discipline and neutrality of public service---Therefore, petitioner had not approached the High Court with clean hands and had sought discretionary relief whilst being tainted by mala fide intent and extralegal conduct---Power of transfer and posting only lay within the exclusive domain of the competent authority and constituted an administrative prerogative which was not amenable to judicial scrutiny on the basis of unsubstantiated or frivolous assertions---Employees possessed no vested or enforceable right to challenge or obstruct their transfer, save in strict accordance with the law---No illegality or malice in the impugned transfer order was pointed out---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Civil service---

----Transfers and postings---Employees seeking posting of their own choice---Interference of courts---Exclusive domain of competent authority---Scope---In service law the posting and transfer of employees falls exclusively within the domain of the competent authority---Courts ordinarily refrain from interfering in such matters unless the transfer is proved to be mala fide, is in violation of statutory rules, or is patently discriminatory---Transfer and posting of employees constitutes internal administrative management---In service jurisprudence no employee can claim transfer or posting as a matter of right---The authority to assign or transfer lies within the administrative discretion exercised by the employer to ensure operational efficiency, discipline, and the smooth functioning of the department---Transfers and postings do not attract the protection of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution---Articles concerning equality or the right to life cannot be interpreted so broadly as to encompass matters of administrative transfers and postings, provided they do not breach principles of natural justice or result in arbitrary discrimination---An employee does not possess an enforceable legal right to remain posted at a specific station or to seek transfer to a place of personal preference---Transfer orders are administrative in nature and can only be challenged if shown to be issued for extraneous reasons or in breach of statutory rules---Wheels of administration should be allowed to run smoothly and Courts are not supposed to interdict the working of the administrative system by transferring officers.

Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others 2007 SCMR 54; Muhammad Aslam Jan v. Government of N.W.F.P through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs, Peshawar and 3 others 2005 SCMR 442 and Muhammad Mansha Javed v. Secretary to Government of Punjab and others 1998 SCMR 263 rel.

Tahir Mehmood Abbasi and another v. District Coordination Officer, Rawalpindi and another 2009 PLC (C.S.) 320; Asadullah Memon v. Pakistan Electric Power Company (PEPCO) and others 2010 CLC (C.S.) 662 and Namrata Varma v. The State of Uttar Pardesh and others (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.36717 of 2017) ref.

J.K Jarwar for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1204

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam and Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, JJ

Mst. RAZIA BIBI through Attorney

Versus

PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through General Manager (HR&A) and 3 others

Constitution Petition No. 1808 of 2020, decided on 15th May, 2025.

(a) Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act (II of 1969)---

----Ss. 11, 13, 17, 18 & 19---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Federal Government Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Rules, 1972, R.12---Group insurance and benevolent fund, payment of---Widow, right of---Entitlement---Laches, applicability of---Exception---Recurring cause of action---Petitioner (widow of deceased employee) instituted the present Constitutional petition seeking release of benevolent grant, group insurance and pensionary benefits arising from the services of her deceased husband, who joined the respondent company in 1982 and retired in 2008 under the Voluntary Surrender of Service (VSS) Scheme, in pursuance of which he was paid under the VSS agreement, but monthly pension was denied on the ground that he fell short of the 20 years qualifying service requirement---He had served 19 years and 7 months in regular service---Respondent company later introduced a 'separation bonus scheme' for employees falling short of 20 years, which was credited to his account---After death of petitioner's husband in 2015, petitioner (widow) filed the present petition upon rejection of pensionary claims by respondent company by asserting that the shortfall of months should have been condoned and that she was entitled to benevolent grant and group insurance---Held: Case of the petitioner (widow) fell in the same category of case which had been decided by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2506 of 2016 whereby the Supreme Court held that the appellants had no valid grievance as they had voluntarily opted for the VSS (Voluntary Separation Scheme), accepted the separation bonus (which was only available to those with less than 20 years of qualifying service), and signed the waiver forms; they did not disclose the said facts in their petitions, which amounted to a non-disclosure of material facts; that if the appellants truly believed they had completed 20 years of service and were entitled to pension, they should not have accepted the separation bonus or should have refunded it before pursuing pension claims; that their conduct barred them from seeking pension under the doctrine of estoppel---Whereas, provisions of the Federal Employees Benevolent Fund and Group Insurance Act, 1969 (the "Act 1969") entitled the petitioner to receive benevolent grant for her life for a period starting from date of death of her husband as he died after retirement but before attaining the age of seventy years---Petitioner was also entitled to receive sum assured on account of premium contributed towards group insurance in terms of Ss. 13 & 19 of the Act, 1969---With respect to the objection regarding applicability of laches in the present petition allegedly being filed after 12 years of VSS agreement, same was without force for the reason that doctrine of laches could not applied in every case as a hard and fast rule without examining dictates of justice, equity and fair play---In the present case, respondent Nos.1 to 3 were required to act fairly and justly to discharge their duties by forwarding the application of petitioner for payment of benevolent grant and group insurance if found entitled and inaction on the part of respondents to act upon application filed by the petitioner created a recurring cause of action in her favour for which no limitation applied---In the present case there was a recurring cause of action for the petitioner to knock at the doors of justice and petitioner could not be dismissed on account of mere delay---Petitioner being widow of deceased employee was entitled to receive benevolent grant for life, she was also entitled for grant of group insurance for the sum assured against the life of her deceased husband---Petitioner failed to make out a case for grant of monthly pension---Constitutional petition was partly allowed, in circumstances.

Mst. Tasneem Fatima and others (Civil Appeals No. 2506 of 2016); Ummar Baz Khan and others v. Jahanzeb Khan and others PLD 2013 SC 268 and Director General Civil Aviation Authority v. Abdul Touheed Khan 2010 SCMR 468 rel.

(b) Limitation---

----If public functionary fails to act upon the application filed by the applicant, such inaction would create recurring cause of action in favour of the applicant for which no limitation would apply.

Ummar Baz Khan and others v. Jahanzeb Khan and others PLD 2013 SC 268 and Director General Civil Aviation Authority v. Abdul Touheed Khan 2010 SCMR 468 rel.

(c) Laches---

----No court can dismiss a lis on the ground of laches if it defeats the cause of justice and thereby perpetuates an injustice---Bar of laches cannot be over emphasized in a case where the relief claimed is based on a recurring cause of action.

Ummar Baz Khan and others v. Jahanzeb Khan and others PLD 2013 SC 268 and Aviation Authority v. Abdul Touheed Khan 2010 SCMR 468 rel.

Syed Ansar Hussain Zaidi for Petitioner.

Muhammad Azhar Mehmood for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

Raja Khaleeq-uz-Zaman Ansari, Assistant Attorney General for Respondent No 4.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1231

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, JJ

KHALID AKRAM and 14 others

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 2 others

Constitution Petition No. D-5618 of 2021, decided on 21st March, 2025.

(a) Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---

----R. 4(1)(b)(iii)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 212 & 199---Removal from service---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Petitioners were appointed as low grade employees on contingent basis---Services of petitioners were regularized on 13.10.1995 by the Committee with the approval of Chief Minister, Sindh---Petitioners performed their duties in Labour Welfare Department, Government of Sindh until September, 2000, when a show-cause notice was served upon them under sub-rule (3) of R. 5 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, calling in question the genuineness of their appointments---Petitioners submitted replies to show-cause notice on 28.09.2000---Competent Authority was not satisfied with the reply of the Show-Cause notice and imposed major penalty of removal from service---Validity---In the appointment orders dated 6th December 1995 of the petitioners, it was found that clause (iii) of the appointment orders contained a condition that the services of the employee/appointee shall be governed by the Sindh Government Service Rules, meaning thereby that the services of the petitioners were being governed by the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and rules framed thereunder---Competent Authority initiated inquiry and imposed major penalty of removal from service under R. 4 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---Petitioners were appointed and removed from services under the provisions of Rules framed under Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973---Final action relating to the terms and conditions of services including but not limited to removal from service fell within the terms and conditions of the service, thus, was amenable to the jurisdiction of the competent judicial forum created to adjudicate service matters---Petitioners did not file any departmental appeal before the competent authority and service appeal before the Services Tribunal, thus the orders passed by the competent authority attained finality---Remedy against the orders of the competent authority impugned in the instant petition laid before the Services Tribunal---Petitioners had the remedy under the law to file a Service Appeal before services tribunal, but they did not---Petition was not maintainable being barred under Art. 212 of the Constitution---Petition was dismissed, accordingly.

Tara Chand and others v. Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Karachi 2005 SCMR 499 and WAPDA v. Abdul Ghaffar 2018 SCMR 380 ref.

Secretary School Education Government of Punjab and others v. Asghari Begum and another 2023 PLC (C.S.) 214 rel.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R. 4(1)(b)(iii)---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Principle of laches---Applicability---Reinstatement in service sought---Petitioners assailed order of their removal from service after the lapse of ten years without explaining any convincing reasons for the inordinate delay---Principle of laches was applicable to the case of the petitioners---Allegedly, the appeals of petitioners were decided on 15.04.2021 and petition was filed on 21.06.2021, which was within time---Petitioners hereby prayed to set aside the order dated 06.12.2000 as set out in the prayer clause---Petitioners after the lapse of 10 years filed the constitution petition which was disposed of without granting any relief except to direct the Department to decide the appeals of petitioners, if any---Department complied with court orders, and decided the appeals of the petitioners---Decision in appeals did not give a fresh cause to the petitioners, in fact the cause had arisen in the year 2000 and non-deciding of departmental appeals did not in any manner debar the petitioners from filing of Service Appeal---Petitioners filed instant petition in the year 2021 seeking reversal of an order passed by the competent authority in the year 2000---Petitioners slept over their rights and were guilty of inaction, laxity, contumacious lethargy and gross negligence---Instant petition was hit by laches, a principle under the law which necessitated to initiate the legal proceedings promptly---Petition was dismissed, accordingly.

Imtiaz Ali Solangi for Petitioners.

Ali Safdar Depar, A.A.G. for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1238

[Sindh High Court]

Before Yousuf Ali Sayeed and Arbab Ali Hakro, JJ

AYAZ ALI and 6 others

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance, Islamabad and others

Constitution Petition No. D-6249 of 2022, decided on 20th November, 2024.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 18, 25, 189 & 199---National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance (XIX of 1949), S. 3(2)---Deceased employees of National Bank of Pakistan (NBP)---Sons/deceased quota---Applicability---Recourse to writ jurisdiction of the High Court---Maintainability---NBP being a statutory corporation, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Supreme Court of Pakistan in view of case of "General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal" had unequivocally ruled that appointments based on a son/deceased quota were discriminatory and violate the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination---Article 25 of the Constitution mandates equal treatment and explicitly prohibits discrimination in public service appointments---Reserving employment for the progeny and widows of deceased employees without subjecting them to open competition is inherently exclusionary and prejudices the rights of other qualified citizens---Artcle 18 of the Constitution reinforces the emphasis on merit-based appointments by guaranteeing every citizen the right to enter any lawful profession---Supreme Court has underscored that appointments made without open advertisement and competition undermine the principles of merit and fair competition, which are essential for good governance and the effective functioning of public institutions---Such judgment establish a binding precedent that High Court must adhere to, thus, the practice of appointing individuals based on a son/deceased quota, as requested by the petitioners could not be upheld---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2013 SCMR 642; PLD 2010 SC 676; PLD 2005 SC 806; PLD 2011 SC 132; 2014 SCMR 982; 2013 SCMR 840; 2013 SCMR 1383; 2021 SCMR 609; 2022 SCMR 1256; C.P. No.D-4598/2021 dated 07.02.2023; PLD 2016 SC 377 and 2017 SCMR 2010 ref.

Muhammad Naeem v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2023 SCMR 301 and General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 rel.

Rafiq Ahmed Kalwar along with Muhammad Yasir and Syed Raza Manoon Zaidi for Petitioners.

Faisal Mehmood Ghani and Farman Ali for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Ms. Zehra Sehar Vayani, Assistant Attorney General.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1248

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi and Abdul Hamid Bhurgi, JJ

MUZAMIL and 2 others

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Karachi and 2 others

Constitutional Petition No. D-1695-P of 2024, decided on 18th March, 2025.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Matter of Public Service Commission not conducting competitive exam---Invoking constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Mala fide, absence of---Effect---Contention/allegation raised by the petitioners/candidates was that failure of the Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC) to conduct the annual Combined Competitive Examination (CCE) was a mala fide act---Validity---Record (including parawise comments submitted by Respondents/SPSC) reveals that the CCE has been conducted on a regular basis, however, the CCE for the year 2022could not be held due to administrative reasons and also on account of a case having been filed (against Province of Sindh and others) before the High Court of Sindh; and, later the SPSC resumed its functions following the directions of the Supreme Court and the CCE 2023 was duly announced---Respondents/SPSC has sufficiently justified its inability to conduct the CCE on an annual basis, providing plausible reasoning---Thus, there exists no element of malice or ill-intent on the part of the respondents/SPSC in delaying the CCE examination---No irregularity or illegality is found on the part of respondents/SPSC---Constitutional petition, filed by candidates, being merit-less was dismissed, in circumstances.

Tariq Mubeen v. Province of Sindh 2025 PLC (C.S.) 136 and Muhammad Hamid Mughal v. Fazale-Subhan and others PLD 2024 SC 515 ref.

(b) Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2023---

----Regln. 8(6)(a)(ii)---Competitive examination---Upper age limit, requirement of---Scope---Relief sought by the petitioners/candidates was the grant of age relaxation to enable them to participate in the examination---Validity---The process is governed under statutory provisions of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2023, ('the Regulations 2023')---Provision of Regln. 8(6)(a)(ii) of the Regulations 2023 stipulates that "A candidate must not be less than twenty-one (21) years of age and not more than thirty (30) years of age as of 1st September of the advertisement year."---Provision under Regln. 8(6)(a)(ii) of the Regulations 2023 establishes that respondents/SPSC has adhered to the procedure prescribed under the applicable statute, which is lawful, just and proper---Therefore, the High Court finds no basis to declare the said process as illegal or tainted with mala fide intent, as such an act would amount to unwarranted judicial overreach---Grant of upper age relaxation is not absolute right and remains subject to the discretion of the relevant authorities---No irregularity or illegality is found on the part of respondents/SPSC---Constitutional petition, filed by candidates, being merit-less was dismissed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Anwar v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2019 SCMR 1021 and Mubarik Ali Babar's case 2023 SCMR 518 ref.

(c) Judicial review---

----Process conducted by Public Service Commission---Intervention by Courts in policy matters---Scope---Judicial intervention in policy matters must be exercised with caution, ensuring that governance remains within its constitutional domain without undue interference---The judiciary plays a crucial role in upholding citizens' rights and ensuring checks on executive action---However, excessive judicial overreach may pose risks to governance and democratic stability---A delicate balance must be maintained to ensure that all three branches of the government function effectively within their constitutional limits---Judicial interference should, therefore, be limited to instances requiring legal interpretation and must not unduly encroach upon executive or legislative discretion---No irregularity or illegality is found on the part of respondents/SPSC---Constitutional petition, filed by candidates, being merit-less was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mian Irfan Bashir v. Deputy Commissioner (D.C) Lahore and others PLD 2021 SC 571 ref.

Sohail Ahmed Khoso for Petitioners.

Ali Raza Balouch, Additional Advocate General Sindh for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1277

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi and Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, JJ

ZAHOOR AHMED SAMTIO

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Home Department and 3 others

Constitution Petition No.D-801 of 2019, decided on 16th April, 2025.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Police service---Post of Constable---Selection process---Exclusion in interview---Opinion of Selection/Interviewing Committee---Substitution by High Court---Scope---Factual controversy---Judicial review---Scope---Obtaining superior marks in the written test as a ground for conferment of vested right to selection---Legality---Grievance of the petitioner was that despite clearing the written and physical assessments, he was declared unsuccessful in the interview on account of political favouritism and nepotism by selecting such candidates, who even had not participated in the recruitment process---Validity---Petitioner had alleged favoritism and nepotism; however, these allegations remained unsubstantiated, which rested solely on conjecture and oral averments, unsupported by documentary evidence---High Court could not place reliance upon such vague allegations to unravel or undo an otherwise lawful recruitment process---If such unverified claims were permitted to prevail, it would open floodgates for indiscriminate litigation and cast aspersions upon the sanctity of institutional recruitment---Assessment/re-evaluation lies within the exclusive domain of the Interview or Recruitment Committee to assess and evaluate candidates during the interview process and to allocate scores according to their own judgment and assessment---High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under the constitutional writ, cannot substitute its own opinion for that of the Recruitment Committee---Authority and wisdom vested in the Committee cannot be interfered with or questioned, unless there is manifest malice or gross illegality on the face of the record warranting judicial intervention---Judicial scrutiny does not extend to re-evaluation of interview scores or assessment unless it is demonstrably arbitrary or discriminatory---Petitioner admitted that he could not qualify in the interview and his allegations required factual inquiry, which was beyond the scope of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---In absence of any compelling evidence pointing to mala fide or gross illegality, High Court cannot grant the relief sought---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Asif Hassan and others v. Sabir Hussain and others 2019 SCMR 1720; Arshad Ali Tabassum v. The Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore 2015 SCMR 112 and Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2014 SCMR 157 rel.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Police service---Recruitment process---Discretion of Selection Committee---Scope---Evaluation of eligibility criteria and interview scores/assessment---Judicial review---Formulation of alternative criteria by High Court---Validity---Selection Committee is best placed to assess the capabilities, academic background, aptitude, demeanor and suitability of candidates---Judicial review of such assessments is not warranted unless it is demonstrated that the process was marred by arbitrariness or mala fide intent---Parameters and criteria for recruitment and appointment are to be set by the competent authority---High Court cannot mandate or formulate alternative criteria---It is incumbent upon the official respondents to adhere to rules and ensure fairness, but the threshold for judicial interference remains high and limited to egregious breaches.

Sohail Ahmed Khoso for Petitioner.

Shahryar Awan, Assistant Advocate General Sindh for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1283

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, JJ

MUHAMMAD SULEMAN GHOURI Authorized Attorney of remaining petitioners and 4 others

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence and 3 others

C.P. No.D-1622 of 2025, decided on 29th May, 2025.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations, 2014, Reglns.D-2.4 & 21 Paragraph-3---Civil service---Post of Joint Director (Air Transport and Economic Regulations)---Recruitment process---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Reduction in prescribed eligibility criteria in length of service from 12 to 5 years through advertisement---Respondents raised objection as to maintainability of the constitutional petition for the reason that findings in the reported as Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority and others v. Lt. Col. Syed Javaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707) (DHA's case) in particular Paragraph No.50 relied upon by the petitioner, the Supreme Court in the subsequent case of Syed Nazir Gillani v. Red Crescent Society and another (2014 SCMR 982) (Pakistan Red Crescent's case) after considering the above paragraph-50 had given a different view with regard to those organizations, like respondents-Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which did not have statutory service rules, ruling that writ petitions were not maintainable---Validity---Subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Pakistan in Red Crescent Society Case had not overruled or distinguished the judgment in DHA's case and in particular, Paragraph-50 thereof, rather while deciding the subject judgment of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society Case, Sub-Paragraph-(ii) of Paragraph-50 was relied upon; thus, in view of sub-Paragraphs-(i) and (iv) since the Service Regulations of CAA were framed under the provision of the parent statute, providing the requisite length of service for Executive Grade-5 (EG-5), which had been reduced in the impugned advertisement, thus, with respect to such aspect along with other material issues, the constitutional petition was maintainable.

Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority and others v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed 2013 SCMR 1707 and Syed Nazir Gillai v. Pakistan Red Crescent Society and another 2014 SCMR 982 rel.

(b) Civil Aviation Authority Service Regulations, 2014---

----Reglns.D-2.4 & 21 Paragraph-3---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 25 & 199---Civil service---Recruitment process---Reduction in prescribed eligibility criteria qua length of service from 12 to 5 years to qualify for promotion to the post of Joint Director (AT & ER) through advertisement---Legality---Contention of the petitioners was that they were legitimate expectants for such promotion, however, their career progression had been jeopardized in haste through the advertisement---Validity---For induction in Executive Group, in particular, the prescribed eligibility criteria mentioned in the Service Regulations, could not be violated to such an extent, that minimum 12 years' experience in EG-1 and above with minimum 02 years' experience in the existing Executive Grade, that is EG-4, was reduced to 05 years of experience in Aviation---Argument of respondent that the Service Regulations did empower the Management to hire suitable persons on contract/secondment basis, with specific reference to Regln. D-2.4, that it was the sole prerogative of the Competent Authority to prescribe the criteria, was accepted, but with a rider, that the above referred Regulation and other similar provisions in the Service Regulations were to be read in conjunction with and not in derogation of Regln.-21, Paragraph-3---Names and credentials of the short-listed candidates mentioned in the compliance report were perused and except one candidate, who had an educational background and experience in Aviation, none of the candidates possessed a level of academic qualification or practical experience, that could justify the stance of Respondents-CAA, thus, the equitable doctrine of legitimate expectation should be invoked---If the selection process was accepted, then it was bound to adversely affect the career progression of the petitioners---Although, promotion is not a vested right of an employee and is to be decided by the employer/management after evaluating multiple factors, so also prescribed in the present CAA Regulations, but at least the petitioners had a right to be considered for promotion, if they were fulfilling the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Service Regulations---Person working with honesty and diligence in an organization or institution has a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion; otherwise, it will result in overall discouragement in the organization and will have a direct impact on its functioning and operations---Organization, or for that matter, even State Institutions, cannot viably deliver results as required of them, if employees/team members become disenchanted and disengaged due to unreasonable, arbitrary and discriminatory policies adopted by those at the helm of affairs---Such eleventh-hour rush to reduce the available slots before all the petitioners qualified appeared oddly hastened on the part of respondent-CAA, as the vacancy for the posts had not been articulated by respondent-CAA to be closed as a matter of national emergency, notwithstanding that the modus operandi as an objective and inclusive recruitment design process did not appear to meet such goals---Constitutional petition was accepted, in circumstances.

Muhammad Rafi and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2016 SCMR 2146; Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and others v. Saeed Ahmed Khoso and another 2022 SCMR 1256; Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL and others 2013 SCMR 1383; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhawa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others v. Hayat Hussain and others 2016 SCMR 1021; Syed Nazir Gillani v. Pakistan Red Crescent Society and another 2014 SCMR 982; The General Manager, Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others v. Ghulam Mustafa and others 2024 PLC (C.S) 1028 and Federal Public Service Commission through Chairman, Islamabad and another v. Shiraz Manzoor and others 2023 SCMR 2087 ref.

Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Mrs. Itrat Sajjad Khan and others 2017 SCMR 2010; Pakistan Electric Power Company v. Syed Salahuddin and others 2022 SCMR 991; The General Manager, Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others v. Ghulam Mustafa and others 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1028 and Madni Ahmed Ali Arfat Siddiqui v. Sui Southern Gas Company Limited through Company Secretary and another 2024 PLC (C.S.) 431 rel.

Malik Naeem Iqbal along with Malik Waseem Iqbal, Talha Ahmed Khan and Mehboob Irshad for Petitioners.

Mohsin Qadir Shahwani, Additional Attorney General for Pakistan for Respondent No.1.

S. Aminuddin Fakir along with Danish Ali for Respondents Nos.2 to 4.

Dates of hearing: 8th and 21st May, 2025.

Case law cited by Counsel for the Petitioners

i. 2013 SCMR 1707

[Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority and others v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed];

ii. 2016 SCMR 2146

[Muhammad Rafi and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others] - Rafi Case;

iii. 2022 SCMR 1256

[Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and others v. Saeed Ahmed Khoso and another].

Case law relied upon by the Additional Attorney General for Pakistan

i. 2017 SCMR 2010

[Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Mrs. Itrat Sajjad Khan and others] - DHA Case;

ii. 2022 SCMR 991

[Pakistan Electric Power Company v. Syed Salahuddin and others] - PEPCO Case;

iii. 2013 SCMR 1383

[Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL others];

iv. 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1028

[The General Manager, Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others v. Ghulam Mustafa and others] - Co-operative Bank Case;

v. 2014 SCMR 982

[Syed Nazir Gillai v. Pakistan Red Crescent Society and another] - Pakistan Red Crescent Society Case; and

vi. 2024 PLC (C.S.) 431

[Madni Ahmed Ali Arfat Siddiqui v. Sui Southern Gas Company Limited through Company Secretary and another] - Madni Case.

Case law relied upon by Counsel for Respondents Nos.2 to 4

i. 2016 SCMR 1021

[Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhawa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others v. Hayat Hussain and others];

ii. 2014 SCMR 982

[Syed Nazir Gillani v. Pakistan Red Crescent Society and another] - Pakistan Red Crescent Society Case;

iii. 2024 PLC (C.S) 1028

[The General Manager, Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. and others v. Ghulam Mustafa and others];

iv. 2023 SCMR 2087

[Federal Public Service Commission through Chairman, Islamabad and another v. Shiraz Manzoor and others].

Law under discussion:

1. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 ["Constitution"].

2. The Pakistan Civil Aviation Act, 2023 ["the Act"].

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1324

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, JJ

GHULAM GHOUS MINAI

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Government of Sindh College Education and 5 others

C.P. No.1637 of 2024, decided on 19th March, 2025.

Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---

----R. 2---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 212---Civil service---Constitution petition---Maintainability---Relieving from the post---Petitioner assailed the order/letter whereby he was relieved from his post and directed to report to the office of Director Colleges---Validity---Record showed that despite of the reports of continued absence from duty, misconduct at the place of job, harassment complaints by the academic staff and students no action was taken against petitioner---Said fact reflected the weak functioning of the College Education Department, an institution pivotal to the academic uplift of the province---Court could not ignore such a critical situation happening in the Educational Institutions---Principals of all the colleges wherever petitioner worked sent serious reports of his misconduct but could not succeed in getting the required attention from the officers in the hierarchy and at the helm of affairs---Such gloomy and sad state of affairs had led to the inference that the college education department lacked the services of efficient and decision-making managers---Record showed that petitioner was absent from his new duty for the last about one year and no action in that regard was taken by the Department---Prosecutor was also not able to explain that attitude of indifference by the Department to put vigilance on its employees---Allegedly, no action was taken against the petitioner as that petition was pending adjudication---No force was found in the said stance of prosecutor as the restraining order was not passed by the High Court, hampering the process of law to take its' due course---Respondents might have initiated the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law and rules under such a situation---Mere pendency of a lis before Court would not in any manner debarred the department from initiation of the disciplinary proceedings unless so specifically ordered---Petitioner was a civil servant and he would not get the place of duty of his choice but he was under a statutory liability to perform duties at the place where his services were required by the Department---Respondent No. 6 being the principal of the college was head of the institution, he was saddled with a responsibility to regulate the college business in a manner to maintain hygienic educational atmosphere for teachers and students---Said respondent was empowered to retain the services of any employee in the interest of the institution and at the same time he might relieve the services of any miscreant employee as had been done in the instant case---Any action taken by the principal of the college regarding transfer or relieving of any employee would fall under R. 9 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974---Petitioner was guilty of misconduct defined in R. 2 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, therefore he was rightly relieved from the College to keep academic atmosphere up to the mark---Matter in essence involved the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner, and the remedy available to the petitioner was to file a departmental appeal/Service Appeal before the appropriate fora---Writ jurisdiction of the High Court was not available in view of the bar contained under Art. 212 of the Constitution---Constitution petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Imdad Ali Bhatti for Petitioners.

Ali Safdar Depar, A.A.G for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1329

[Sindh High Court (Sukkur Bench)]

Before Zulfiqar Ali Sangi and Abdul Hamid Bhurgri, JJ

ZAKIR HUSSAIN

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Agriculture and 2 others

C.P. No.D-1462 of 2020, decided on 17th April, 2025.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Civil service---Recruitment process---Disputed questions of facts---Interference by High Court---Scope---Laches---Non-impleadment of necessary party---Inclusion in the merit list but exclusion in appointment orders---Petitioner sought his appointment being a legitimate expectant---Validity---Petitioner had failed to implead as respondents the individuals whose appointments he sought to challenge and the constitutional petition had been filed after 10 years of the conclusion of recruitment process---Such unexplained delay rendered the petition liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches---Even if the petitioner had a valid grievance, the failure to act with reasonable promptness undermined the case in constitutional matters, unexplained and prolonged delay was fatal---Doctrine of laches in equity, though not rigid, is rooted in fairness---Relief may be denied if delay prejudices the opposing party or causes administrative disruption---Plea of petitioner that the respondents had issued appointment orders to the persons, who had never appeared in interview, thus, process was against law and recruitment rules, was not substantiated as nothing had been placed before High Court in this regard---Even otherwise such plea required factual probe, which in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction could not be done---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine, in circumstances.

Mst. Kaniz Fatima through legal heirs v. Muhammad Salim and 27 others 2001 SCMR 1493 and Anjuman Fruit Arhtian and others v. Deputy Commissioner, Faisalabad and others 2011 SCMR 279 rel.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Writ jurisdiction of High Court---Scope and nature---Delay in availing remedy---Effect---Laches as a discretionary bar in equitable relief---Scope---Involvement of third party rights---Effect---Exercise of writ jurisdiction is discretionary---Principles of equity, such as delay, acquiescence and waiver must be considered---Petitioner invoking relief under Art. 199 of the Constitution must approach the Court with clean hands and without undue delay---Doctrine of laches, founded on equitable principles, is firmly embedded in our jurisprudence---It presumes that those who sleep on their rights and delay seeking redress demonstrate abandonment of claim---Doctrine of laches is a discretionary bar against equitable relief, particularly where prolonged delay affects administrative processes or causes injustice to others---Equitable maxim "delay defeats equity" remains relevant---Petitioner who sought relief after an excessive lapse of lime cannot reasonably expect judicial intervention, especially when public employment or third-party rights were involved---Doctrine of laches is founded on the maxim "vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt", the law assists those who are vigilant of their rights.

Civil Procedure Rules (CPR Part 54) Rule 54.5; R v. Secretary of State for Education and Science ex parte Avon CC [1991] QB 558; State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and another v. Imtiaz Ali Khan and others, 2012 SCMR 280 = 2012 PLC (C.S.) 218; Special Secretary-II (Law and Order), Home and Tribunal Affairs Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others v. Fayyaz Dawar 2023 SCMR 1442 and Asghar Khan and others v. Province of Sindh through Home Secretary Government of Sindh and 4 others 2014 PLC (C.S.) 1292 rel.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Fundamental right, enforcement

of---Civil service---Recruitment process---Exclusion from appointment despite having inclusion in merit list---Legality---Mere inclusion in merit list does not confer any vested right to appointment---Appointment is contingent upon fulfilling all required conditions and the discretion of the appointing authority, subject to the availability of posts and budgetary approval and according to recruitment rules and policy.

Secretary Finance and others v. Ghulam Safdar 2005 SCMR 534 rel.

(d) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Civil service---Unexplained delay---Denial or grant of relief of appointment---Scope---Unexplained delay in service matters, particularly involving appointments, is sufficient ground for denial of such relief.

Ghulam Shabbeer Shar for Petitioner.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1374

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Karim Khan Agha and Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, JJ

MEER SHAHNAWAZ KHOSO

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 4 others

C.P. No.D-511 of 2025, decided on 17th March, 2025.

Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act (XLVIII of 2018)---

----Ss. 3, 11 & 25---Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 5---Disabled/differently-abled persons---Appointments---Reserved quota---Petitioner was appointed on the disabled quota vide Notification dated 26.06.2023---However, the same was withdrawn vide directives dated 22.01.2025 on the basis of an order dated 12.01.2023, passed by the Court in a Civil Petition, on the ground that he did not submit old CNIC to establish that the same had the logo of "Disability" to establish that the petitioner had applied on the disabled quota---Validity---Petitioner was appointed as Junior Elementary School Teacher vide letter dated 07.07.2023 subject to certain terms and conditions---In said letter, it was mentioned that petitioner was appointed on a disabled quota having secured 34 marks in the relevant examination---Fact that the petitioner was disabled was clear from Social Welfare Department's Disability Certificate which was dated many years before his job application---As such the objection to his disability because it was not marked on his CNIC was found frivolous especially as he was appointed on a disabled quota and his disability certificate would have been seen by them---Blanket termination letter/impugned order led to the termination of the petitioner and many others because they did not obtain 40 marks in their examinations---However, it was found that the concerned department by terminating the petitioner through the blanket letter/impugned order misinterpreted that the Court order did not apply to those persons who had been appointed on a disabled quota, who only needed to score 33 marks in the examination and the petitioner scored 34 marks which qualified him through the disabled quota and as such he was wrongly terminated---Case of petitioner did not fall within one of a hard area---40 marks requirement had no relevance to the petitioner who had been appointed on the disabled quota under S. 11(12) of the Sindh Empowerment of "Persons with Disabilities" Act, 2018---Even otherwise, if the concerned department which terminated the petitioner was of the view that he was not a part of the disabled quota despite already having appointed him on the disabled quota they should have served him a notice to that effect before terminating his services, which they did not do---In fact disability certificate of petitioner which pre-dated his appointment was never challenged even in those proceedings and as such by implication it had been accepted by the respondents---Not only impugned orders were found to be without lawful authority and set aside but the concerned department adopted a mean spirited approach to the petitioner which lacked any kind of compassion for a differently-abled person when his case was crying out for compassion especially as he was the only disabled person who qualified for the job which had the effect of leaving the disabled quota unused and undermining its very purpose, i.e. assisting differently-abled persons who face more challenges in life than fully abled persons especially in the work place---Petition was allowed, accordingly.

Muhammad Fahad for Petitioner.

Ali Safdar Depar, A.A.G. for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1388

[Sindh High Court]

Before Muhammad Saleem Jessar and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, JJ

ZOHAIB HASSAN

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others

C.M.A. No.D-513 of 2021 and C.P. No.D-39 of 2013, decided on 28th February, 2024.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 199 & 204---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151---Appointment---Defying order of Court---Contempt proceedings---Converting of proceedings---Non-compliance of orders passed by Division Bench of High Court---Petitioner / applicant sought his appointment against quota under son of employee scheme for the post of Constable in police---Grievance of petitioner / applicant was that despite being declared fit in physical test and also succeeding in the written test, he was not selected---Division Bench of High Court in exercise of Constitution jurisdiction directed the authorities to appoint petitioner / applicant---Contempt proceedings were initiated by petitioner / applicant against alleged contemnors for deliberately violating and defying the order passed by Division Bench of High Court---Validity---Division Bench of High Court converted contempt application into an application under S. 151, C.P.C. and directed respondents to appoint petitioner / applicant to the post of Constable or to any other equivalent post---Division Bench of High Court expected that authorities would issue appointment letter to petitioner / applicant expeditiously, as he had been running from pillar to post for his right for a long time---Division Bench of High Court clarified that if the needful was not done within the stipulated period, it would be deemed to be defiance of Court's order within the meaning of Art. 204 of the Constitution---Application allowed accordingly.

2013 PLC (C.S.) 1275; Gul Hassan Jatoi and others v. Faqir Muhammad Jatoi and others 2016 SCMR 1254; Pakistan Railways through Chief Executive Officer / Senior General Manager, Lahore and another v. Muhammad Aslam 2024 SCMR 97; Muhammad Taqi Shah v. The Secretary Education Department Government of Sindh and 2 others 2018 PLC (C.S.) Note 92; Muhammad Khalid Nazir v. D.C.O. and others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 1200; Anwar Ali v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and 3 others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 381 and Muhammad Aslam Kalhoro v. District and Sessions Judge, Larkana and others C.P. No.D-670 of 2023 rel.

Petitioner/Applicant in Person.

Abdul Hamid Bhurgri Addl. A.G. Sindh for the alleged contemnor along with SIP Ali Dost Chandio on behalf of the SSP Larkana for Respondent/State.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 58

[Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J

Ms. XENIA HAMAYUN SANIK

Versus

The GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Planning and Development Board, Punjab Secretariat, Lahore and 3 others

Writ Petition No.2332 of 2024, heard on 3rd September, 2024.

Civil service---

----Allotment of accommodation---ABAD Houses Allotment Policy, 2013---Official accommodation---Period of retention---Determination---Specific provision on a subject to prevail over general provision---Petitioner claimed retention of official accommodation for three years on the basis of her appointment/posting falling within the meaning of deputationist abroad---Validity---Clause 14(d)(iii) of the ABAD Houses Allotment Policy, 2013 ('Policy') clearly deals with a situation when a person is posted out of Punjab, and not otherwise, whereas Cls. 14(f) of the Policy deals with a situation when an employee is on deputation abroad, he is entitled to retain official residence for a maximum period of three years---When a specific provision is enacted to address a particular situation, it supersedes general provisions to the same effect, therefore, in such circumstances, resort has to be made to that specific provision and not general provision---Allotment of residence cannot be claimed as a matter of right by a government servant, yet he/she is entitled to be dealt with in a fair, reasonable and unbiased manner---Constitution petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Ashraf v. Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and another PLD 1968 Lah. 1155; Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and another PLD 1969 SC 223; Government of Pakistan Ministry of Housing and Works through Joint Estate Officer, Federal Government Colony Hassan Ghari, Peshawar v. Malik Safeer Ahmed 2022 SCMR 2073 and Ihsan Ullah Bajwa v. The Chairman, City and Regional Planning Department University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore and 5 others 1991 MLD 1688 ref.

Muhammad Amin Khan And 4 others v. Muhammad Siddique and another 1984 PCr.LJ 1580; Boolchand v. Qazi Muhammad Bachal 1987 CLC 1109; Darya Khan v. Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Chairman and 3 others 1995 MLD 1737 and Dr. Muhammad Latif v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Services, General Administration and Information Department and 2 others 1993 CLC 1645 rel.

Agha Muhammad Ali Khan for Petitioner.

Imran Shaukat Rao, A.A.G along with Nasir Wilayat, Deputy Director (Admin.), ABAD for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 129

[Lahore High Court (Multan Bench)]

Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J

MUNAWAR HUSSAIN TOORI

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION CABINET SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD, through Secretary and 5 others

Writ Petition No.15368 of 2023, decided on 17th April, 2024.

Appointment of Chairman and Members (Qualifications) Rules, 2022---

----R.5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.25---Appointment of Members of National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC)---Perks and privileges/payment and allowance---Equality---Reasonable classification---Intelligible defferentia---Scope---Legitimate expectancy---Contention of the petitioner was that he was not treated on the analogy of other similarly placed members of the NIRC and District and Sessions Judges in other Provinces for grant of perks and privileges/pay and allowances---Validity---Petitioner had legitimate expectancy to receive the same perks and privileges as were being granted to similarly placed persons/colleagues---All admissible allowances to regular judicial officers in same grade would be admissible to the petitioner as the petitioner was appointed against the judicial post having requisite qualification and practice as an advocate and as such, he could not have been discriminated for the perks and privileges being paid to other appointees/Members of NIRC, who were retired District and Sessions Judges---Petitioner was being treated differently as compared to his colleagues, which was absolutely unwarranted under the quality clause contained in Art.25 of the Constitution---No reasonable distinction existed between the petitioner and other similarly placed Members and there was no justified reason to isolate the case of the petitioner from the other similarly placed members because the discrimination against the petitioner was not based on any rational ground or reasonable classification rather it tantamount to creating artificial grouping---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Government of the Punjab through Secretary Finance Department, Lahore v. Mubarik Ali Khan and 8 others PLD 1993 SC 375; Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 2 others v. Syed Riaz Ali Zaidi 2016 PLC (C.S.) 1074; Abdul Haleem Siddiqui and others v. Federation of Pakistan through the Law Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad and others 2019 PLC (C.S.) 238 and Muhammad Wassay Tareen v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and 2 others 2023 PLC (C.S.) 457 ref.

Abdul Malik v. Director General (D.G.) Quetta Development Authority (QDA) and another 2023 PLC (C.S.) Note 63; Saleem Ahmad v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education and others 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1043; Muhammad Nasir Mahmood and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Islamabad PLD 2009 SC 107; Hadayat Ullah and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2022 SCMR 1691; Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Cabinet Division, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad and another 2022 SCMR 201; Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 265; Secretary Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad and others v. Anwarul Haq Ahmed and others 2013 SCMR 1687; Muhammad Shabbir Ahmed Nasir v. Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and another 1997 SCMR 1026; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others v. Syed Sadiq Shah and others 2021 SCMR 747; W.P. No. 15184 of 2013 and Muhammad Ishaque Notezai v. Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad through its Secretary and others C.P. No.384 of 2020 rel.

Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Petitioner.

Rana Ghulam Hussain, Assistant Attorney General along with Shahzad Ali, Assistant and Malik Imdad Hussain, Assistant, NIRC for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 182

[Lahore High Court]

Before Raheel Kamran, J

Prof. Dr. SHEIKH ASRAR AHMAD

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Higher Education and others

Writ Petition No.52354 of 2024, decided on 7th October, 2024.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts.25, 199(1)(a) & 199(1)(c)---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Appointment of Vice Chancellors in Public Sector Universities in Punjab---Eligibility criteria---Determination----Allocation of more marks to foreign Ph.D. degree holders---Policy decision---Discrimination----Reasonable classification---Challenge thrown to the recruitment process after not being selected---Legality---Allegation of financial/management crisis in the previous tenures of some selected candidates without any specific nomination---Effect---Contention of the petitioner was that favourite candidates had been selected without even calling him for interview or issuing him a rejection letter---Validity---No question over the constitution of Search Committees or on any of their members had been raised---No specific violation of law, policy or merit was attributed to Search Committees but only vague and general allegations had been levelled by the petitioner---Advertisement for the appointments in question reflected that only short-listed/eligible candidates were to be interviewed by the respective Search Committees---None of the candidates, in whose earlier tenures universities had undergone severe financial and management crisis, had been named specifically in the petition or arguments---None of the selected candidates, who were going to retire in few days, had been specified in the petition and the advertisement itself showed the maximum age of 65 years for the applicants---Appointments of the VCs had already been made, thus, the petitioner was at liberty to exercise his right to information before the concerned forum in accordance with law and assail any such appointment on specific grounds depicting violation of any provision of law or the applicable policy while impleading the V.C. concerned---No room for a roving inquiry or fishing expedition was available to the petitioner---When petitioner was not called for interview, he filed the constitutional petition challenging the selection criteria, however, he ought to have challenged the selection criteria notified by the Government before applying for the post in question and not after having been rejected---In the absence of such timely challenge, it could be presumed that he accepted the criteria to be valid and expressed no reservation against it---V.Cs., who had earned their Ph.D. degrees from the top ranked institutions of the world, were expected that they should, while benefitting from their rich international exposure, endeavor to promote such excellence in the institutions headed by them, thus, selection criteria was not arbitrary and discriminatory but based on rational nexus with the object of classification---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Dr. Iqrar Ahmad Khan v. Dr. Muhammad Ashraf and others 2021 SCMR 1509; Human Rights Case No.13865-P of 2018; Commissioner Inland Revenue v. MCB Bank Limited 2021 PTD 1325 and Senior General Manager, Pakistan Railways and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz 2024 SCMR 581 rel.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan----

----Arts. 199(1)(a) & 199(1)(c)---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Jurisdiction of High Court under Clause (c) of Art.199(1) of the Constitution---Wider than that available under Clause (a) of Art.199(1) of the Constitution---"Enforcement of fundamental rights"---Scope---Judicial power under clause (c) of Art.199(1) of the Constitution is wider than other provision in the said Article inasmuch as under such exercise of jurisdiction High Court can issue any appropriate direction for enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Chapter 1 of Part II of the Constitution, however, issuance of such direction should be necessary for the enforcement of the Fundamental Right, appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, which must not be a disproportionate measure---Contrarily, directions in the nature of mandamus or prohibition under clause (a) of Art.199(1) of the Constitution are confined to act as required by law or refrain from acting in a manner not permitted by law.

Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and 2 others v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 2009 SC 507 and Abdul Wahab v. HBL and others 2013 SCMR 1383 rel.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan----

----Art.25---Discrimination---Reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia---Article 25 of the Constitution allows for reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those who have been left out and such differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 161; I.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division Islamabad and others 1991 SCMR 1041 and Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and 2 others v. Government of Pakistan and others PLD 2009 SC 507 ref.

(d) Constitution of Pakistan----

----Art.199---Appointment of Vice-Chancellor in Public Sector Universities of Punjab---Selection criteria---Policy decision of the Government---Interference by High Court---Scope---Selection criteria generally reflects a policy decision of the Government and in absence of any violation of constitutional guarantee or patent illegality, such policy decision could not be annulled by High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.

Asim Khan Sherwani for Petitioner.

Imran Khan, Assistant Advocate General with Ch. Rehman, Senior Law Officer and Mian Zahid, Law Officer Higher Education Department for Government of Punjab.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 214

[Lahore High Court (Multan Bench)]

Before Anwaar Hussain, J

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE

Versus

DIRECTOR GENERAL, PUNJAB, EMERGENCY SERVICE, LAHORE and 3 others

Writ Petition No.6339 of 2022, heard on 22nd February, 2024.

Punjab Emergency Service Leave, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 2007---

----Rr. 6 & 7---Special Offences and penalties---Unauthorized absence from duty---Involvement and acquittal in criminal case---Absence beyond the control of employee---Effect---Unauthorized absence when to be treated as willful absence or otherwise---Determination---Imposition of alien penalty (not provided under the prevalent Rules) applied while proceeding against the employee---Legality---Petitioner after his acquittal from criminal case filed departmental appeal, which was dismissed being barred by time and also on the ground that criminal and departmental proceedings could be initiated side by side---Validity---Absence without any application or prior permission may amount to unauthorized absence, but it does not always mean that the same is willful---Where absence is not willful, the employee cannot be held guilty of failure of devotion to the duty or behaviour unbecoming of a government servant, thus, where an absent employee comes back and seeks to join his duty, the departmental authorities are obligated to determine whether the unauthorized absence was willful or was the result of compelling circumstances beyond the control of the employee---Element of "willfulness" was never looked into in the petitioner's case as there were compelling circumstances of registration of the FIR against the petitioner, and his consequent arrest and incarceration in jail rendered it beyond his control to report to the authorities---Extreme punishment of removal had been awarded without any inquiry or determination by considering the cause of absence---High Court held that every unauthorized absence is not willful absence if the same is caused by compelling circumstances beyond the control of an employee---Petitioner had been non-suited on the ground that criminal and departmental proceedings could go on side by side and the departmental proceedings were independent of the result of criminal proceedings---Result of criminal proceedings could not have bearing on the departmental proceedings but this proposition of law was relevant where departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings were based upon same occurrence and mere exoneration in criminal proceedings did not absolve the delinquent official from the departmental proceedings as both involve different standards of proof---Issue in petitioner's case was neither exoneration from the criminal proceedings and benefit thereof in the departmental proceedings nor the underlying occurrence in the criminal and departmental proceedings was same, rather the issue was whether the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from duty was willful or otherwise, on account of arrest in a criminal case---Petitioner's reference to his arrest in criminal case followed by criminal proceedings and his subsequent acquittal were the reasons justifying his absence and for not filing the appeal within time, therefore, petitioner's appeal had been erroneously dismissed being time barred---There was no other punishment except one provided in R.6 of the Punjab Emergency Service Leave, Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 2007 (Rules) i.e. deduction of 1/5th of salary with allowance for each day's absence---Removal of the petitioner, who was regular employee of the respondent department was not envisaged under R.6 of the Rules---Department under R.7 of the Rules could initiate disciplinary proceedings against its regular employee in accordance with Punjab Employees Efficiency Discipline Act, 2006 (PEEDA) and in order to remove the petitioner under the PEEDA, it was obligatory upon the department to prove his willful absence from duty, but element of "willfulness" was never looked into by the competent authority---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Faisal Mehboob Khan v. Chief Secretary and 2 others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 216; Ijaz Akbar v. The Director General (Ext.) L&DD, Punjab, Lahore and others 2024 PLC (C.S.) 129 and Muhammad Sardar Khan v. Senior Member (Establishment), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore 1985 SCMR 1062 rel.

Shakeel Javed Chaudhry for Petitioner.

Sahibzada Muhammad Saleem, Assistant Advocate General along with Abdul Jabbar, ALO for Respondent No.1.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 262

[Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Before Jawad Hassan, J

Malik AMANAT RASUL

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others

Writ Petition No.585 of 2015, heard on 11th September, 2024.

(a) Pakistan Ordnance Factories Allotment of Residential Plots to Officers Rules, 2002---

----Rr. 1(3), 5(1) & 5(2)(i)---Eligibility conditions for allotment of plots---Determination---Petitioner after his selection in Ministry of Population Welfare as Director claimed allotment of plot on the basis of his length of service rendered in POF Board Wah Cantt. after inclusion of period of probation and retaining the right of lien---Validity---Term "lien" has a statutory connotation and refers to a legal right of civil servants to hold a particular post, typically a higher one, to which they have been promoted or transferred, while still retaining a right on their original post, based on provisions provided for the same under the rules or regulations framed by the appropriate Government, thus, simply put, lien in service law is a right of a civil servant to return to his original position, based on the fulfilment of the conditions set out in the rules or regulations framed by the appropriate Government---Rules were promulgated on 31.05.2002 and R.1(3) of the Rules clearly speaks that the Rules shall come into force at once, thus, the same do not either expressly or impliedly, provide for any retrospective application and cannot operate to reverse or undo an action which took effect from the prior date of existence of the Rules---Petitioner claimed financial benefits of his previous service with POF and also claimed a residential plot on the basis thereof, however, his previous service rendered with the POF was allowed to be counted merely for pension purposes, but that was not solid ground for entitlement of plot under R.5 of the Rules as he was not the employee of the POF at the time of promulgation of the Rules---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Principle of laches---Applicability----Allotment of plot---Petitioner assailed order of rejection of his claim as to allotment of plot after the lapse of six months without explaining any convincing reasons for the inordinate delay---Principle of laches was applicable to the case of the petitioner as three months' time was considered reasonable for a party to assail an adverse order in writ jurisdiction of High Court.

Civil Aviation Authority through Director General and 3 others v. Mir Zulfiqar Ali and another 2016 SCMR 183; State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and another v. Imtiaz Ali Khan and others 2012 SCMR 280 and Member (S&R)/Chief Settlement Commissioner, Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and another v. Syed Ashfaque Ali and others PLD 2003 SC 132 rel.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Writ is only for enforcement of fundamental rights and not for entitlement of rights.

Asdullah Mangi and others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others 2005 SCMR 445 rel.

Zaheer Ahmad Qadri and Arshad Mehmood for Petitioner.

Arshad Mehmood Malik, Assistant Attorney General.

Muhammad Yasir Akbar Butt for Respondents Nos.4 and 5.

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

2025 P L C (C.S.) 476

[Lahore High Court]

Before Abid Aziz Sheikh, J

Messrs Z.A. CORPORATION through Proprietor

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Commerce, Islamabad and 2 others

Writ Petition No. 57829 of 2024, decided on 1st October, 2024.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199(1)(b)(ii)---Territorial jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Writ of quo warranto---Maintainability---Appointment of respondent as a Member and then Chairman of National Tariff Commission (NTC) on the same day was challenged through a constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court---Validity---Words "within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court holding or purporting to hold public office" would lead to the ineluctable conclusion that for the purpose of writ of quo warranto, a person against whom, constitutional petition had been filed, must be holding or purporting to hold public office within the territorial jurisdiction of that Court---Respondent was holding the post of Member and Chairman NTC at Islamabad and was not holding or purporting to hold a public office within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court in Province of Punjab---Court had to see what was the dominant object of filing of writ petition---Neither impugned notifications were issued by Punjab Government nor respondent was holding a public office in the Province of Punjab, thus, the dominant object of filing the writ petition being at Islamabad and not Lahore, constitutional petition was not maintainable at Lahore on such score---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Messrs Madni Paper Mart, through its Proprietor Irshad Ahmad and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others Writ Petition No. 3965 of 2023 ref.

Sandalbar Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd v. Central Board of Revenue and others PLD 1997 SC 334 and Mirza Luqman Masud v. Government of Pakistan and others 2015 PLC (C.S.) 526 rel.

Shahid Mehmood Khan v. Federation of Pakistan Writ Petition No.18698 of 2016 and Musa Raza v. Federation of Pakistan and others Writ Petition No.1091-P of 2017 distinguished.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 199(1)(a)(i), (ii), 199(1)(b)(ii) & 199(1)(c)---Territorial jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---Terms "performing functions within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court" and "holding or purporting to hold public office within territorial jurisdiction"---Scope---Term "performing functions within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court" used in Arts. 199(1)(a)(i), (ii) & 199(1)(c) of the Constitution, is much wider term then words "holding or purporting to hold public office within territorial jurisdiction" used in Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution---Person may perform functions within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court even if he is not holding public office within the territorial jurisdiction of said Court, thus, constitutional petition may be maintainable in said Court considering the dominant object for filing of writ petition---However, in case of writ of quo-warranto under Art. 199(1)(b)(ii) of the Constitution, a person must hold or purport to hold public office within territorial jurisdiction of Court, where constitutional petition has been filed---Constitutional petition was dismissed being not maintainable.

Shafqat Mehmood Chohan for Petitioner.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 501

[Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, J

ZEESHAN ASGHAR

Versus

PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary School Education, Government of the Punjab and 4 others

Writ Petition No.1465 of 2023, heard on 10th October, 2024.

Punjab Government Educational and Training Institutions Ordinance (XI of 1960)---

----S.18(2)(e)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.4 &10-A---Cadet College, Hasanabadal---Departmental proceedings on the basis of previous bad record---Fact finding inquiry---Non-mentioning of relevant law in show-cause notice under which it had been issued---Dispensation of regular inquiry without assigning any reason---Non-observance of procedure in cases calling for major penalty---Infliction of major penalty of compulsory retirement---Dismissal of departmental appeal and review filed by the petitioner---Validity---In exercise of powers conferred on it by S. 18(2)(e) of the Punjab Government Education and Training Institutions Ordinance, 1960 (Ordinance), Board of Governors was pleased to frame, with the approval of the Government of the Punjab, "Cadet College, Hasanabdal Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Regulations (Regulations)---Regulation deals with penalties, whereas Regulation prescribes procedure for inquiry in case of inefficiency, misconduct and corruption---Neither regular inquiry had been conducted by the authority, nor any reasons had been recorded for dispensing the regular inquiry, however, show-cause notice transpired that some fact-finding inquiry was conducted prior to its issuance, which in no way was sufficient to justify the dispensation of regular inquiry---Term "Show-Cause Notice" in the departmental proceedings can be equated with First Information Report (F.I.R.) in a criminal case---"Show-Cause Notice" is meant to state the grounds for launching departmental proceedings against the employee, thus, it is necessary that a show-cause notice must be worded properly and in an unambiguous manner, stating the nature of the allegation(s)/charge(s) to which the accused/employee has to respond---Petitioner had not been confronted with any allegations/charges specifically except his previous conduct---No provision was cited under which show-cause notice was issued and no procedure prescribed in the Regulations had been followed at all---Petitioner was awarded major penalty but without holding any regular inquiry---Though it was discretionary with the department to dispense with the regular inquiry in the facts and circumstances of the case but such dispensation had to be backed by some compelling justifiable reasons, assigned in writing, which were lacking in the case, thus, petitioner had been deprived of his vested right of fair trial as guaranteed under Arts. 4 and 10-A of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad and others v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603 and Raja Muhammad Shahid v. The Inspector General of Police and others 2023 SCMR 1135 ref.

Sanaullah Sani v. Secretary Education Schools and others 2024 SCMR 80; Muhammad Naeem Akhtar v. Managing Director Water and Sanitation Agency LDA, Lahore and others 2017 SCMR 356; Senior Superintendent of Police (Operation) and others v. Shahid Nazir 2022 SCMR 327 and Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad and others v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603 rel.

Malik Muhammad Awaid Khalid for Petitioner.

Malik Amjad Ali, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for Respondent No.1.

Ali Akbar Javed Naqvi and Muhammad Mohkam Bajwa for Respondents Nos.2 to 5.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 597

[Lahore High Court]

Before Shujaat Ali Khan, J

MANSOOR AHMAD

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others

Writ Petitions Nos.36245, 69927 of 2021 and 9582 of 2022, decided on 4th May, 2023.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973---National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 2021---Punishment awarded to bank employees of National Bank of Pakistan, matter of---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Bank employees of National Bank were awarded penalty, which was maintained by Appellate Authority ; they invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the year 2021---Objection on maintainability of constitutional petition was raised by the Bank / respondents on the basis of prevalent National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 2021 ('the Rules, 2021') being non-statutory in nature---Validity---Admittedly, the petitioners were charge sheeted in the year 2019 when National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973, ('the Rules 1973') were in existence---Thus, the proceedings against petitioners were initiated under the Rules, 1973---When the Competent Authority imposed penalty against the petitioners through relevant Office Memorandums in the year 2020, at that time the Rules, 2021 were not in existence---Thus, all the proceedings were not only conducted but also concluded against the petitioners under the Rules, 1973---Vested and substantive rights of the parties are and should be decided according to the law which is prevalent when the action is initiated and the door of the Court is knocked, and /or the machinery of the Court is set in motion---When an employee is proceeded against under statutory intervention, the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution is fully attracted irrespective of the fact as to whether the Rules governing terms and conditions of the employee concerned are governed under statutory or non-statutory service rules---Jurisdiction of the High Court was aptly attracted in the present case---High Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the Competent Authority as well as Appellate Authority---Constitutional petition, filed by bank employees, was allowed, in circumstances.

Muhammad Tariq Badar and another v. National Bank of Pakistan and others 2013 SCMR 314 and Haroon-ur-Rashid v. Lahore Development Authority and others 2016 SCMR 931 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973---National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 2021---Punishment was awarded to bank employees of National Bank of Pakistan after initiating proceedings under relevant Rules (National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 1973)---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Contention of the Respondent / Bank was that since before the decision of the appeal filed by the petitioners, National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules, 2021, ('the Rules, 2021') were in existence, the jurisdiction of the High Court was debarred---Held, no Law/Rule/Regulation has retrospective effect until and unless Law/Rule/Regulation is declared prospective in the amending Law/Rule/Regulation which was not the position in the present case---Thus, the objection raised by the Respondent / Bank was misconceived---High Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the Competent Authority as well as Appellate Authority---Constitutional petition, filed by bank employees, was allowed, in circumstances.

(c) Employment---

----Bank employees of National Bank of Pakistan---Punishment, award of---Supervisory role of the accused---Scope and effect---Petitioners (Bank employees of National Bank) were awarded penalty of demotion to next lower grade debarring them from holding supervisory position for three years, which penalty was maintained by Appellate Authority---Argument of the Respondent/Bank was that if the petitioners were not associated with the alleged scam, even then they being negligent in performance of their supervisory duties were rightly demoted by the Competent Authority---Validity---Record revealed that that the alleged scam took place in the Foreign Exchange Department of a Branch of the Respondents / Bank whereas none of the petitioners was posted in the said department; thus, issuance of charge sheet to them without specifying their role with reference to alleged seam was unjustified---When the supervisory officer fails to perform his/her duties diligently to supervise his/her subordinates the allegation of negligence can be attributed---Petitioners were neither immediate authorities nor supervisory authorities of master mind of the scam (the then Vice President, Foreign Exchange Department), thus, the initiation of the proceedings against them was nothing but to make them scapegoat for the misdeeds of somebody else---The otherwise record (Annual Performance appraisal etc.) showed satisfactory performance of the petitioners, who had a decade of service to their credit, and they could not be considered as inefficient or negligent towards performance of their duties---When the involvement of an employee is not established in respect of an incident which is used as an edifice to trigger the departmental proceedings, the proceedings from its inception would be a nullity in the eyes of law and such approach cannot be left un-noticed rather deserves to be deprecated with full vigor---Neither the Competent Authority nor the Appellate Authority had referred to any material connecting them with the commission of the scam in any capacity whatsoever---High Court set aside the impugned orders passed by the Competent Authority as well as Appellate Authority---Constitutional petition, filed by bank employees, was allowed, in circumstances.

Mian Bilal Bashir for Petitioner (in this petition as well as in W.P. No.9582 of 2022).

Barrister Haris Azmat for Petitioner (in W.P. No.69927 of 2021).

Abid Hussain Ch. for Respondents Nos.2 and 3 (in W.P. No.9582 of 2022).

Umer Abdullah for Respondents Nos.2 and 3 (in W.P. No.69927 of 2021).

2025 P L C (C.S.) 693

[Lahore High Court]

Before Abid Aziz Sheikh, J

BABAR SULTAN

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary School Education and 2 others

Writ Petition No.1982 of 2013, decided on 17th December, 2024.

Employment---

----Recruitment Policy, 2011, Cl. ix---Recruitment process---Selection of four candidates---Petitioner/candidates standing next in the merit list---Termination of service of one of the selected candidates after joining the post---Petitioner claimed his appointment against the vacant post being next in the merit list---Validity---As per Clause-ix of Recruitment Policy, 2011 (Policy) the next candidate on merit list shall only be given offer, if the selectee either does not join training or fails to join the post within fifteen days, or where a written refusal is received from the selectee, or in case a person joins and leaves the same within a period of 190 days---There was no provision that once a person was appointed and joined service, but was subsequently removed from service under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, the candidate next on the merit list should be selected---Interpretation of Clause-ix of the Policy was not only explicit but also logical because when a person did not leave voluntarily after joining but was dismissed from service, there was stigma attached to the said dismissal---Such removal from service order was subject to challenge and the next candidate on merit list could not be appointed unless and until the decision of dismissal attained finality from all relevant forums, however, the position was altogether different and next candidate could be appointed without objection from third party, in case the candidate did not join or left voluntarily after joining---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Government of the Punjab through Secretary Cooperative Societies Department Lahore and others v. Asad Abbas 2022 SCMR 739; Dr. Sumera Tabassum v. F.P.S.C. and others 2016 SCMR 196; Province of Sindh and others v. Ghulam Hassan Bughio 2014 SCMR 643; Government of N.W.F.P. through Secretary Education Department, Peshawar and others v. Qasim Shah 2009 SCMR 382; Rafaqat Ali v. Executive District Officer (Health) and others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1615; Hafiz Ali Ahmad v. Secretary Education and 2 others W.P. No.18648/2014; Ehtisham Basharat v. D.I.G. and others 2023 PLC (C.S.) 8; Shahid Habib v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Department Peshawar and 3 others 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1426; Saiful Haq v. Government of KPK and others 2020 PLC (C.S.) 276; Shabana Akhtar v. District Coordination Officer, Bhakkar and 2 others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 366; Muhammad Saeed Zafar v. District Co-ordination Officer, Mianwali and 2 others 2017 PLC (C.S.) Note 5 and Muhammad Aqib Irshad v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Peshawar and 2 others 2024 PLC (C.S.) 505 distinguished.

Umer Hameed Khan for Petitioner.

Barrister Zargham Lukhesar, Assistant Advocate General Punjab for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 718

[Lahore High Court]

Before Abid Aziz Sheikh, J

WAJAHAT HUSSAIN HUSSAINI and 3 others

Versus

COMMISSIONER PESSI and 4 others

Writ Petition No.60763 of 2023, heard on 16th May, 2024.

Punjab Employees' Social Security Ordinance (X of 1965)---

----S. 80(2)(viii) & 80(x)---Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Revised Service) Regulations, 2008---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Non-statutory regulations---Petitioners were employees of respondent / Institution and were aggrieved of amendment made by Governing Body in Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Revised Service) Regulations, 2008---Validity---Although Governing Body members were appointed by Government but they were not the Government---Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Revised Service) Regulations, 2008 were framed under the provision of S. 80 of Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 by the Governing Body and not by Provincial Government or with approval of Provincial Government---As such Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Revised Service) Regulations, 2008 did not have status of statutory Regulations---Governing Body under S. 80(2)(viii) and (x) of Punjab Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965 had ample power to make regulations for employment of its officer and staff and could also frame regulations for their transfer, promotion, dismissal and other matters---Such power to frame regulations included the power to amend Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Revised Service) Regulations, 2008---Amendment in Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Revised Service) Regulations, 2008 was not without jurisdiction---Petitioners were not appointed under un-amended Regulations, hence no vested right had accrued in their favour to challenge amendment in Punjab Employees Social Security Institution (Revised Service) Regulations, 2008---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Nadeem Zuberi v. Civil Aviation Authority through Director General 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1133 distinguished.

Amir Shahzad and 3 others v. Federation of Pakistan and 3 others 2024 PLC (C.S.) 33 rel.

Fida Hussain Rana for Petitioners.

Muhammad Ali Farooq for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 738

[Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Before Mirza Viqas Rauf and Anwaar Hussain, JJ

Mst. SHAMIM AKHTAR

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi Cantt. and another

Intra Court Appeal No.41 of 2021 in Writ Petition No.253 of 2020, heard on 27th November, 2024.

Pension Regulations, Volume-I (Armed Forces), 2010---

----Reglns. 2(j), 32, 49(b)(1), (2) & (3), 63 & 100---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 25---Grant of special family pension to widow/parents/children and dependent of the Armed Forces Officers/AFNS Officers---Scope---Reasonable classification---Intelligible differentia---Mother of the martyred military officer claimed special family/full pension after the death of first recipient (wife) on the ground of discrimination---Respondent raised an objection that petitioner was only entitled to ordinary/normal family pension---Validity---Under Regln. No.49 when the deceased officer is survived by a widow in such case Clause-b(1) of Regln. No.49 would be attracted, and if there is no widow at the time of death of deceased officer Clause-b(2) would come into force---Case of the appellant being mother would, thus, be covered under the former Clause and she could not press into service Regln. No.63 in support of her claim, as the said provision of law primarily dealt with the cases of normal pension and it carries the eventualities where the original grantee died or suffered some disqualification---Appellant was precluded to take refuge of said provision of law---Article 25 of the Constitution though ordains that all citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law and also guarantees that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of sex but equality does not prohibit classification for differently placed persons---Doctrine of reasonable classification is founded on the assumption that the State has to perform multifarious activities and deal with a vast number of problems---Right of equality of citizens is always founded on an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those, who have been left out---Right of equality is always to be weighed amongst equal in all respects and it is not necessary that every citizen shall be treated alike in all eventualities, thus, in the light of clear distinction of service cadre and nature between a Commissioned Officer and Junior Commissioned Officer, the contention of the appellant was highly ill-founded---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mst. Yasmeen Akhtar v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence 2017 PLC (C.S.) 703 distinguished.

Secretary Economic Affairs Division, Islamabad and others v. Anwarul Haq Ahmed and others 2013 SCMR 1687; Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and another v. Samuel Bhatti and others 2009 SCMR 1034 and Government of The Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others v. Ch. Abdul Sattar Hans and 29 others 2015 SCMR 915 rel.

Malik Jawwad Khalid for Appellant.

Muhammad Sajid Ilyas Bhatti, Additional Attorney General Pakistan along with Muhammad Sajid Khan, Assistant Accounts Officer for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 752

[Lahore High Court]

Before Abid Aziz Sheikh, J

MUHAMMAD IMRAN

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and 4 others

Writ Petition No.15304 of 2022, heard on 3rd December, 2024.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Pakistan Industrial Technical Assistance Centre Rules and Regulations, 1962 (as amended in 2014)---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Statutory nature of Pakistan Industrial Technical Assistance Centre (PITAC) Rules and Regulations, 1962---Determination---Transfer order by the Ministry of Industries and Production on political basis---Contention of the petitioner was that under the relevant Rules and Regulations the competent authority to transfer Grade-18 and above officers of PITAC was its Executive Committee, and Ministry had no role to play in such matters---Validity---PITAC is a government owned and controlled entity and its Rules, Regulations and bye-laws, being also framed by the Central/Federal Government, had statutory status, thus, constitutional petition for enforcement of such Rules and Regulations against PITAC was maintainable---Under Column-4 of Appendix-I read with Cl. 59 of the Rules and Regulations, it was evident that the power to transfer BPS-1 to BPS-19 Technical and Non-Technical officers of PITAC was with the Executive Committee of PITAC and the Ministry had no jurisdiction to transfer Grade-18 Officers of PITAC or to direct Assistant Director (Admn.) to transfer BP-18 officers---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Bashir Ahmad and others v. The Director General, LDA and others 2020 SCMR 471; Shafique Ahmed Khan and others v. Nescom through Chairman Islamabad and others PLD 2016 SC 377; Zarai Taraqiati Bank and others v. Said Rehman and others 2013 SCMR 642; Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority and others v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed 2013 SCMR 1707 and Bashir Ali Shahzad v. Bank of Punjab and others 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1059 rel.

Javaid Anwar Janjua for Petitioner.

Muhammad Iqbal Bhatti for Respondents Nos.3 to 5.

Ms. Deeba Tasnim Anwar, Assistant Attorney General for Pakistan along with Muhammad Irfan, Assistant Director, on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 2.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 761

[Lahore High Court]

Before Raheel Kamran, J

Hafiz AQEEL ANJUM and others

versus

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary and others

Writ Petition No.77132 of 2023, heard on 11th December, 2024.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Judicial review---Scope---High Court may review lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body or may invalidate laws, acts and governmental actions that are incompatible with a higher authority---In exercise of power of judicial review of governmental policy, Court can neither act or represent itself as an appellate authority with the aim of scrutinizing the rightness or aptness of a policy, nor it acts as an advisor to the Executives on matters of policy, which they are entitled to formulate---Judicial review can be sought when decision maker fails to observe statutory procedures, misdirects itself in law, exercises a power wrongly or the policy decision is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it---In absence of any violation of Constitutional guarantee or patent illegality, such policy decision cannot be invalidated by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.

S.M.C. No.15 of 2010; 2013 SCMR 304; Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary Quetta and others v. Dr. Muhammad Tariq Jafar and others 2020 SCMR 1689; Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 201; Federation of Pakistan v. Shuja Sharif 2023 SCMR 129 and Senior General Manager, Pakistan Railways and others v. Muhammad Pervaiz 2024 SCMR 581 rel.

(b) Civil service---

----Recruitment process---Age limit---Relaxation---Petitioners / candidates were aggrieved of rejection of their applications for posts in question as they were overage---Held, that Punjab Government was empowered to make laws / policies in view of ground realities and particular circumstances---There was no justification that laws / decisions of other provinces could be made applicable to Punjab Government---Petitioners were granted age relaxation of five years as permissible under law but even then they could not qualify as they were overage---High Court declined to interfere in recruitment process as no illegality or irregularity was pointed out by petitioners / candidates, and no mala fide had been attributed to the concerned authorities---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Jahangir Sarwar and others v. Lahore High Court and another 2011 SCMR 363 and I.A Sharwani and others Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance Division Islamabad and others 1991 SCMR 1041 rel.

Barrister Asim Malik, Zohaib Khalid, Syed Ali Raza, Afzaal Azeem Pahat and Aamir Latif Bhutta for Petitioners.

Muhammad Osman Khan, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 807

[Lahore High Court]

Before Sultan Tanvir Ahmad and Hassan Nawaz Makhdoom, JJ

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 3 others

Versus

Mst. NAZIRA SAIF

I.C.A. No.73541 of 2022, decided on 21st April, 2025.

(a) Police (Award of Compensation) Rules, 1989---

----R.12---Police official---Injured in police encounter and later passing away---Plea by widow for declaration as to status of 'Shaheed'---Shaheed package, entitlement to---Recognition as Shaheed not contingent on immediate fatality---Scope---Interval between injury and death inconsequential---On 15.02.2009, husband of the respondent, a police constable, was injured during a police encounter responding to a robbery---He sustained serious firearm injuries, resulting in the removal of one kidney and remained under continuous medical treatment at various hospitals and ultimately passed away on 08.05.2017---Shaheed status was granted to husband of the respondent by the Single Judge-in-Chamber which was assailed through the present Intra Court Appeal---Under judicial scrutiny in the present appeal was the pivotal question as to "whether a police official, who sustained life-altering injuries in lawful discharge of duty and later succumbed to medical complications arising therefrom, may rightfully be declared "Shaheed", despite a significant lapse of time between the incident and death, and in the absence of absolute medical certainty regarding causativeness of death---Held: Respondent's husband received injuries during the cross-firing between the robbers and the police and as a result of the same one of his kidneys was removed and then he remained admitted in various hospitals for treatment---As per the medical report, his creatinine was persistently raised and he also underwent dialysis and thereafter, he could not survive---The act of bravery of respondent's husband was an admitted fact---He was buried with full honors by the appellant-department---No intervening cause had been highlighted by the Additional Advocate General or the representative of police department, to construe that the chain of causation was not intact---Rule 12 of the Police (Award of Compensation) Rules, 1989 did not make any distinction between a death on the day when the incident took place from death that had taken place after passage of some duration of the incident---If rules were capable of bearing a reasonable interpretation favourable to the employee then such interpretation should have been preferred---The status of Shaheed should be conferred on police officers/officials who lost their lives in the performance of their functions which included loss of life during watch and ward duty---No case requiring any interference in the well-reasoned order of the Single Judge-in-Chamber was made out---The appeal being devoid of any merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

Asad Imran and another v. Inspector General of Police, Punjab Lahore and others 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1013 and C.P. No. D-570 of 2022 (2022 SHC 228) ref.

(b) Police (Award of Compensation) Rules, 1989---

----R.12---Police official---Injured in police encounter and later passing away---Plea by widow for declaration as to status of 'Shaheed'---Shaheed package, entitlement to---Absence of absolute medical certainty regarding causation of death---Evidential burden in cases of uncertain medical causation---Scope---Medical uncertainty in causation of death or injury must not defeat the claimant's case---In circumstances where honest medical opinion cannot definitively segregate the causes of an injury or death, the burden of evidential uncertainty must not unjustly fall upon the injured party---To seek declaration of Shaheed, the pursuer cannot be burdened with any higher degree of proof, over and above already discharged by the respondent-widow in the present case---Police department cannot expect pursuer of declaration of Shaheed to discharge the burden up to the standard required in criminal cases---Moreover, while dealing with a case of employer's liability, when honest medical evaluation cannot segregate the causes to reach a definitive conclusion, from the evidential point of view, one may ask, why should a man who is able to show that his employer should have taken certain precautions, because without them there is a risk, or an added risk, of injury or disease, and who in fact sustains exactly that injury or disease, have to assume the burden of proving more: namely, that it was the addition to the risk, caused by the breach of duty, which caused or materially contributed to the injury? In many cases of which the present is typical, this is impossible to prove, just because honest medical opinion cannot segregate the causes of an illness between compound causes, and if one asks which of the parties, the workman or the employers should suffer from this inherent evidential difficulty, the answer as a matter in policy or justice should be that it is the creator of the risk who, ex hypothesi, must be taken to have foreseen the possibility of damage, who should bear its consequences---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

McGhee v. National Coal Board [1972] 3 All ER ref.

Muhammad Nasim Kashmiri, Additional Advocate General with Tassadaq Hussain, DSP (Legal), A.D. Dhakhu, Inspector (Legal) and Zaheer Abbas, S.I. DPO Office, Okara for Petitioner.

Amjad Hussain for Respondent.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 841

[Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Before Anwaar Hussain, J

MUHAMMAD DANISH SAJID

Versus

SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and 4 others

Writ Petition No.2763 of 2023, heard on 4th November, 2024.

Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974---

----R. 17-A---Contract Appointment Policy, 2004---Notification No.SOR-III(S&GAD)2-8/2018 dated 29-10-2019---Civil service---Contract employee---Absence from duty---Existence of policy of the Government to make appointment under R. 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, (Rules) on regular basis---Termination from service after serving one month's notice relinquishing the regular inquiry already initiated against the employee---Appeal preferred by the employee was accepted and he was reinstated, but subsequently the order of his reinstatement was withheld on the ground that his case being covered under the Contract Appointment Policy, 2004, he could not be reinstated after his termination---Validity---Once the disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the respondent-department was estopped from taking a somersault and invoking the clauses pertaining to termination of contractual appointment by serving one month's notice---In terms of Notification/Policy of the Government, petitioner was to be appointed on regular basis since date of his induction, thus, he was entitled to regular inquiry---Action of the respondent-department in first denying the regular appointment to the petitioner on the basis of R. 17-A of the Rules and then not proceeding further in terms of the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, violated due process rights of the petitioner, thus, respondent-department through the reinstatement order of the petitioner rightly treated appointment of the petitioner as regular by operation of the Notification whereas the Revisional Authority had taken jaundiced view of the matter by not appreciating such aspect of the matter while passing the order, which could not be sustained---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Ali Ahmed v. EDEO, Silakot and another 2014 PLC (C.S.) 793 and Kashif Mehmood Zaman v. Chief Executive Officer, District Education Authority, Lahore and 3 others 2021 PLC (C.S.) Note 16 rel.

Atiq ur Rehman Kiani for Petitioner.

Imran Shaukat Rao, Assistant Advocate General for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.

Waqar-ul-Haq Sheikh with Kamran Khan, Chief Officer, District Council, Rawalpindi for Respondents Nos.3 to 5.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 931

[Lahore High Court]

Before Ch. Muhammad Iqbal and Malik Waqar Haider Awan, JJ

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department, Lahore and 2 others

Versus

Syed MUHAMMAD ALI RAZA SHAH

I.C.A. No.2407 of 2025 (and connected appeals) decided on 5th May, 2025.

(a) Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974---

----R.17-A---Appointment of legal heirs of deceased or retired government servants---Subsequent omission of R.17-A, effect of---Judgments of the Supreme Court having retrospective effect on pending cases---Scope---Supreme Court judgments would apply retrospectively to all pending cases---Brief facts were that the Province of Punjab and other appellants filed Intra-Court Appeals (ICAs), challenging the judgment of a Single Judge in Chambers, which had allowed appointments under R. 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974---These appointments were sought by legal heirs of deceased or retired civil servants prior to the omission of R.17-A, on 24.07.2024---The central issue of the matter was as to "whether the benefit of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, which allowed appointment of legal heirs of deceased or retired government servants, could be extended to those claimants whose appointment processes were pending or incomplete at the time the Rule was omitted on 24.07.2024, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in C.P.No.3390/2021 titled General Post Office, Islamabad v. Muhammad Jalal"---High Court had to determine as to "whether the Supreme Court's judgment declaring R. 17-A inapplicable to future appointments applied retrospectively to pending cases, or prospectively only to future claims"---Held: Judgments of the superior courts became applicable as and when announced over the pending proceedings until and unless their applicability was not categorically made prospective---Declarations made by the superior courts are operative retrospectively over all the pending situations which have not been finalized---The case of General Post Office, Islamabad and others (supra) was applicable retrospectively to the persons who had not been appointed till the omission of R. 17-A of the Rules, 1974 and their appointments were still in process---The persons who had taken benefit of R. 17-A of the Rules, 1974 till its omission dated 24.07.2024, that process would deem to be a past and closed chapter---To further classify and clarify the situation, the persons who could not get the benefit of R. 17-A of the Rules (omitted on 24.07.2024) and were in process and no final and decisive step had taken effect till the pronouncement of judgment passed in the case of General Post Office, Islamabad and others (supra) i.e. 18.10.2024, the judgment ibid would be applicable with retrospective effect---Judgments passed by Single Judge in Chamber was set aside and Intra-Court Appeals were allowed, in circumstances.

General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal (Civil Petition No. 3390/2021); Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs. and others PLD 2007 SC 302; Mst. Bashiran Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another PLD 2008 SC 559; Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Kabir 2009 SCMR 630 and Taisei Corporation and another v. A.M. Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and another 2024 SCMR 640 rel.

(b) Interpretation of statutes---

----Prospective and retrospective effect of a law---Principles---While interpreting a provision of law or construing its effect, a Constitutional court only declares what the law is and does not make or amend it---The law so declared by the court, therefore, as a general principle applies both prospectively to future cases as well as retrospectively to pending cases, including the one in which it is declared---It is the principle of interpretation that declarations made by the superior courts are operative retrospectively over all the pending situations which have not been finalized.

Mian Pir Muhammad and another v. Faqir Muhammad through L.Rs. and others PLD 2007 SC 302; Mst. Bashiran Begum v. Nazar Hussain and another PLD 2008 SC 559; Haq Nawaz v. Muhammad Kabir 2009 SCMR 630 and Taisei Corporation and another v. A.M. Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. and another 2024 SCMR 640 rel.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.189---Judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan are binding upon all other courts of Pakistan.

Jahanzaib Inam and Rana Shamshad Khan, Additional Advocate Generals, Punjab/Government Pleaders in all ICAs.

Shahid Nawaz Awan for Appellants (in W.P. No.6592 of 2025).

Imran Haider Khan for Appellant (in W.P. No.9969 of 2025).

Malik Ahmad Nawaz Awan for Appellant (in W.P. No.12501 of 2025).

Muhammad Nadeem Abbasi for Appellant (in W.P. No.7991 of 2024).

Allah Nawaz Khosa, Mian Muneeb Tariq and Rana Ansar for Respondent (in I.C.A. No. 2407/2025).

Habib Ullah Bhatti for Respondent (in I.C.A. No. 6023/2025).

Sardar Mehran Zafar for Respondent (in I.C.A. No.6305/2025).

Rana Khalid Ishaq for Respondent (in I.C.A. No. 6310/2025).

Ch. Muhammad Akbar Warraich for Respondent (in I.C.A. No. 6016/2025).

Zafar Iqbal Chohan and Sajjad Saleem for Respondent (in I.C.A. No. 6124/2025).

Rana Mudassar Ali for Respondent (in I.C.A. No. 6307/2025).

Raja Faisal Hayat Janjua for Respondent (in I.C.A. No. 6308/2025).

Syed Mujahid Naqvi for Respondent (in I.C.A. No. 8425/2025).

Muhammad Nauman Khan for Respondent (in I.C.A. No. 8428/2025).

Andaz Jillani Khan for Respondent (in I.C.A. No. 9437/2025).

Malik Riaz Ahmad Nonari for Respondent (in I.C.A. No. 10812/2025).

2025 P L C (C.S.) 966

[Lahore High Court]

Before Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J

MUNIR AHMED CHISHTI

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad

Writ Petition No.236915 of 2018, decided on 13th May, 2025.

(a) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---

----S.9---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss.2(a), 4, 4A, 4(1)(b) & 5---Civil Servants (Promotion to the Post of Secretary BS-22 and Equivalent) Rules, 2010, Rr.3(1) & (2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 212(1)(a) & 212(2)---Constitutional petition, filling of---Maintainability---Claim of proforma promotion by civil servant---Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal---Brief facts were that the petitioner, a retired BS-21 police officer who served as Inspector General of Pakistan Railways Police, approached the High Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction seeking proforma promotion to BS-22---Despite becoming eligible for promotion his case was never considered due to the non-convening of the High Powered Selection Board (the "HPSB")---He reached the age of superannuation without being considered, while officers junior to him were subsequently promoted---His representations for proforma promotion post-retirement were either ignored or rejected---He then filed the present Constitutional petition alleging unfair treatment---Held: The petitioner submitted a representation seeking consideration for promotion to BS-22, which was declined---Although it was not clear that the matter was placed before the HPSB or that the Prime Minister made any determination on the petitioner's fitness or eligibility, it nonetheless formally conveyed a final decision by the department refusing further processing of the petitioner's case---Therefore, it constituted an appealable order for the purposes of S. 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973---The appropriate course for the petitioner was to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal---The power to grant proforma promotion lay exclusively with the appointing authority, who must be affirmatively satisfied that the civil servant was, through no fault of their own, wrongfully prevented from serving in the higher post---High Court lacked jurisdiction not only because no such determination had been made but also for the reason that it could not assume the functions of the appointing authority---Constitutional petition being barred under Art. 212(2) of the Constitution was dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---

----S.9---'Promotion' and 'proforma promotion'---Concept and scope---Promotion generally signifies advancement in rank and is granted on the basis of merit, seniority, or outstanding service, as determined by the applicable criteria---Although promotion is not a vested right, a civil servant who is eligible and otherwise fit has a legitimate expectation to be considered fairly and in accordance with law---Proforma promotion is a notional advancement granted retrospectively to a civil servant who was eligible for promotion during service but was denied the opportunity due to no fault of their own and circumstances beyond their control---It confers only financial and symbolic benefits without reinstating the officer in service and does not affect the seniority of any serving official---Common justifications include delays caused by pending inquiries, policy embargoes, or administrative inaction.

Secretary Ministry of Finance and others v. Muhammad Anwar 2025 SCMR 153 and Federation of Pakistan v. Jahanzeb and others 2022 SCMR 2020 rel.

Arshad Ali v. WAPDA and others 2020 PLC (C.S.) 1226; Ijaz Akhtar v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab and others 2023 PLC (C.S.) 431; The Prime Minister and others v. Maj. Retd. Muhammad Habib Khan 2016 PLC (C.S.) 621 and Wadhu Mal v. Province of Sindh and others 2023 PLC (C.S.) 1310 ref.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 199 & 212(1)(a) & 212(2)---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss.2(a), 4, 4A & 4(1)(b)---Matters relating to terms and conditions of service of a Civil Servant---Jurisdiction of Service Tribunals---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, exclusion of---Scope---Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution stipulates that the appropriate legislature may by Act establish tribunals with exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons who are or have been in the service of Pakistan, including disciplinary issues---Article 212(2) states that where such a tribunal is established, no other court shall entertain proceedings in respect of matters within the tribunal's jurisdiction---High Court, as a constitutional court, should always be mindful of the jurisdictional exclusion contained under Art. 212 of the Constitution---Any transgression of this constitutional limitation will render its order void and illegal---Therefore, unless the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal is ousted under S. 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the assumption of jurisdiction by the High Court in respect of matters of terms and conditions of a civil servant is unconstitutional and impermissible.

(d) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---

----Ss.2(a), 4, 4A, & 5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.212(1)(a)---Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal---Scope and powers---Service Tribunals Act, 1973 was enacted pursuant to the legislative mandate under Art. 212 of the Constitution and creates a forum for civil servants to challenge decisions affecting their service---Notably, the expression "civil servant" under S. 2(a) of the Act and Art. 212(1)(a) of the Constitution includes both those who are or have been in the service of Pakistan---Sections 4, 4A & 5 of the Act 1973 outline the scope of jurisdiction and powers of the Service Tribunal---Section 4 of the Act, 1973 provides a right of appeal to a civil servant aggrieved by a final order relating to the terms and conditions of service.

(e) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---

----S.4(1)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.212---Jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal---Exception---Determining fitness of a civil servant---As per the proviso (b) to S.4(1) of the Act 1973, no appeal lies to the Service Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise for a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade---High Court lacks jurisdiction in matters falling within the exclusive domain of the Service Tribunal under Art. 212 of the Constitution, except where the order in question determines "fitness" under S. 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

Government of Pakistan and others v. Hameed Akhtar Niazi and others PLD 2003 SC 110 : 2003 PLC (C.S.) 212; Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, and others v. Ms. Shamim Usman 2021 SCMR 1390 and Province of Punjab v. Hafiz Muhammad Kaleem-ud-Din 2024 SCMR 689 rel.

Muhammad Saqib Jillani for Petitioner.

Munir Ahmad, Assistant Attorney General for Respondent.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 986

[Lahore High Court]

Before Ch. Muhammad Iqbal and Malik Waqar Haider Awan, J

RUKHSANA YASMEEN and others

Versus

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Public Prosecution Department and others

Writ Petition No.51475 of 2023 (and other connected petitions), heard on 9th April, 2025.

(a) Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006)---

----Ss.6, 15 & 16---Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007, Rr.4(3 & 10)---Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.22(B)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 212---Constitutional petition by civil servants---Maintainability---Employees of Public Prosecution Department---Jurisdiction of Service Tribunals---Scope---For enforcing terms and conditions of service, the employees of Public Prosecution Department, being civil servants have to approach the Punjab Service Tribunal instead of invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Brief facts where that the petitioners, comprising of multiple public prosecutors including several female officers, challenged various transfer, deputation cancellation, and explanation call orders issued by the Secretary, Public Prosecution Department, on the grounds that such actions were beyond his jurisdiction---Petitioner contended that under the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act, 2006 (the "Act, 2006"), and the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2007 (the "Rules, 2007"), the Prosecutor General, being the administrative head, was vested with the authority to supervise and issue such orders, not the Secretary---Held: It was provided in the schedule annexed with Rules, 2007 that appointing authority of Deputy District Public Prosecutor (BS-18) and Assistant District Public Prosecutor (BS-17) was the 'administrative secretary' and such position was crystal clear, however, the High Court refrained to discuss that aspect on merits---The employees of prosecution service department were governed under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (the "Act, 1974") and Rules made thereunder---All the Constitutional petitions were not maintainable as petitioners fell within the definition of civil servants---Moreover, S. 22B of the Act, 1974 was relevant wherefrom it could easily be derived that only the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1973 would deal with the matters of employees who were governed under the Act 1974---Even otherwise, since the impugned orders pertained to enforcement of terms and conditions of service of the petitioners, who were civil servants, thus, for the said purpose, they after approaching the departmental authority and waiting for the statutory period, were to approach the respective Service Tribunal for redressal of their grievance, which they failed to do, thus, keeping in view the bar contained in Art. 212 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the impugned orders was barred--Constitutional petitions being not maintainable, were dismissed, in circumstances.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts.199, 212 & 240---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Jurisdiction of the Service Tribunals---Matters relating to terms and conditions of service---Under Article 212 of the Constitution, the remedies provided cannot be assailed while using the word "hereinbefore" and the administrative courts and tribunals are there to deal with the matters relating to the terms and conditions of service including disciplinary matters of persons who are in the Service of Pakistan---Service of Province also falls in the said purview as defined in Art. 240 of the Constitution.

(c) Jurisdiction---

----Every court prior to taking cognizance of and adjudicating upon an issue should first resort to the question of assumption of jurisdiction of the court and if it comes to the conclusion that jurisdiction can be assumed only then it can adjudicate upon the issue.

Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. Muhammad Anwar Mandokhel 2024 SCMR 298 rel.

Mohammad Ahmad Qayyum and Shumail Arif for Petitioners (in Writ Petitions Nos.51475, 52907, 51652 and 64255 of 2023).

Junaid Jabbar Khan, Shahzad A. Chaudhry, Sehar Ilyas and Rana Yasir for Petitioners (in W.P. No. 51440/2023).

Maqbool Hussain Sheikh for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 51526/2023).

Malikzada Hameed ur Rehman and Syed Bilal Ahmed Saeed for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 51715/2023).

Mushtaq Ahmad Mohal for Petitioners (in W.P. No. 53198/2023).

Fiaz Ahmed Ranjha for Petitioners (in W.P. No. 80331/2023).

Ch. Saqib Tariq and Syed Ali Raza for Petitioners (in W.P. No. 5660/2025).

Rana Shamshad Khan, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for Respondents.

Khurram Khan, Law Officer, Public Prosecution Department.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1012

[Lahore High Court (Multan Bench)]

Before Anwaar Hussain, J

SHAHID SALEEM, EX-ASSISTANT/HEAD CLERK, REGIONAL DIRECTORATE OF APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING, TEVTA, MULTAN

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chairperson TEVTA, Punjab, Lahore and 7 others

Writ Petition No.11052 of 2024, decided on 13th March, 2025.

(a) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)---

----Ss.4, 5 & 16(2)(d)---Inquiry proceedings---Lesser punishment imposed after first inquiry---De-novo inquiry on same set of allegations---Major penalty of removal from service---Double jeopardy---Principle---Scope---Present matter raised an intriguing question of whether the competent authority, which initially disagreed with the recommendation of removal from service proposed by the inquiry officer and imposed a lesser penalty of demotion, could later on, upon remand of the matter by the appellate authority and after holding de-novo inquiry, inflict a major penalty of removal from service---Facts in brevity were that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 (the "PEEDA Act, 2006") on charges of non-accomplishment of official assignments---Initially, the inquiry officer recommended removal from service, but the competent authority imposed a lesser penalty of demotion---In appeal, the appellate authority remanded the matter for a de-novo inquiry due to procedural lapses---After fresh inquiry, the competent authority imposed the major penalty of removal from service---Held: It was not a case where the earlier penalty was deemed inadequate, rather, the procedure adopted by the respondent-department was considered improper, requiring rectification---Therefore, the fresh inquiry was meant to validate the procedural fairness and not to reconsider the proportionality of the punishment---By imposing a harsher penalty (removal from service), the competent authority acted in an unfair and unjust manner---Once the competent authority, in its wisdom, imposed a lesser penalty (demotion), the petitioner had a legitimate expectation that the disciplinary matter was conclusively determined to the extent of quantum of punishment---Moreover, as per the principle of proportionality in service law the punishment must have corresponded to the gravity of the misconduct---The competent authority, in the first instance, determined that demotion was an appropriate response to the alleged misconduct---There was no aggravated misconduct in the de-novo inquiry and therefore, imposing a more severe penalty, upon rehearing the same set of allegations, violated the principle of proportionality and created an impression of double jeopardy in the disciplinary proceedings---Competent authority had not given any reason whatsoever from deviating from its earlier decision to impose the lesser punishment---Once a particular penalty of demotion had been imposed by the competent authority, and the petitioner had assailed the said findings before the appellate forum, which remanded the matter for de-novo inquiry, the imposition of harsher punishment by the competent authority, during post remand proceedings, on the basis of same set of allegations and charges ran contrary to the principle of fairness---Matter could be examined from another angle; had the petitioner not preferred an appeal, his punishment would have remained as demotion---It is untenable and unjust to penalize an individual for exercising his legal right to prefer an appeal by subjecting him to a harsher penalty, on the same set of allegations---Impugned orders were set aside and the Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

(b) Employment---

----Disciplinary proceedings---Punishment, imposing of---Scope---It is untenable and unjust to penalize an individual for exercising his legal right to prefer an appeal---The government and its instrumentalities are bound by the principle that they cannot act to the detriment of an individual, merely, because he pursued a lawful remedy---This is consistent with the doctrine of estoppel, which prevents public authorities from acting in a manner that contradicts their prior conduct to the detriment of an individual.

Sardar Riaz Karim for Petitioner.

Malik Muhammad Bakhsh Khakhi, Assistant Advocate General.

Umair Shahid for Respondents along with Khurram Shahzad, Deputy Director, TEVTA, Multan.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1029

[Lahore High Court]

Before Anwaar Hussain, J

TARIQ MEHMOOD AAMIR

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Prosecution

Writ Petitions Nos.52251 of 2022 and 3447 of 2023, decided on 15th May, 2025.

Civil Service---

----Contract employees---Date of regularization---Whether date of regularization would operate from the date of regular appointment---Seniority and Emoluments---Entitlement and Computation---Regular and contractual appointments---Distinction---Facts of the case, in brevity, were that the petitioners were appointed on contract in 2007 in the 'Prosecution Service of Punjab' and their services were terminated later but the High Court held that they were entitled to regularization under the government's notification dated 10.11.2010---They were eventually appointed on a regular basis in 2022, but their appointments were treated as fresh appointments, whereas, the petitioners sought regularization from the dated of notification dated 10.11.2010 for seniority and benefits---Question before the High Court was as to "whether the date of regularization of the petitioners (employees) should be considered as 10.11.2010 (the date of the notification)"---Held: The notification dated 10.11.2010 served as a policy guideline for the prospective regularization of the contract employees and it did not confer an automatic or retrospective right to regularization---Rather, each case required evaluation based on specific criteria, including performance and the fulfillment of prescribed qualifications---The notification did not stipulate that regularization would be effective from the date of initial contract appointment or from the date of the notification---Instead, it provided a framework for considering the contract employees for regularization---Only upon regularization, the contract employees would enter the regular service stream anew, without retrospective benefits---Contractual employees enjoyed no vested right to regularization much less to be regularized from any particular date---The benefit of regularization extended to them under the regularization policy was prospective in nature and there was no legal justification to give it retrospective application---Any such step would have totally negated the purpose and significance of the contract appointment policy by leaving no distinction between a contractual and a regular employee---Regularization in service was to be treated as a fresh appointment to maintain the integrity of the civil service system and to protect the rights of the existing civil servants---Both regular and contractual employees were governed by two separate and distinct legal frameworks---Contractual appointments were governed by specific terms and conditions distinct from those applicable to the regular civil servants---Therefore, allowing the contract employees to claim seniority from the date of notification would have infringed upon the rights of existing regular civil servants, disrupting established hierarchies and entitlements---Therefore, date of regularization could not be the date of the regularization policy envisaged under the notification (i.e. 10.11.2010)---Present as well as connected petition being devoid of any merit, were dismissed, in circumstances.

Province of Punjab through Secretary Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others v. Dr. Javed Iqbal and others 2021 SCMR 767 rel.

Ch. Imran Arshad Naro and Zulfiqar Ali Dhudhi for Petitioners.

Safdar Hussain Tarar for Petitioner (in W.P. No.3447 of 2023).

Hafiz Muhammad Latif Khawaja Additional Advocate General along with Adnan Ali, Law Officer for Respondent.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1051

[Lahore High Court]

Before Ch. Muhammad Iqbal and Malik Waqar Haider Awan, JJ

TASSAWAR ALI KHAN RANA and 7 others

Versus

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary Punjab, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and 11 others

Writ Petition No.42822 of 2021, decided on 5th May, 2025.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts.199 & 212---Service Tribunals Act (LXX 1973), S.4---Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Constitution, Functions and Powers) Act (III of 2006), S.8(3), proviso,---Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service (Conditions of Service) Rules 2007, R.10---Constitutional petition by civil servants, filing of---Maintainability---Jurisdiction of Service Tribunals---Civil servants challenging vires of law---Plea of violation of fundamental rights---Scope---Civil servants cannot invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court even for challenging vires of law/notification/amendment or by taking a plea of violation of fundamental rights---Brief facts of the matter were that the petitioners, serving as prosecutors under the prosecution department, filed Constitutional petition challenging various legislative amendments and administrative orders---The core contention was that such amendments and orders adversely impacted their service rights and were unconstitutional---Pivotal question for determination before the High Court was as to "whether civil servants governed under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, could invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution to challenge statutory amendments and administrative actions affecting their terms and conditions of service, or whether their exclusive remedy lay before the Punjab Service Tribunal under Art. 212 of the Constitution"---Held: Except the post of Prosecutor General, rest of the employees of prosecution service were governed under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (the "Act, 1974") and Rules made thereunder and as such they fell in the definition of civil servants---Petitioners (leaving aside the point whether they were civil servants or public servants) could not invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for challenging the legality of law, notification, amendment or rules---Appropriate remedy for a civil servant was by way of an appeal before the Service Tribunal even where the case involved vires of a particular service rule or a notification---Even if a statutory rule or notification adversely affected terms and conditions of a civil servant, the same would be treated as a final order for the purposes of jurisdiction of a service tribunal---If vires of a notification or amendment in law, dealing directly or indirectly with terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, were permitted to be challenged through a Constitutional petition, it would amount to violating Art. 212 of the Constitution and S. 4 of the Act 1974---It was concluded that being civil servants, appropriate remedy for the petitioners to voice their grievance relating to terms and conditions of service and to challenge the vitality of any law (including notification and amendment introduced by government) was to approach the Service Tribunal instead of invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Rukhsana Yasmeen and others v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Public Prosecution Department and others Writ Petition No.51475 of 2023 ref.

I.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others 1991 SCMR 1041 rel.

(b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---

----S.4---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 212---Jurisdiction of Service Tribunals, invoking of---Constitutional petition, maintainability of---Exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and the bar contained under Art. 212 of the Constitution are of such a nature that they are attracted even if the grievance arises from an order which may involve questions of mala fide, corum non judice or having been passed without jurisdiction---The language used by the legislature in Art. 212 of the Constitution makes Art. 199 of the Constitution subservient to it and gives Art. 212 an overriding effect over the other Articles of the Constitution qua the enforcement of terms and conditions of service of a civil servant---As the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution is subject to the Constitution, therefore, Art. 212 of the Constitution ousts the jurisdiction of the High Court in the cases pertaining to enforcement of terms and conditions of services of a civil servant.

Muhammad Hassanullah (OMG/B-18), Acting Additional Secretary, Health Department, Balochistan v. Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Quetta and another 2025 SCMR 134; Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2015 SCMR 456 and National Assembly Secretariat v. Manzoor Ahmed and another 2015 SCMR 253 rel.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts.199 & 212---Service Tribunals Act (LXX 1973), S.4---Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal---Scope---Civil servant cannot bypass the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by adding a ground of violation of fundamental rights for the purpose of invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.

I.A. Sharwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and others 1991 SCMR 1041 rel.

(d) Jurisdiction---

----Every court prior to taking cognizance of and adjudicating upon an issue should first resort to the question of assumption of jurisdiction of the Court and if it comes to the conclusion that jurisdiction can be assumed only then it can adjudicate upon an issue.

Muhammad Amin Sandhila for Petitioners.

Rana Shamshad Khan, Additional Advocate General, Punjab and Khurram Khan, Law Officer for Respondents Nos.1 to 5.

Zohaib Imran Sheikh, Ahtisham ud Din Khan, Sajjad Saleem and Mubashar Akram for Respondents Nos.6 to 12.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1073

[Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Before Jawad Hassan, J

Dr. FAKHAR MUNIR SIAL

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others

Writ Petitions Nos. 1421 and 1422 of 2025, decided on 10th June, 2025.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 4, 10A & 199---Policy and Procedure Manual (PPM) of Post-Graduate Residency (PGR) of Level-III Programs, Clauses 13.3 & 13.4---Civil service---Termination by incompetent authority---Legality---Fair trial---Due process of law---Petitioners contended that Clause 13.3 of the Policy and Procedure Manual (PPM) of Post-Graduate Residency (PGR) of Level-III Programs (Policy) provides the right of appeal before respondent/Secretary against the decision of the departmental committee, but the petitioners had been directly terminated by the respondent himself on the allegations of indiscipline, misconduct, involvement in agitation and creating law and order situation without any inquiry by the departmental committee---Validity---Petitioners were directly terminated by the respondent, who also happened to be the appellate authority under Clause 13.3, without initiating or concluding any inquiry through the departmental committee---Such approach not only undermined the petitioner's right of appeal as provided under the Policy, but also constituted a blatant violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 4 and 10-A of the Constitution---Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) being Regulator was the competent authority with the powers to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was disposed of with a direction to file reply/defence/explanation of the impugned letters before PMDC, which would decide the matter strictly in accordance with law through a speaking order.

Mian Ali Asghar v. Government of the Punjab and others 2020 CLC 157 and Mian Ali Asghar v. Government of the Punjab and others 2021 MLD 370 ref.

ABWA Knowledge Pvt. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2021 Lah. 436; ABWA Knowledge Pvt. Ltd. through Director and another v. Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, National Health Services and another 2021 MLD 1455 and 2022 SCMR 72 rel.

Taimoor Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court, Usman Minhas and Mudassir Abbas with the Petitioners.

Barrister Raja Hashim Javed, Assistant Advocate-General with Naveed Ahmad Goraya, Senior Law Officer, Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1112

[Lahore High Court (Multan Bench)]

Before Raheel Kamran, J

USAMA ZAHOOR

Versus

DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE and others

Writ Petition No. 1601 of 2025, decided on 2nd July, 2025.

Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974---

----R.17-A---Appointment of unemployed child or widow/wife of a civil servant who died during service or was deemed unfit---Scope---Petitioner filed a Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking appointment as Naib Qasid in the Sessions Court, under R. 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 (the "Rules 1974") on the premise that petitioner's father was previously employed as Naib Qasid in Sessions Courts, who retired on medical grounds---Petitioner applied for appointment under R. 17-A of Rules, 1974,however, the Recruitment and Promotion Committee rejected the application stating that R. 17-A of Rules 1974 only applied to families of deceased civil servants and not to those retired on medical grounds---Held: R. 17-A of Rules, 1974, as it stood at the time of application, applied both to cases of death during service and incapacitation (medical retirement)---However, R. 17-A of Rules 1974 had since been entirely omitted by the Government of Punjab via notification dated 24.07.2024 and the Supreme Court in the case reported as (PLD 2024 SC 1276) had declared any rule, policy, or memorandum that allows for appointments of a deceased or permanently disabled civil servant's widow/widower, spouse, or child without open advertisement, competition, and merit to be discriminatory and unconstitutional---However, the case reported as (PLD 2024 SC 1276) was only applicable retrospectively to the persons who had not been appointed till omission of R. 17-A of Rules, 1974 and their appointments were still in process---In the present case, since the petitioner's application was not favorably decided, and no appointment order was issued in his favor before 18.10.2024, i.e. the date the judgment in the case reported as (PLD 2024 SC 1276) was rendered, his case did not fall within the exception---Therefore, as the legal framework supporting the petitioner's claim ceased to exist and was further declared unconstitutional before he could have been appointed, the petitioner could not be held entitled to be appointed under the omitted R. 17-A of the Rules 1974---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 rel.

Province of Punjab and others v. Syed Muhammad Ali Raza Shah (I.C.A. No.2407 of 2025) ref.

Raja Naveed Azam for Petitioner.

Ata-ul-Manaan Malik, Assistant Attorney General, Pakistan for the Federation of Pakistan.

Malik Masroor Haider Usman, Additional Advocate General, Punjab and Bashir Ahmad Buzdar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the Government of the Punjab.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1128

[Lahore High Court]

Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J

MUHAMMAD MOAZZAM KHAN

Versus

The DIRECTOR GENERAL, LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE and another

Writ Petition No. 235244 of 2018, heard on 7th May, 2025.

Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)---

----S. 4 (b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 10-A & 25---Departmental inquiry, conducting of---Procedural propriety, absence of---Penalty of dismissal from service, imposing of---Scope---Equality of citizens---Due process---Allegation against the petitioner (an employee of respondent-LDA) was that he was involved in preparation of bogus documents/ receipts showing someone as transferee of a plot---Contention of petitioner is that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses---Validity---Record reflects that the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report, recommending imposition of minor penalty upon petitioner, however, the Competent Authority disagreed with the said recommendations and ordered for initiation of de novo inquiry---During de novo inquiry proceedings, procedural requirements of a fair trial were not followed, rather straightaway major penalty of "dismissal from service" was proposed against the petitioner---Foremost aspiration of conducting departmental inquiry is to find out whether a prima facie case of misconduct has been made out against the delinquent officer---Guilt or innocence can only be thrashed out from the outcome of inquiry and at the same time, it is also required to be seen as to whether due process of law or right to fair trial was followed or ignored while conducting inquiry---It is against the principle of natural justice to draw a conclusion adverse to the interest of a person on the basis of disputed facts either without recording evidence or providing him proper opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses and lead evidence in his defence---In a regular inquiry, it is a precondition that an evenhanded and fair opportunity should be provided to the accused and if any witness is examined against him, then a fair opportunity should also be afforded to cross-examine the witnesses---In a departmental inquiry on the charges of misconduct, the standard of proof is that of compliance of the principles of natural justice---Even there is no specific reference to the evidence or material, which urged Competent Authority (respondent)to award major penalty of "dismissal from service"---Thus, the said major penalty does not appear to be in conformity with law---High Court set-aside the impugned orders declaring the same to be illegal and without lawful authority and remitted the matter to Competent Authority (respondent) with the direction to first hold regular inquiry by providing opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Abdul Qayyum v. D.G., Project Management Organization, JS HQ, Rawalpindi and 2 others 2003 SCMR 1110; Government of Punjab through Secretary Schools Education Department, Lahore and others v. Tauqeer Mazhar Bukhari 2008 SCMR 1362; Usman Ghani v. The Chief Post Master, GPO Karachi and others 2022 SCMR 745; Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad and others v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603; Naubahar Ali v. Vice-Chancellor and others 2010 PLC (C.S.) 783; Muhammad Umar v. D.G. Excise and Taxation and others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 384; Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Mrs. Itrat Sajjad Khan and others 2017 SCMR 2010; Shibli Farooqui v. Federation of Pakistan 2009 SCMR 281; Asif Yousaf v. Secretary Revenue Division, CBR Islamabad and another 2014 SCMR 147 and Director Postal Life Insurance, Lahore v. Shakeel Ahmad 2021 SCMR 1162 ref.

Muhammad Jawad Khan Lodhi and Syed Samir Sohail for Petitioner.

Amir Wakeel Butt and Syed Hassan Ali Gillani for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1159

[Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Before Jawad Hassan, J

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN KHAN

Versus

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others

Writ Petition No. 1981 of 2024, decided on 30th June, 2025.

Pension Regulations Vol-I (Armed Force), 2010---

----Reglns. 3(a)(2), 32 & 33---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 199---Constitutional petition---Pension---Deficiency in qualifying service, condonation of---Non-speaking order---Petitioner after having been retired from service compulsorily from the rank of 2nd Lieutenant sought condonation of deficiency in his qualifying service for pension---Such relief was regretted being not covered under the Rules and Regulations in vogue---Validity---It is inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law as envisaged by Art. 4 of the Constitution, thus, it is the duty and obligation of every public functionary including the respondent to act within the four corners of the mandate of the Constitution and pass a speaking order---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstance, while setting aside the impugned order and the matter was remitted back to respondent for decision afresh strictly in accordance with the Reglns. 3(a)(2), 32 & 33 of the Pension Regulations Volume I (Armed Forces) 2010 through a speaking order by providing proper hearing to petitioner.

Mollah Ejahar Ali v. Government of East Pakistan and others PLD 1970 SC 173 and Town Committee, Piplan v. Muhammad Hanif and others 2008 SCMR 723 rel.

Inam-ul-Rahiem, Advocate Supreme Court with the Petitioner.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1173

[Lahore High Court]

Before Khalid Ishaq, J

Hafiz SALMAN AHMED

Versus

BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, SAHIWAL and others

Writ Petition No. 73296 of 2019, decided on 20th March, 2025.

(a) Jurisdiction---

----Question of jurisdiction, being germane to all proceedings, has to be decided ahead of all other questions.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.199---Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006), Ss. 2(h)(i), 16 & 19---Contract employee of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (BISE)---Non-availing of alternate remedy of departmental appeal---Direct filing of constitutional petition---Maintainability---Rule regarding invoking constitutional jurisdiction in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution, only after exhausting all other remedies, is one of convenience and discretion by which the court regulates its proceedings and is not a rule of law affecting the jurisdiction of High Court---Constitutional petition is competent if an order is passed by a court or authority by exceeding its jurisdiction or exercising its jurisdiction in an arbitrary, illegal or unjust manner, even if the remedy of appeal/revision against such order is available, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case---Extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution is envisioned predominantly for affording an express remedy where the unlawfulness and impropriety of the action of an executive or other governmental authority could be substantiated without any inquiry---Expression "adequate remedy" signifies an effectual, accessible, advantageous and expeditious remedy---Respondents had purportedly proceeded against the petitioner by invoking the provisions contained in a statute i.e. PEEDA, therefore, it was incumbent upon the respondents to adhere to safeguards supplied in the same statute, however, the mandatory provisions of the same statute had been violated by the respondents and major penalty of removal from service had been handed to the petitioner without even a proper inquiry, thus, throwing the petitioner at the mercy of same authorities---Non-suiting the petitioner at this juncture for not availing the departmental appeal was neither just nor appropriate---In terms of S. 19 read with S. 2(h)(i) of PEEDA petitioner had no remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal and as the petitioner was proceeded against on the basis of the provisions contained in PEEDA and the provisions of PEEDA were violated by the respondents for denying an opportunity of fair hearing through a regular inquiry, thus, constitutional petition was maintainable.

Muhammad Amin and another v. Government of Punjab and others 2015 SCMR 706; Mst. Sardar Begum v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore and 3 others PLD 1972 Lah. 458; Riaz Mehmood Sheikh v. Shamsher Alam Khan and another 2009 CLC 862; Khushi Muhammad through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. Fazal Bibi and others PLD 2016 SC 872 and Faqir Muhammad v. Khursheed Bibi and others 2024 SCMR 107 ref.

Gatron (Industries) Limited v. Government of Pakistan and others 1999 SCMR 1072; Salahuddin and 2 others v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. and others PLD 1975 SC 244; Dr. Sher Afgan Khan Niazi v. Ali S. Habib and others 2011 SCMR 1813; The Executive Director (P&GS) State Life, Principal Office Karachi and others v. Muhammad Nisar, Area Manager, State Life Corporation of Pakistan, Peshawar Zone, Peshawar 2025 SCMR 249; Dr. Akhtar Hassan Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2012 SCMR 455; Brig. Muhammad Bashir v. Abdul Karim and others PLD 2004 SC 271; Al-Hamza Ship Breaking Co. and 14 others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others 2015 SCMR 595 and Bashir Ahmad and others v. The Director General, Lahore Development Authority, Lahore and others 2020 SCMR 471 rel.

(c) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)---

----Ss. 4(1)(b)(v), 5(1)(a), 7(b), 16 & 19---Punjab Government Contract Appointment Policy, 2004, Clause 4,Para-XVII, Sub-Clause (ii) & 8---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 10-A, 199---Contract employee---Enforced disappearance owing to abduction---Termination/removal from service with allegation of willful absence---Dispensation of procedure of regular inquiry---Validity---Rights of an employee cannot be infringed while treating him as a subject of an authoritarian regime---Clause 4, Para-XVII sub-clause (ii) of the Punjab Government Contract Appointment Policy, 2004, supplies safeguards against unreasonable and arbitrary terminations of the contract employees---Although in cases of willful absence from duty, the process of regular inquiry may be dispensed with, however each case has its own merits---Facts of the present case were such that mere allegation of willful absence from duty could not have been proved without holding a proper inquiry as it was the case of the petitioner that he was unlawfully abducted and remained a victim of enforced disappearance---Such assertions of the petitioner were not only supported by sufficient material appended with the petition but it was also evident from the termination order that the respondents somehow believed the confinement of the petitioner but for strange circuitous reasons, the same had been used as a basis to cast negative aspersions on the conduct of not only the petitioner but also his family---Authority while adjudicating a case on the basis of show cause notice has to confine itself within the allegations of show cause notice and rendering any findings or forming basis of the final order on elements beyond the allegations/charges of show cause notice is not sustainable under the law---From the contents of show cause notice, proceedings undertaken in pursuance thereof and the termination order, the only ineluctable conclusion emerged that neither the show cause notice and the proceedings in furtherance thereof were tenable in law nor the termination order was sustainable on any of tests of due process in terms of Arts. 4 & 10A of the Constitution.

National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Zahoor Ahmed Mengal 2021 SCMR 144; Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Department, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others v. Noor-ul-Amin 2021 SCMR 959; Secretary to Government of the Punjab, School Education Department, Lahore and others v. Syed Zakir Ali 2022 SCMR 951; Chairman Pakistan Ordnance Factories, POF Board, Wah Cantt. v. Akhtar Tanveer and others 2025 SCMR 374; Faisal Ali v. District Police Officer, Gujrat and another 2025 SCMR 92; Sanaullah Sani v. Secretary Education Schools and others 2024 SCMR 80; Rashid Mehmood v. Additional Inspector General of Police and 2 others 2002 SCMR 57; Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Shaista Naheed 2004 SCMR 316; Inspector General of Police and 2 others v. Shafqat Mehmood 2003 SCMR 207; Usman Ghani v. The Chief Post Master, GPO Karachi and others 2022 SCMR 745; Raja Muhammad Shahid v. The Inspector General of Police and others 2023 SCMR 1135; Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue FBR House, Islamabad and others v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603; Ghulam Muhammad Khan v. Prime Minister of Pakistan and others 1996 SCMR 802; Senior Superintendent of Police (Operations) and others v. Shahid Nazir 2022 SCMR 327; Nawab Khan and another v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and others PLD 1994 SC 222 and Government of Pakistan v Farheen Rashid 2011 SCMR 1 ref.

(d) Employment---

----Punishment, award of---Discretion of authority---Scope---For safe administration of justice, the authority vested with discretion to award punishment to an employee shall ensure that such punishment should commensurate with the magnitude of guilt.

National Bank of Pakistan through President, Karachi v. Roz-ud-Din and another 2025 SCMR 160; Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, D. G. Khan v. Nadeem Raza and another 2023 SCMR 803; The Postmaster General Sindh Province, Karachi and others v. Syed Farhan 2022 SCMR 1154; Director General, Directorate General of Training and Research (Inland Revenue), Lahore and another v. Ijaz Younas 2021 SCMR 710 and Secretary to Government of the Punjab Food Department, Lahore and another v. Javed Iqbal and others 2006 SCMR 1120 rel.

(e) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 199, 4 & 10A---Infringement of fundamental rights---Lack of due process of law---Interference by High Court---Scope---In case of infringement of a fundamental right or lack of due process of law in terms of Arts. 4 & 10A of the Constitution, it is impossible for High Court to hold that public authorities have acted within the limits of their authority and have acted lawfully, unless the decisions impugned contain reasons.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery (318 US 80) rel.

(f) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 4---Right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law---Scope---Art. 4 of the Constitution is the bedrock of the rule of law and an antithesis to the rule of men in our country; it is a restraint on the executive and judicial organs of the State to abide by the rule of law---Art. 4 ordains that it is inalienable right of every citizen wherever he may be and any person whenever he is in Pakistan to have and enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law.

(g) Discretion---

---Exercise of---Principles---All judicial, quasi judicial, and administrative authorities must exercise power in a reasonable manner and also must ensure justice as per the spirit of law and instruments regarding exercise of discretion---Obligation to act fairly on the part of administrative authority has been evolved to ensure the rule of law and to prevent failure of justice---Object of good governance cannot be achieved by exercising discretionary powers unreasonably, arbitrarily and without following due process of law such as issuance of a show cause notice of allegations, an inquiry and an opportunity of hearing and thereafter the decision of the matter through speaking and reasoned orders---Objective of protection of fundamental rights of the citizens and due and fair administration of executive actions and justice can be achieved by following rules of justness, fairness and openness in consonance with the command of the Constitution.

Arshad Malik Awan and Mohsin Hanif for Petitioner.

Mehboob Azhar Sheikh and Ch. Abdul Ghaffar for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1217

[Lahore High Court]

Before Tariq Saleem Sheikh, J

Dr. NAKSHAB CHOUDHRY

Versus

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and 3 others

Writ Petition No. 46054 of 2024, decided on 20th January, 2025.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199--- Constitutional petition---Educational institutions---Judicial restraint, principle of---Applicability---Courts should exercise judicial restraint and refrain from intervening in internal decision-making of educational institutions---Such principle does not extend to shielding statutory violations or administrative overreach from judicial scrutiny.

(b) King Edward Medical University' Lahore Act (V of 2005)---

----Ss. 20(2) proviso, 25 & 30---Maxim 'expressio unius est exclusio alterius'---Applicability---Appointment of teaching faculty---Petitioner assailed authority of Punjab Government to appoint teaching faculty---Validity---Principle expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing excludes others) suggests that statute, by explicitly granting limited transfer powers to the Government under the proviso, excludes any broader authority to interfere with the University's appointments or affairs---Interpretation was to be aligned with overarching purpose and scheme of King Edward Medical University, Lahore Act, 2005, which had prioritized university autonomy---Any interpretation that permitted unrestricted or perpetual Government intervention would contradict the legislative intent and conflict with Ss. 25 & 30 of King Edward Medical University, Lahore Act, 2005, which had vested appointment and administrative powers exclusively in the Syndicate and Vice-Chancellor---Provision of proviso to S. 20(2) of King Edward Medical University, Lahore Act, 2005 should be construed as a narrowly confined exception intended to address transitional cases, not as an enabling provision for open-ended Government appointments or transfers---High Court declared that provision of S. 20(2) of King Edward Medical University, Lahore Act, 2005 could not be relied upon to justify ongoing appointments or transfers by Punjab Government---Direct transfers or appointments by Punjab Government to teaching posts in King Edward Medical University, without requisition or approval by Syndicate, contravened S. 25(xv) of King Edward Medical University, Lahore Act, 2005---Such actions constituted unlawful interference in the University's affairs, compromised its autonomy, and had violated objective and structure of King Edward Medical University, Lahore Act, 2005---Notifications/orders issued by Punjab Government making transfers, postings, and appointments in King Edward Medical University were not requisitioned by the Syndicate nor were otherwise approved by it; there was even no consultation---High Court declared such notifications/orders as unlawful---High Court directed Punjab Government to ensure that all future appointments or transfers would comply with the provision of King Edward Medical University, Lahore Act, 2005 and any deviation from statutory framework would be subject to judicial review---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Sundas and others v. Khyber Medical University and others 2024 SCMR 46; Hafza Habib Qureshi and others v. Amir Hamza and others PLD 2024 SC 780; Ex parte Sidebotham (1880) 14 Ch.D. 458; Fazl-e-Haq, Accountant-General, West Pakistan v. The State PLD 1960 SC (Pak) 295; Fazal Karim, Judicial Review of Public Actions, Second Edition, Vol. 3, p. 1479; Associated Cement Companies Limited v. Pakistan (through the Commissioner of Income Tax, Lahore Range) and others PLD 1978 SC 151; Asdullah Mangi and others v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and others 2005 SCMR 445; Hafiz Hamdullah v. Saifullah Khan and others PLD 2007 SC 52; Pakistan Match Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Assistant Collector, Sales Tax and Central Excise Mardan, and others 2019 SCMR 906; Collector of Customs Appraisement v. Gul Rehman, Proprietor Messrs G. Kin Enterprises 2017 SCMR 339; The State v. Ghulam Rasool and others 1991 MLD 1923 and Federation of Pakistan and others v. Haji Muhammad Saifullah Khan and others PLD 1989 SC 166 rel.

Mian Bilal Bashir assisted by Hafiz Syed Fahad Iftikhar for Petitioner.

Jahanzaib Inam, Additional Advocate General for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.

Muhammad Azhar Siddique and Ms. Amna Liaquat with Muhammad Junaid, Senior Law Officer, Professors Muhammad Ayaaz, Imran, Mohsin, Naseer Chaudhry, Riasat, Yar Muhammad and Asrar Ashraf for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1308

[Lahore High Court]

Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, J

MUHAMMAD JAVAID AFZAL

Versus

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others

Writ Petition No.49128 of 2024, heard on 16th June, 2025.

(a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010)---

----Ss.4(4), 8 & 10---Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Rules, 2013, R.10---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Harassment at workplace, allegation of---Major penalty of removal from service, imposition of---The challenge in the present Constitutional petition centered upon the petitioner's removal from service pursuant to concurrent orders passed by the Ombudsperson and the Governor, under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, following allegations of workplace harassment---Held: During the course of the proceedings, petitioner's co-accused (respondent No.4), submitted a sworn affidavit in which he admitted that he along with the petitioner (under the influence of petitioner), harassed respondent No.3 (complainant) which significantly undermined the petitioner's (main accused) case---Furthermore, during cross-examination, the co-accused reiterated that he had harassed respondent No.3 at the petitioner's behest---Notably, the petitioner neither filed any counter-affidavit to rebut these allegations nor specifically denied them---He also failed to put forth any questions to the co-accused during cross-examination that could have challenged or discredited the veracity of these claims---Therefore, well-settled principle of law that 'the absence of a specific denial amounts to an admission' was applicable in the present case---In the present case, the forums below observed that the complainant was inappropriately touched and blatantly recorded on video---The petitioner/accused was captured on cctv footage pointing his mobile phone camera at the complainant---Based on the repeated acts of offensive conduct and incidents of harassment detailed by the complainant and corroborated by witnesses, none of whom were confronted or cross-examined by the accused, the allegations stood proved---The penalty imposed was proportionate to the severity of the sustained harassment perpetrated by the petitioner, which established a clear pattern of offensive behavior---No illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned concurrent decisions were found, therefore, no interference was warranted---Constitutional petition being devoid of merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

Ghulam Rasool through L.Rs. and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others PLD 2011 SC 119 rel.

Ghulam Rasool v. Abdul Ghafoor and 8 others 2017 CLC 1711 ref.

(b) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010)---

---S.9---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Harassment at workplace---Representation to the Governor---Governor as final appellate forum---Constitutional petition against order of the Governor---Maintainability---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, invocation of---Scope---The President and the Governor are designated as the final appellate forums to decide representations against decisions of the Ombudsperson---The legislature intended to create a complete statutory mechanism, thereby, excluding the invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution in the ordinary course, except where the decision is shown to be coram non judice, mala fides, or without lawful authority---The decision of the Governor / President attains finality and cannot be subjected to judicial review merely on factual reappraisal---Therefore, once the Governor, under the Act of 2010, has decided the representation, the remedy before the Constitutional court is not in the nature of a second appeal, and judicial review can only be exercised on well-established grounds such as coram non judice acts, denial of due process, mala fides, or violation of fundamental rights---Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked in matters where an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy exists, particularly when the statute has designated a specialized forum for adjudication.

Raja Tanveer Safdar v. Mrs. Tehmina Yasmeen and others PLD 2024 SC 795; Muhammad Din v. Province of Punjab through Secretary, Population Welfare, Lahore and others PLD 2025 SC 354 and Dr. Imran Khattak and another v. Ms. Sofia Waqar Khattak, PSO to Chief Justice and others 2014 SCMR 122 rel.

Qazi Zaheer Ahmad v. Federal Ombudsman Secretariat for Protection Against Harassment at Workplace, Islamabad and 2 others 2021 PLC (C.S.) 839 ref.

(c) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010)---

----Ss.8 & 10---Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010), S.33---Harassment at workplace---Major penalty of removal from service, imposition of---Accused challenging 'removal from service' order before the labour court---Effect---Election of remedies---Principle---Pursuing parallel remedies at two forums simultaneously---Legality andscope---Once the removal from service order is implemented and against such order the accused has already sought legal remedy before the Labour Court under S. 33 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 and said order of removal has not been challenged before the High Court, then accordingly, the petitioner has elected the Labour Court as the appropriate forum to contest his removal from service on merits and cannot pursue parallel remedies in two forums simultaneously.

A.R. Khan v. P. N. Boga through Legal Heir PLD 1987 SC 107; Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Devan Sugar Mills Limited and others PLD 2018 SC 828 and Mir Mujib-ur-Rehman Muhammad Hassani v. Returning Officer, PB-41 Washuk and others PLD 2020 SC 718 rel.

(d) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010)---

---Preamble---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.14---Protection against harassment at workplace---Enactment---Scope---Dignity of a person as an inviolable right, protection of---The Constitution enshrines the dignity of person as an inviolable right under Art. 14, which lies at the core of all civilized legal systems---The Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, was specifically enacted to uphold this constitutional guarantee within professional settings by ensuring a safe and respectful environment for all employees---The acts of harassment are not merely disciplinary infractions but direct violations of the constitutionally protected dignity and mental integrity of the individual---Protecting women from harassment is essential not only for the enforcement of workplace ethics but for the realization of constitutional safeguards against indignity, abuse, and gendered power imbalances.

Muhammad Din v. Province of Punjab through Secretary, Population Welfare, Lahore and others PLD 2025 SC 354 and Uzma Naveed Chaudhary and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2022 SC 783 rel.

(e) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---High Court's power of judicial review over decisions of competent authorities---Scope---In the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, High Court's power of judicial review over decisions of competent authorities is confined to narrow grounds, specifically, whether the impugned decisions suffer from a clear miscarriage of justice, arbitrariness, or error of law---Absent such grounds, there is no justification for the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction to substitute the judgment of the competent authorities---This high threshold is imposed to ensure the smooth and effective administration of justice by the forums statutorily empowered to adjudicate the matter.

PLD 1964 SC 829 rel.

Syed Ghazanfar Hussain Kamran, Qari Habib-ur-Rehman and Aftab Zafar for Petitioners.

Asma Hamid and Mustafa Khalid for Respondent No.3.

Zulfiqar Ali Shah and Muhammad Abu-Bakar Attique for Respondent No.4.

Muhammad Saad Bin Ghazi, Assistant Advocate General along with Muhammad Hashim Khan, Law Officer for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1354

[Lahore High Court]

Before Raheel Kamran, J

NABILA HAKIM ALI KHAN

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others

Writ Petition No. 51439 of 2023, decided on 12th June, 2025.

(a) Interpretation of statutes---

----Applicability of enactment---Principle---When an Act of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly provides that it comes into force at once, then every provision of it becomes enforceable from the day the Act receives assent of the President or, as the case may be, the Governor, unless any provision of the Act suggests otherwise.

Messrs Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Sheikh Muhammad Ilyas and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and others PLD 2020 SC 641 rel.

(b) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act (IV of 2010)---

----S. 7 (6) [as amended under Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Amendment) Act, 2021]---Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017), S. 230---Election Rules, 2017, R. 170 (1)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Tenure post---Removal---Election Commission---Jurisdiction---Caretaker Government---Limitations---Petitioner was appointed as Ombudsperson for four years but she was removed from service by Election Commission, before completion of her tenure---Validity---In absence of statutorily prescribed procedure for removal of Ombudsperson, particularly when the appointment was for a fixed term, the incumbent could not be removed from office prior to the expiration of that term, save for the universally recognized grounds of proven misconduct or incapacity, which would necessitate a due process even if not explicitly detailed within Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010---Removal of Ombudsperson was not provided under Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010, except in the case of resignation---Even if removal became necessary on grounds of proven misconduct or incapacitation, the power to take such action was logically lie with the appointing authority, i.e., the Government, following due process---Election Commission was nowhere authorized in such regard under the Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010---Primary purposes of Election Commission, as delineated in the Constitution and the Elections Act, 2017, revolves around the conduct of free and fair elections---Achieving such purposes inherently, Election Commission was not empowered to direct permanent removal of any office bearer---Nature of removal contemplated in the notification of Election Commission, the "immediate termination of services" - implied a permanent cessation of employment, which did not directly relate to the Election Commission's core function of ensuring fair elections---At the most, Election Commission's powers in relation to public officials during election period, as indicated by R. 170(1) of Election Rules, 2017, and S. 230(2)(f) of Elections Act, 2017, (regarding the Caretaker Government's limitations), extended to transfer or shuffling of public officials with the Commission's approval---Such had suggested a focus on preventing misuse of official positions to influence elections, rather than permanent removal of appointees, particularly those with a statutorily defined tenure---De-notification of petitioner by Caretaker Government of Punjab by way of notification in question was not within its lawful authority---High Court set aside notification in question issued by Government of the Punjab de-notifying services of petitioner as Ombudsperson Protection against Harassment of Women at Workplace---High Court declared notification in question to be null and void and petitioner was deemed to be in office as if the notification had not been issued---High Court directed that to ensure that future appointments to the position of Ombudsperson were beyond reproach, it would be apt to direct that the relevant authorities should, with due expediency, formulate and implement a comprehensive, transparent and merit-based appointment procedure---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2013 SCMR 1205; Badshah Gul Wazir v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others 2015 SCMR 43 and Mushtaq Ahmad Moral and others v. The Honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore and others 1997 SCMR 1043 rel.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 10A---Fair trial and due process---Scope---Fair trial and due process rights guaranteed by article 10A of the Constitution are to be read as an integral part of every sub-constitutional legislative instrument that deals with determination of civil rights and obligations of any person.

Naveed Asghar and 2 others v. The State PLD 2021 SC 600 rel.

(d) Employment---

----Tenure post---Object, purpose and scope---If incumbent knows he/she can be removed at any time without stated cause or due process, his/her ability to act fearlessly and independently, especially when dealing with potentially sensitive matters involving Government or influential individuals, can be curtailed---Security of tenure, within reasonable limits, is often considered essential for the effective functioning of such roles.

Badsha Gul Wazir v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others 2015 SCMR 43 rel.

Ch. Ishtiaq Ahmad Khan, Adnan Ahmad Chaudhry, Jahangir Ahmad Bhatti, Shahrukh Shahbaz, Ms. Zarish Fatima, Amjad Ali Shah, Ch. Umar Latif and Ms. Uzma Razzaq Khan for Petitioner.

Barrister Hassan Khalid Ranjha, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, Muhammad Osman Khan, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab with Ibrar Ahmad, Law Officer, I&C Wing, S&GAD for Government of Punjab.

Imran Arif Ranjha, Advocate/Legal Advisor with Bashir Arshad, Deputy Director (Law), Ms. Bushra Rasheed, Senior Law Officer ECP and Hafiz Adeel Ashraf, Assistant Law Officer ECP for Election Commission of Pakistan.

Aaminah Qadir and Zeeshan Zafar Hashmi, Amici Curiae.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 17

[Peshawar High Court]

Before Ijaz Anwar and Shakeel Ahmad, J

GUL NABI SYED

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Energy Power Division, Islamabad and others

W.P. No.12-P with I.R. C.O.C. No.32-P and C.Ms. Nos.603, 506, 558, 438 and 244-P of 2023, decided on 1st June, 2023.

(a) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)---

----S.186---Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, R.5(2)---Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines, 2015, Sched.-II---State-Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act (VII of 2013), S.18---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional Petition---Maintainability---Non-statutory rules of service---Petitioner, Chief Executive Officer of Peshawar Electric Supply Company, challenged the company's order for the appointment of respondent against his post---Main objection to the maintainability of this petition was that the respondent-company had got no statutory rules of service governing the terms and conditions of its employees---In the instant case, appointment to the office of CEO PESCO had been questioned---Appointment to such office was governed by statutory instruments and the appointing authority was the Federal Government---Appointment of the petitioner was issued through Notification dated 06-09-2022 after the approval of the Federal Cabinet by the Ministry of Energy Power Division, Government of Pakistan, which was subsequently superseded vide Notification dated 12.01.2023 issued by the same Ministry appointing, respondent as CEO, on stopgap arrangement, purely on temporary basis till further order---At the relevant time, the Companies Act, 2017, read with the Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, read with Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines, 2015 and the State-Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023, were governing the terms and conditions and method of appointment to such post---All these rule were framed and notified by the Federal Government---In view thereof, High Court had necessary Jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the matter in hand.

Pakistan Electric Power Company v. Syed Salahuddin and others 2002 SCMR 991; Muhammad Tufail v. Abdul Ghafoor and others PLD 1958 SC 201; Selling of National Assets including PLA at Throwaway Price 2019 SCMR 1952; Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2012 SC 132; Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Khalid Usmani and others 2016 SCMR 2125; Federation of Pakistan v. Rais Khan 1993 SCMR 609; Jaffar Ali Akbar Yousafzai v. Islamic Republic of Pakistan PLD 1970 Quetta 115; Pakistan Railways v. Zafarullah 1997 SCMR 1730; Province of Sindh and others v. Ghulam Fareed and others 2014 SCMR 1189 and Rab Nawaz Dhadwana, Advocate and others v. Rana Muhammad Akram, Advocate and others PLD 2014 Lah. 591 rel.

(b) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)---

----S.186---Public Sector Companies (Corporate Governance) Rules, 2013, R.5(2)---Public Sector Companies (Appointment of Chief Executive) Guidelines, 2015, Sched.-II---State Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act (VII of 2023), S.18---Stopgap appointment --- Petitioner was appointed as Chief Executive Officer of Peshawar Electric Supply Company as a stopgap arrangement purely on temporary basis, and he challenged the company's order for the appointment of respondent against his post---Validity---Apparently, it seemed that the appointment of the petitioner as well as the respondent had not been made in accordance with law nor could it be expected from such short-term appointees that they could focus on goal setting and long term planning to make the company a profitable organization---In numerous cases, such temporary arrangement exploit the situation and such officers were playing in the hands of political figures in order to prolong their temporary position, instead of focusing on long term planning and policy decisions---In the given circumstances, assigning the responsibility of the post of CEO through such temporary arrangements would never be helpful rather would worsen the situation ----Provisions of "the Act", "the Rules" and "Guidelines" specifically provided the procedure and manner in which the post of CEO of Public Sector Company was to be filled, High Court deprecated such practice of adhocism, and appointments on look after or acting charge basis---Appointment on acting charge basis or stopgap arrangement is usually made pending process of a regular incumbent---Since the appointment of the petitioner in September, 2022, and even after the appointment of respondent as CEO, till date no such process had ever been initiated---Such appointments were, thus, violative of the principle of appointment on stopgap arrangement---Hence, it was directed that the appointment to the office of CEO as provided under "the Act" "the Rules" "the Guidelines" and "Act of 2023", be made within a period of two months positively---In case, the appointment to the said post was not made, the appointment of respondent shall no longer be valid thereafter---Constitutional petition stood disposed of in the above terms.

(c) Administration of justice---

----If a thing is to be done in a particular manner then it must be done in that manner or not at all.

Ghulam Mohy-ud-Din Malik and Muhammad Sufyan Malik for Petitioners.

Hasnain Tariq, Additional Advocate General, Sana Ullah, Assistant Attorney General, Barrister Waqar Ali, Shumail Ahmad Butt, Dr. Shakeel Azam Awan, Mashhood Hassan Azam Awan and Asad Jan for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 72

[Peshawar High Court]

Before Ijaz Anwar and Muhammad Ijaz Khan, JJ

Dr. AURANGZEB KHAN and others

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others

Writ Petition No.3800-P of 2024, decided on 22nd August, 2024.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act (X of 2012)---

----S.12---Elections Act (XXXIII of 2017), Ss.230 & 224(1A)---Functions of Caretaker Government to run day to day affairs---Scope---Appointment of Vice Chancellors (V.Cs.) in public sector universities---Some members of the Academic Search Committee (ASC) (resigned owing to repeated cancellation of dates of interview of selected candidates---Interim Government substituted the members of ASC, who completed the process of interview and recommended the candidates---Elected Provincial Government re-advertised the posts on the ground that the appointment process was violative of S.230 of the Elections Act, 2017, (Act, 2017), because members of ASC were substituted by the Interim Government---Validity---Section 230 of Act, 2017 prohibits the Caretaker Government from taking major policy decisions, however, the Caretaker Government is not restrained from performing functions to attend to day-to-day affairs which are necessary to run the affairs of the Government---Decision to initiate the process of appointment of V.Cs. was duly taken by the elected Government and it was during that process that some of the Members of the ASC had resigned---It was the duty of the Caretaker Government to appoint ASC, substituting the Members who had resigned---Advocate Supreme Court had nothing to do with Government as it was apolitical and had only performed its assigned duty---Objection of the Chief Minister to the effect that the Chairman and two Members of the ASC had resigned during the Caretaker Government and no NOC was found on file regarding permission of the Election Commission of Pakistan for constituting new ASC was not according to law---Process for appointment was initiated by the elected Government and thus, it was the policy decision duly taken by the Government---Merely because, some of the Members of the ASC had resigned and their names were substituted by the Interim Government would not amount to policy decision taken by the interim setup within the meaning of S.230 of Act, 2017 as the Caretaker Government was duly empowered to pass any order while running the day-to-day affairs of the Government---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstance, and the process of re-advertising the positions of V.Cs. was struck down.

Munawar Hassan v. Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan and others 2017 PLC (C.S.) 81; Abdul Aziz and another v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary and others 2015 PLC (C.S.) 958; Miss Farzana Oadir v. Province of Sindh through Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and another 2000 PLC (C.S.) 225; Mehboob Ali Rind and others v. Secretary Education Balochistan and others 2023 PLC (C.S) 1526; Syed Irfan Ahmed and another v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others 2009 PLC (C.S.) 4; Amjad Ali Khan v. Ministry of Energy (Power Division), Islamabad through Secretary and others 2019 PLC (C.S.) 300; Managing Director, Public Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) and another 2019 PLC (C.S.) 1348, A.R. Khan v. P.N. Boga through Legal Heir PLD 1987 SC 107; Nadir Khan v. Qadir Hussain and others 2024 SCMR 770; Muhammad Awais and others v. Government of Pakistan through Federal Secretary Health, Islamabad and others 2024 MLD 422 and Government of Balochistan through Secretary Services and General Administration Department and others v. Abdul Rauf and others PLD 2021 SC 313 distinguished.

Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2013 SCMR 1205 rel.

Amir Javed, Muhammad Tariq Afridi and Mubashir Manzoor for Petitioners.

Shah Faisal Utmankhel, Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Adnan Ali, A.A.G. and Sana Ullah, Additional Attorney General for Pakistan for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 87

[Peshawar High Court]

Before Ijaz Anwar and Sahibzada Asadullah, JJ

NADEEM AHMED and others

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, through Secretary, Sports, Tourism, Archaeology, Museums and Youth Affairs Department, Peshawar and others

Writ Petition No.4397-P of 2024 with IR, decided on 10th September, 2024.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tourism Act (XXVIII of 2019)---

----S.32---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Culture and Tourism Authority Employees (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Regulations, 2020, Regln. 9(a)---Contract appointment---Regularization---Extension in contract from time to time for 03 years---Petitioners were appointed on contract basis against different posts---Petitioners after completing contract period of 03 years sought regularization in service from the date of their appointment on the ground of discrimination---Validity---Under S.32 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tourism Act, 2019 (Act), after completion of 03 years, in case of fresh hiring, preference was to be given to the candidates, who had served the authorities with good performance reports---Contract employment terminates on the expiry of the contract period and it is the choice of the employer either to extend it or to discontinue it, and prima facie it does not create any vested right---In petitioner's case, there was no option for the competent authority to allow extension beyond three years in view of provisions contained in the Act and Regulation---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Khushal Khan Khattak University and others v. Jabran Ali Khan and others 2021 SCMR 977; Vice-Chancellor Bacha Khan University Charsadda and others v. Tanveer Ahmad and others 2021 SCMR 1995; Miss Noureen Naz Butt v. Pakistan International Airlines and others 2020 SCMR 1625; Province of Punjab through Secretary L&DD Department and others v. Dr. Javed Iqbal and others 2021 SCMR 767; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs v. Muhammad Azam Chatta 2013 SCMR 120; Mubashar Majeed v. Province of Punjab and others 2017 PLC (C.S.) 940 and Pakistan Telecommunication through Chairman v. Iqbal Nasir and others PLD 2011 SC 132 rel.

Shumail Ahmad Butt for Petitioner.

Syed Sikandar Hayat Shah, A.A.G along with Ali Gohar Durrani and Tashfeen Haider, DG (KPCTA) for Respondents.

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

2025 P L C (C.S.) 755

[Peshawar High Court]

Before Musarrat Hilali and Ijaz Anwar, JJ

GULZAR MUHAMMAD

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others

Writ Petition No.3745-P of 2018, decided on 7th April, 2021.

(a) Fundamental Rules---

----F.R. 17 & 54A---Civil service---Disciplinary proceedings, pendency of---Promotion, declining of---Delay in holding departmental proceedings---Effect---Pro forma promotion---Scope---Record revealed that the petitioner (retired civil servant) faced departmental proceedings and ultimately the enquiry officer after conducting a through enquiry into the matter under the provisions of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1980 found that the allegations levelled against him were under some misunderstanding and the same had not been proved; it was also recommended that he may be exonerated of the charges---Petitioner was not retired from service by the time enquiry report was submitted---Proceedings were initiated somewhere in the year 2014 and it took five long years to fix the responsibility and bring to book the delinquent person(s)/ officer(s)---Though the High Court would never give a clean chit to any delinquent officer/ official involved in a misconduct of any kind, however, in such a delayed process, many innocent officers/officials are deprived of their valuable rights including promotion---Under Fundamental Rule 54A, if a government servant, who has been suspended pending inquiry into his conduct attains the age of superannuation before the completion of inquiry, the disciplinary proceedings against him shall abate and such government servant shall retire with full pensionary benefits and the period of suspension shall be treated as period spent on duty---Similarly, under Fundamental Rule 17, if a civil servant, who is entitled to be promoted from a particular date, is for no fault of his own, wrongfully prevented from rendering service to the Federation in the higher post, such civil servant shall be granted pro forma promotion and be paid the arrears of pay and allowance of such higher post---Mere pendency of departmental proceedings should not be made hurdle in the matter of promotion---In the present case, after the petitioner had been exonerated by the Inquiry Officer, it took further nine months for the competent authority to disagree with the said report and to initiate a fresh inquiry, which was height of irresponsibility---Petitioner had been deprived of his promotion on the ground of pendency of departmental proceedings and he had never been proved guilty during the course of his service and as such, on his retirement in terms of FR 54A, he stood exonerated; thus, he was entitled to be considered for promotion w.e.f. 27.10.2017---High Court directed that case of the petitioner be placed before the Local Council Board for pro forma promotion in accordance with law positively within a period of two months---Constitutional petition, was allowed accordingly.

Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Government of Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, C&W Department and another 2009 PLC (C.S.) 40; Naeem Abbas v. Government of Punjab through Secretary and 04 others 2017 PLC (C.S.) 404; Abdul Rauf v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary (Food), Civil Secretariat, Lahore and another 2016 PLC (C.S.) 1029; Javaid Iqbal Nasir v. Managing Director, PEPCO and 02 others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1043; "Muhammad Afzal Khan v. Government of Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab, C&W Department and another 2009 PLC (C.S.) 40; "Hammad Raza Qureshi v. Departmental Promotion Committee, Punjab, Lahore and 9 others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 551; Sh. Muhammad Riaz v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Communication and Works and another 2003 PLC (C.S.) 1496; Muhammad Ayaz Khan v Government of Sindh and others 2007 PLC (C.S.) 716 and Maj. Ziaul Hassan, Home Secretary and others v. Mrs. Naseem Chaudhry 2000 SCMR 645 ref.

(b) Fundamental Rules---

----F.R. 54A---Proceedings against civil servants/government servants---Responsibilities of the department---Departments of the Provincial Government not adhering to the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Local Councils Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1980 ('the Rules 1980')---Through in the Rules, 1980, for all proceedings (the service of charge sheet, reply, proceedings of enquiry, service of show-cause notice and its reply), time frame is provided, however, years and years pass and the departmental proceedings are kept pending---This is one of the reasons that civil servants/government servants throng to the Courts against such in-actions---It appears that pendency of departmental proceedings against a civil servant is considered as a routine matter in the departments and they have failed to feel the agonies of the officers/officials---It is high time that the worthy Chief Secretary takes notice of these facts, illegalities and irregularities in the conduct of the departmental proceedings, particularly, the delay occasioned in each and every inquiry in violation of the Discipline Rules 1980, as the officers who are the cause of such delay in departmental proceedings are violating the mandatory provisions of the Discipline Rules, 1980 and it also amounts to inefficiency/misconduct within the meaning of law---Petitioner had been deprived of his promotion on the ground of pendency of departmental proceedings and he had never been proved guilty during the course of his service and as such, on his retirement in terms of Fundamental Rule 54A, he stood exonerated; thus, he was entitled to be considered for promotion w.e.f. 27.10.2017---High Court directed that case of the petitioner be placed before the Local Council Board for pro forma promotion in accordance with law positively within a period of two months---Constitutional petition, was allowed accordingly.

Amjad Hassan Tanoli for Petitioner.

Sabah-ud-Din Khattak for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 833

[Peshawar High Court (Mingora Bench)]

Before Muhammad Naeem Anwar and Muhammad Ijaz Khan, JJ

AFZAL KHAN

Versus

The GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others

Writ Petition No.907-M of 2022, decided on 9th December, 2024.

(a) Civil service---

----Notional/pro forma promotion---Legitimate expectancy---Delaying of promotion owing to uncertain reasons in the process of Provincial Selection Board (PSB)---Promotion of juniors after the retirement of eligible candidate---Employee cannot claim promotion to a higher post as a matter of right but when once the process is initiated by the department itself, then such employee has every right to be treated in accordance with law---Petitioner's case for promotion was processed before his retirement and was considered by the PSB, however, the said process was delayed due to pendency of some decision to be taken by the Provincial Government qua increase of retirement age limit from 60 to 63 years and in the meanwhile, he had retired from service and when on the basis of the aforesaid process, his juniors had also been granted promotion, then the petitioner had a legitimate right to be considered for notional promotion as no fault could be attributed to the petitioner, rather the fault qua delay in conclusion of the promotion process laid with the respondent---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances, and a direction was issued to the respondents to place the case of the petitioner for notional promotion before the ensuing PSB meeting for consideration in accordance with law.

Secretary Agriculture, Livestock and Cooperation Department, Peshawar and others v. Anees Ahmad 2021 SCMR 1266 and Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others v. Hizbullah Khan and another 2021 SCMR 1281 rel.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Part-VII, Chaps.1, 2, 3, 3-A & 4 [Arts.175-212-B]---Jurisdiction of Superior Courts---Scope---Jurisdictions vested with apex and Superior Courts are general, wider in scope and extent, while constraints/prohibitions are narrower in their applications and dimensions---Jurisdiction of Superior Courts is to be stretched to take into its folds all disputes to be resolved while limitation of jurisdictions and powers are to be squeezed and kept to the minimum extent and length.

Secretary, Revenue Division and others v. Muhammad Saleem 2008 SCMR 948 rel.

Zia-ur-Rahman Tajik for Petitioner (via video link).

Haq Nawaz, A.A.G. for the Respondents .

2025 P L C (C.S.) 850

[Peshawar High Court]

Before S M Attique Shah and Dr. Khurshid Iqbal, JJ

The BOARD OF GOVERNOR through Chairman, Khyber Teaching Hospital (MTI), Peshawar and another

Versus

KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA MEDICAL TEACHING INSTITUTIONS, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PESHAWAR

Writ Petition No.4212-P of 2022 with IR (other connected petitions), decided on 24th April, 2024.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act (IV of 2015)---

----S.16(A)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 212---Civil Service---Decision of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar---Interference by High Court---Scope---Bar contained under Art. 212 of the Constitution---Scope---Decisions/judgments of both the Federal and Provincial Administrative Tribunals established under an Act of Parliament or Provincial Assembly are to be challenged before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by a special constitutional scheme provided under Art. 212 of the Constitution, thus, the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction cannot entertain such like matters---Writ petitions being not maintainable were disposed of with a direction to office of the Court to return the petitions to the petitioners, who were at liberty to challenge the judgments/orders of Tribunal before the appropriate forum.

Syed Asghar Ali Shah and another v. Kaleem Arshad and others 2024 SCMR 563 rel.

Zartaj Anwar for Petitioners.

Mir Zaman Safi for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Rehmat Ali Khan, A.A.G. for the Provincial Government.

Qazi Jawad Ihsanullah, Amicus Curiae.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 951

[Peshawar High Court]

Before Ijaz Anwar and Syed Arshad Ali, JJ

Dr. MUSA KALIM, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR PEDIATRICS LADY READING HOSPITAL-MTI, PESHAWAR

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others

Writ Petition No.72-P of 2021 with IR, decided on 20th November, 2024.

(a) Interpretation of statutes---

----Fiscal taxation laws---Authority seeking to impose a tax must first establish that the individual is liable to taxation through clear language of the statute.

Muhammad Uneeb Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Science and Technology, Islamabad and others 2019 MLD 1347; Mir Shabbir Ali Khan Bijarini and 3 others v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2018 Sindh 603; National Electric Power Regulatory Authority v. Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited 2016 SCMR 550; Sunbiz Private Limited (7 News TV Pakistan) through Abbas Ali Khan v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Information and 3 others 2018 YLR 1785; Ahmad Mehmood v. Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others PLD 2019 Lah. 206; Whitney v. IR Commissioners (1926) 10 TC 88 and H.M. Extraction Ghee and Oil Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. and another v. Federal Board of Revenue and another 2019 SCMR 1081 rel.

(b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Reforms Act (IV of 2015)---

----S. 3---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Professions, Trades and Callings Tax Rules, 1991, R.10---Professional tax---Deduction at source---Quantum of tax---Petitioners were aggrieved of deduction / withholding of professional tax directly from their salaries and had also assailed quantum of the tax so deducted---Validity---Professional tax is not tax on income but a tax on profession---Wisdom of Legislation quantifying tax cannot be substituted by High Court, which is otherwise not confiscatory---Two different modes were provided under R. 10 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Professions, Trades and Callings Tax Rules, 1991, for deduction / withholding of advanced tax; one from civil servant and the other from the person who were in employment of companies or statutory bodies---One petitioner was an employee of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions, whereas the other two were civil servants---Petitioners were liable to impost of professional tax and the same had been rightly recovered from their salaries in the manner as provided under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Professions, Trades and Callings Tax Rules, 1991---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Province of Punjab through Secretary, Excise and Taxation. Government of Puniab and others v. Sargodha Textile Mills Ltd., Sargodha and others PLD 2005 SC 988; Pearl Continental Hotel and another v. Government of N.W.F.P. and others PLD 2010 SC 1004; Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Now Federal Excise Quetta v. Messrs Haji Mehmood Essa Co. and another 2017 SCMR 884; Shahtaj Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others 2024 SCMR 1656; Black's Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition), page 1329; Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Eleventh Revised Edition), page 1145; Black's Law Dictionary (Ninth Edition), page 1629; Concise Oxford English Dictionary (Eleventh Revised Edition), page 199 and Black's Law Dictionary (Eighth Edition), page 566 rel.

(c) Words and Phrases---

----Profession---Meaning.

Employees State Insurance Corporation cum Medical Officers Association v. Employees State Insurance Corporation and another AIR 2014 SC 1259 rel.

Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah for Petitioner.

Adnan Ali, A.A.G. along with Yasir Ali for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1145

[Peshawar High Court]

Before Ijaz Anwar and Qazi Jawad Ehsanullah, JJ

FAHEEM ULLAH

Versus

SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PESHAWAR and others

Writ Petition No. 4826-P of 2023, decided on 20th February, 2025.

Civil service---

----Appointment, legality of---Illegal appointment against the post of Deputy Director (Academics) (BPS-18)---Connivance of Selection Committee and Appointing Authority while making appointments disregarding the merits and eligibility criteria---Termination of illegal appointee---Issuance of direction by the High Court---Scope---Respondent having already been terminated or term of his contract having been expired---At such stage, no writ could be issued regarding his illegal appointment; however, the role of the Selection Committee as well as the Appointing Authority was apparent as they had connived in such appointment---It was high time for the Government to make appointments on merit so that competent persons hold important posts in the Government, but unfortunately, under the nose of such high ranking officers/persons in the Board of Governors, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Educational Testing and Evaluation Agency (ETEA), such illegal appointments were made---Constitutional petition was disposed of with a direction to the Board of Governors, ETEA, to scrutinize the appointments made pursuant to the same advertisement and after doing the needful and fix the responsibility on the persons involved in such illegal appointments.

Zia-ur-Rehman Tajik for Petitioner.

Muhammad Bashar Naveed, A.A.G. and Kashan Abdullah, along with Adil Saeed Safi, Executive Director and Riaz Akbar, Deputy Director (Admn), ETEA Peshawar for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1201

[Peshawar High Court]

Before Wiqar Ahmad and Dr. Khurshid Iqbal, JJ

Mst. MUSARAT

Versus

The GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary

Writ Petition No. 5260-P of 2024 (and other connected Petitions), decided on 7th April, 2025.

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Pension Rules, 2021---

----R.2---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 9---Pensionary benefits, entitlement to---Widowed daughter of a deceased police official---Widow of deceased police official having also passed away---Family pension, grant of---Fundamental right---'Family', definition of---Widowed or divorced daughters fall within the definition of 'family' till re-marriage---Brief facts were that the petitioner was the daughter of a deceased police constable who was receiving pension in his life time---Petitioner was a widow and claimed to be entitled to grant of family pension of her deceased father---Petitioner's mother/widow of deceased police official had also passed away who was also receiving pensionary benefits from pension of deceased police official---Held: Widowed or divorced daughters fell in the definition of family for the purpose of pension rules for life time or till re-marriage---The fact that the petitioner had been residing with her children in the house of her deceased husband could not be considered a disqualification for the grant of family pension as the same was allowable to her under the given circumstances---No such disqualification was mentioned in the applicable pension rules---When the law did not impose any restriction on availing the pension in such circumstances, no restriction could be introduced without the backing of any legal provision, as no one was above the law---Furthermore, the right to pension had a constitutional significance---It drew its strength from the right to life or the right to livelihood under Art. 9 of the Constitution---Petitioner made out a case warranting interference by the High Court and was declared entitled to the grant of family pension under the applicable rules---The respondents were directed to release her pension in accordance with rules, along with payment of arrears---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2021 SCMR 730 rel.

Mohammad Furqan Yousafzai for Petitioner.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1245

[Peshawar High Court]

Before Ijaz Anwar and Shahid Khan, JJ

SAFIR KHAN

Versus

SECRETARY FINANCE through Ministry of Finance Islamabad and others

Writ Petition No. 2149-P with C.M. No. 1567-P of 2022, decided on 24th April, 2024.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 199---Constitutional petition filed by retired employee of Muslim Commercial Bank (MCB)---Maintainability---Terms and conditions of service, enforcement of---Master and servant, relationship of---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against a private bank having no statutory rules of service---Muslim Commercial Bank being a private bank/entity did not fall within the ambit of the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction, which is not exercised for interference in internal affairs of private institutions---Facts in brevity were that the petitioner being a retired employee of MCB sought enforcement of certain government instructions issued in the year 1977 not through the intervention of any federal government functionary but against the private bank (MCB) through the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Held: MCB was a banking company privatized in the year 1991 having no statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of services of its employees---The federal government had no controlling share in the bank, similarly, the State Bank of Pakistan only acted as a regulator and it also had no statutory rules of service for governing terms and conditions of its employees---Thus, in terms of Art. 199 of the Constitution the said bank neither was a local authority or body controlled by the Provincial or Federal Government nor it came within the definition of person as provided under Art. 199 of the Constitution, thus, was not amenable to the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---High Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the internal affairs of private entities nor MCB came within the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for the purpose of enforcing the terms and conditions of its employees---Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed, in circumstances.

Abdul Wahab and others v. HBL and others 2013 SCMR 1383 rel.

(b) Master and servant---

----Employee of a private bank---Non-statutory rules---Effect---Master and servant relationship---Where there are no statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of its employees the status of such employees with the employer would become that of master and servant.

Muhammad Suliman Ali for Petitioner.

Obaid Ullah Anwar, D.A.G. for the official respondents along with Rana Muhammad Nafees for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 5

[Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, Lahore]

Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, Chairman, Abid Hussain Chathha and Rasaal Hasan Syed, Members

ALAMGIR LIAQAT

Versus

The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE and another

Service Appeal No.18 of 2023, heard on 24th April, 2024.

(a) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991)---

----S. 5---Judicial officer---Performance Evaluation Report---"Adverse" or "Advisory" remarks---Scope---Remarks were recorded by the District Judge in Performance Evaluation Report ("PER") of Civil Judge for relevant period ('remarks-in-question')---Appellant (Judicial Officer) assailed order whereby respondent (Registrar High Court) declined his representation for expunction of remarks-in-question which were "He is advised to run his office with dignity and integrity"---Plea of appellant was that said "adverse remarks" were problematic for his service career---Stance of respondent was that the remarks were "advisory" for improvement of the appellant---Whether the impugned remarks are "adverse" or "advisory" in nature---Held, that mere caption of the remarks is not the determining factor, rather nature and essence of the remarks would lead to the conclusion as to whether these remarks are "advisory" or "adverse"---Adverse remarks indicate the defects or deficiencies in the quality of work or performance or conduct of a civil servant except the words in the nature of counsel or advice---Adverse remarks can be deciphered from the words used by the reporting officer in his remarks and the impact those words may have on the reputation and general image of the officer---Adverse remarks do not become advisory even if the reporting officer calls them advisory or the authority treats them so--- Moreover, advisory remarks, at the time of promotion of the civil servant, will become adverse and carry stigma if it is found that despite the advice the officer did not make any improvement--- Remarks-in-question were "adverse" and cannot be considered "advisory" by any stretch of imagination---Record did not provide basis or direct evidence for the remarks-in-question---Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned order passed by the respondent ( Registrar High Court) ; consequently, impugned remarks in appellant's PER for the relevant period stood expunged---Appeal was allowed.

Government of the Punjab and another v. Ehsanul Haq Sethi PLD 1986 SC 684; Engineer Jameel Ahmed Malik v. Pakistan Ordinance Factories Board, Wah Cantt. through Chairman and others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 130; Malik Azhar-ul-Haq v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1208 and Government of A.P. representative by Chief Secretary v. Madanlal, IPS and another 2003(1) S.C.T. 627 ref.

Government of the Punjab and another v. Ehsan ul Haq Sethi PLD 1986 SC 684; Engineer Jameel Ahmed Malik v. Pakistan Ordinance Factories Board, Wah Cantt. through Chairman and others 2004 SCMR 164; Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar v. Muhammad Jaangir Khan Goraya 1999 SCMR 2117; Shaukat Javed Farooq, under Secretary Civil Secretariat, Lahore v. District and Sessions Judge, Lahore and others 1999 SCMR 2141 and Ch. Shabbir Hussain and others v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore and others PLD 2004 SC 191 distinguished.

(b) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991)---

----S. 5---Judicial officer ---Adverse remarks, recording of---Prior counselling by the Reporting / Countersigning Officer---Supervisory Officers, responsibilities of---Remarks were recorded in Performance Evaluation Report ("PER") of judicial officer for relevant period---Appellant (Judicial Officer) assailed order whereby respondent (Registrar High Court) declined his representation for expunction of remarks-in-question which stated that "He is advised to run his office with dignity and integrity"---Held, that from perusal of the contents of PER-in-question, it was not evident that any counseling was made to appellant by the Reporting Officer to improve his performance---There was nothing on record to justify his departure from the said general rule of making prior counselling before recording the adverse remarks---Pertinently, instructions contained in the PUNJAB ESTACODE Edition 2019, BOOK VII, captioned as "Instructions about Confidential Reports" and under the heading Ancillary Instructions, had not been followed in the present case---Matter of prior counselling before adverse remarks is mentioned vide D.O. No. 6/1/84-PDII, dated 12th February, 1984 from Establishment Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, to the Chief Secretary to Government of the Punjab, circulated vide Endorsement No. SOR-IV(S&GAD) 14-13/78(P) dated 16th May 1984 in Para 2(2) of ( subject) WRITING OF ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS ---Reporting or Countersigning Officers are obliged to offer counselling as to the performance of an officer apprising him of his weak points and advising him/her how to improve, and if the officer fails to improve despite counselling then adverse remarks may be recorded in the PER---It is up to the Supervisory Officers to see whether the counselling, advice or warning is to be given orally or in written form, or given publically in a general meeting of the officers or privately in a separate meeting with the concerned officer only---Primary purpose of the supervision is to guide the subordinate officers in improving their performance and efficiency, and that their role is more like a mentor rather than a punishing authority---Directions contained in the instructions, in said regard, on paying great attention to the manner and method of communicating advice or warning should be adhered to---Object of counselling is to improve the performance and efficiency of a subordinate officer, which can ultimately benefit the organization as it enables identifying and addressing performance issues before they become major problems---Record did not provide basis or direct evidence for the remarks-in-question---Remarks-in-question were recorded without prior counselling, thus, the same were unsustainable---Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned order passed by the respondent (Registrar High Court ; consequently, impugned remarks in appellant's PER for the relevant period stood expunged---Appeal was allowed.

Director General, Intelligence Bureau v. Riaz-ul-Wahab and others 2023 SCMR 877 ref.

Rai Sajid Ali Kharal for Appellant.

Nauman Sarwar for Respondent No.1.

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

2025 P L C (C.S.) 624

[Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal]

Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, Chairman and Abid Hussain Chattha and Rasaal Hasan Syed, Members

ZAFAR HUSSAIN BHATTI

Versus

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE through Registrar

Service Appeal No.06 of 2017, heard on 24th April, 2024.

(a) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999---

----R.6(3)---Judicial Officer---Pro form promotion---Appellant assailed orders whereby his request for grant of pro forma promotion as District and Sessions Judge was declined---Allegation against appellant was that while posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge he granted post arrest bail to an accused in case /FIR registered under S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to 15-1/2 kilograms Charas, which was an order passed beyond jurisdiction and amounted to inefficiency and misconduct---Held, that record revealed that the appellant was promoted as District and Sessions Judge (BS-21) on the recommendations of the Provincial Judicial Selection Board, (vide Notification dated 06.08.2012), however vide subsequently Notification dated 27.09.2016 his promotion was ordered to be withheld from the year 2012 for a period of three years retrospectively overlooking the fact that promotion already stood notified by the competent authority, which was neither rescinded nor recalled---It was not the case that the appellant was short of eligibility criteria for promotion and, admittedly, recommendations of a duly convened Provincial Judicial Selection Board were in his favour---Subsequent events, including allegations of inefficiency and misconduct on passing a bail order or pending inquiries, would become irrelevant once a promotion had been made after fulfillment of all legal and procedural requirements---Such matters may possibly be taken into consideration while processing case for further promotion---Tribunal allowed the appeal against the orders imposing penalty of withholding promotion for a period of three years retrospectively and declining proforma promotion to the appellant---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Khalid Usmani and others 2016 SCMR 2125 = NLR 2016 Service 117 ref.

(b) Locus poenitentiae, doctrine of---

----Valid order---Right, accrual of---Judicial Officer---Pro forma promotion---Appellant was promoted as District and Sessions Judge (BS-21) on the recommendations of the Provincial Judicial Selection Board, (vide Notification dated 06.08.2012), however, vide subsequent Notification dated 27.09.2016 his promotion was ordered to be withheld from the year 2012 for a period of three years retrospectively---Valid promotion order had already been passed in appellant's favour, which created certain rights in his favour---Power of receding an order is available with the authority before taking a decisive step--- The purpose behind such power is to retrace the wrong steps taken by the authority, with the exception that where the order has taken legal effect and in pursuance thereof certain rights have been created in favour of an individual, such an order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded to the detriment of his / her rights---Principle of animus revertendi or locus poenitentiae demand that when an order is acted upon and certain benefits have accrued to the person concerned under the order, the same cannot be withdrawn with retrospective effect to deprive that person of the accrued rights---Tribunal allowed the appeal against the orders imposing penalty of withholding promotion for a period of three years retrospectively pro forma promotion to the appellant---Appeal, was allowed, in circumstances.

Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407; Capital Development Authority Through Chairman, Islamabad and others v. Shabir Hussain and others 2022 SCMR 627 and Mrs. Zeenat Parveen Jaffery v. Secretary to Government of Sindh, Education Department and 4 others 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1260 ref.

(c) Civil service---

----Major penalty, imposition of---Retrospective effect---Competent authority, powers of---Major penalty cannot be imposed with retrospective effect unless the competent authority is expressly empowered in said regard by some statute or rules made thereunder.

Noor Muhammad v. The Member Election Commission, Punjab and others 1985 SCMR 1178 and Syed Sikandar Ali Shah v. Auditor-General of Pakistan and others 2002 SCMR 1124 ref.

(d) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999---

----R.6(3)---Judicial Officer---Pro forma promotion---Disciplinary proceedings---Conclusion, Delay in---Effect---Show-cause notice was issued on 29.05.2013; appellant furnished reply on 06.06.2013 and personal hearing was afforded on 08.06.2013, however the proceedings were concluded by issuing Notification dated 27.09.2016 i.e. after lapse of more than three years from personal hearing---No justification and sufficient reasons had been advanced by respondent for the delay in concluding the proceedings, especially when regular inquiry was dispensed with on the ground that a judicial order of the appellant was sufficient to show his inefficiency and misconduct---Pendency of disciplinary proceedings was also a punishment and appellant had suffered agony and mental torture for such a long period---Tribunal allowed the appeal against the orders imposing penalty of withholding promotion for a period of three years retrospectively and declining pro forma promotion to the appellant---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Raja Muhammad Shafique Javaid v. Lahore High Court through Registrar 2005 PLC (C.S.) 1015 ref.

(e) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999---

----R.6(3)---Judicial Officer---Bail granting order, passing of---Inefficiency and misconduct, allegation of---Powers and conduct of Judicial Officer---Scope---Appellant assailed orders whereby his request for grant of pro forma promotion as District and Sessions Judge was declined---Allegation against appellant was that while posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge he granted post arrest bail to an accused in case /FIR registered under S.9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to 15-1/2 kilograms Charas, which was an order passed beyond jurisdiction and amounted to inefficiency and misconduct---Held, that a judicial officer while hearing a case is at liberty to decide the same by applying law on the facts thereof based on the available record--- A decision passed by any judge may ultimately turn out to be wrong and be set aside by higher judicial forum---The erroneous exercise of judicial power resulting into passing of an order on the basis of incorrect application of law, however cannot and should not cast doubt on the integrity of the judicial officer---Quality of a judgment / order passed by a judicial officer can only be judged in appellate judicial proceedings and ordinarily not through disciplinary proceedings unless the extraneous considerations for which a judgment / order was passed are proved through cogent material brought before the inquiry officer---Inquiry officer / hearing officer while conducting disciplinary proceedings cannot act as the appellate / revisional forum over the judgments / order passed by the judicial officer---Judicial independence of subordinate judiciary is required to be observed and respected at all costs and the inquiry officer/hearing officer must tread extremely cautiously in such matters otherwise it would put a chilling effect on the working of the subordinate judiciary in performing their judicial functions freely and fairly---In the absence of any evidence it would not be fair to suggest that bail granting order passed by the judicial officer appellant was based on malice---Malice cannot be presumed on the basis of surmises and conjectures---In the present case, there was no supporting material to establish any extraneous considerations on the part of the appellant to have passed the order which was the subject matter of the inquiry---Impugned order was passed on the allegations of inefficiency and misconduct but no efforts were made to substantiate these allegations by way of a detailed inquiry, especially in view of stance of appellant that he secured outstanding PERs throughout his service career and received no adverse remarks of misconduct or being inefficient---Thus, the allegations of inefficiency and misconduct were also not proved, hence, impugned orders were unsustainable in the eye of law---Tribunal allowed the appeal against the orders imposing penalty of withholding promotion for a period of three years retrospectively and declining pro forma promotion to the appellant---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana AIR 1988 SC 1395; K.P. Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1031 and Rao Abdul Jabbar Khan v. Registrar, Lahore High Court, Lahore 2016 PLC (C.S.) 281 ref.

(f) Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1999---

----R.6(3)---Judicial Officer---Pro forma promotion---Promotion---Valid order---Effect---Penalty, imposition of---Appellant assailed orders whereby his request for grant of pro forma promotion as District and Sessions Judge was declined---Allegation against appellant was that while posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge he granted post arrest bail to an accused in case /FIR registered under S. 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, relating to 15-1/2 kilograms Charas, which was an order passed beyond jurisdiction and amounted to inefficiency and misconduct---Held, that record revealed that the appellant was promoted as District and Sessions Judge (BS-21) on the recommendations of the Provincial Judicial Selection Board (vide Notification dated 06.08.2012), however vide subsequent (Notification dated 27.09.2016), his promotion was ordered to be withheld from the year 2012 for a period of three years retrospectively---Thus, the order of imposition of penalty was not a valid order, therefore, there remained no justification to give different treatment to appellant from his ten other colleagues, especially when some of them were given posting immediately after issuance of the promotion order---Promotion was made as per eligibility criteria against the substantive posts after fulfillment of all legal requirements and same was also not rescinded at any subsequent stage---Tribunal allowed the appeal against the orders imposing penalty of withholding promotion for a period of three years retrospectively and declining pro forma promotion to the appellant---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore and others v. Muhammad Khalid Usmani and others 2016 SCMR 2125 = NLR 2016 Service 117 ref.

Ms. Sabahat Rizvi for Appellant.

Manzoor Hussain Dogar for Respondent.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 669

[Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal]

Before Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi, Chairman, Abid Husain Chattha and Rasaal Hasan Syed, Members

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZAHID, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE

Versus

LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE through Registrar

Service Appeal No.26 of 2013 and connected Service Appeal No.19 of 2010, decided on 17th January, 2025.

Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991)---

----S. 5---Judicial officer---Service appeal---Allegation of corruption and ill-repute---Recording of adverse remarks---Penalty of removal from service---Long service---Mitigating circumstances---Quantum of punishment---Principle of proportionality---Conversion of penalty---P.W. 4 during his examination-in-chief stated that appellant did not receive even a penny and during his cross-examination he denied his signature on the complaint and disowned its contents---P.W.5 during his cross-examination stated that he had not personally paid any illegal gratification to the appellant and could not identify the official, who allegedly demanded the illegal gratification---Charge of receiving illegal gratification had not been proved against the appellant, however, allegations of corruption and ill-repute remained on record---Owing to mitigating circumstances and analyzing different factors the penalty of removal from service was converted into compulsory retirement---Courts have consistently emphasized the importance of considering the employee's length of service, the nature of the offence and the context surrounding the misconduct---A fair and just approach to disciplinary actions is essential in maintaining morale and ensuring that penalties are proportionate to the offences committed---Penalty of removal from service was not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct proved against the appellant, thus, the same was converted into compulsory retirement---Appeal was partly allowed, in circumstances.

Akhtar Ali v. Director-General, Pakistan Post Office and others 2009 SCMR 1197; Farhad Ali v. Director General, Pakistan Post Office and others 2011 SCMR 608; State of Orissa and others v. Ram Chandra Das AIR 1996 SC 2436 or 1996 (5) SCC 331; Sukhdeo v. The Commissioner Amravati Division 1996 SCC (L&S) 1141 or 1996 (5) SCC 103 and S. Ramachandra Raju v. State of Orissa AIR 1995 SC 111 or 1994 (3) SCC(SUPP) 156 rel.

Ch. Zubair Ahmad Farooq and Ch. Muhammad Tariq-ur-Rehman for Appellant.

Zawar Ahmad Sheikh and Zubda tul Hussain for Respondent.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 47

[Balochistan High Court]

Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, CJ and Shaukat Ali Rakhshani, J

GHULAM MURTAZA and 4 others

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary and 3 others

C.P. No.313 of 2023, decided on 30th July, 2024.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 27 & 199---Appointment---Recruitment policy---Quota allocation based on classes and areas---Legality---Contention of the petitioner was that appointments in Government services should be made on Provincial level without observing any area based quota---Validity---Allocation of reserved seats at villages, union council, tehsil and municipal committee or corporation on ascending order meets the objectives of the quota system as enshrined in 3rd proviso of Art. 27 of the Constitution---Representation of citizen of any class or area in the service of Pakistan, squarely falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive based upon the trichotomy of the powers, i.e., legislature, which is vested with the function of law making, the executive with its enforcement; and the judiciary of interpreting the law---Thus, High Court can neither assume the role of policy maker nor that of law maker unless the policies assailed are based on mala fide or mis-exercise of authority---Recruitment policy ensured error free and transparent merit based recruitment of teachers, aiming to align the human resources and system in Secondary Education for the purposes of recruitment against the vacant posts to fill up the gap and reduce shortage of human resource---Policy had also been carved to provide full opportunity to the competing candidates on merits, based on transparency, fair competition and uniform recruitment procedure amongst aspirants of different union councils, districts and zones---Constitution petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Punjab Public Service Commission v. Hassnain Abbass 2021 SCMR 1017 rel.

Dr. Shahbaz Mujtaba Ghauri v. Punjab Public Service Commission through its Chairman Lahore and others (Writ Petition No.257665/2018) distinguished.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 25 & 27---Civil service---Quota system---Exception to general rule of equality---All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law with the prevention of discrimination on the basis of sex, however, Art. 25 simultaneously mandates that nothing in this Article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection of women and children---Basically quota system is enshrined under Art.27 of the Constitution but with an exception to the general rule of equality before law as enunciated under Art.25 and safeguard against discrimination in services provided for under Art. 27 of the Constitution.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 27---Civil service---Quota system---Adequate representation of people---Legislative rationale behind reservation of seats for specified classes and areas explained.

(d) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 27 & 254---Protection for a period of 40 years prescribed in Art.27 of the Constitution---Scope---Period of 40 years mentioned in Art.27 of the Constitution is also protected by Art.254 of the Constitution, which states that "if a thing or an act as ordained by the Constitution is not done within the stipulated period, it shall not become invalid or ineffective by reason only that it has not been done within the period specified".

Pasban Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan and others Constitutional Petition No.D-1906/2020 rel.

(e) Words and phrases---

----"Quota"---Definition.

Manzoor Ahmed Rehmani for Petitioners.

Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Additional Advocate General ("AAG") assisted by Najam-ud-Din Mengal, Deputy Attorney General ("DAG") for Respondents.

Muhammad Akram Shah for Respondent No.4.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 62

[Balochistan High Court]

Before Muhammad Ejaz Swati and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, JJ

GHULAM YASEEN and another

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Home and Tribal Affairs and 7 others

Constitutional Petition No.253 of 2024, decided on 15th October, 2024.

Police Rules, 1934---

----Chapt. XII, R.12.15---Police recruits---Physical standards---Minimum height of 5 feet 7 inch---Such minimum height was a standard/criteria and a condition precedent for the appointment of a candidate as Inspector---Contention of the petitioners was that in recruitment process appointments of some candidates were made in relaxation of rules by the Caretaker and elected governments without seeking opinion from the competent authority---Validity---Caretaker Chief Minister while relaxing the rules even did not sought opinion from the competent authority---No justification had been provided that why the cases of the respondents were considered despite the fact that in view of the physical standard criteria mentioned in the publication, number of candidates would not have participated in the recruitment process considering themselves short of requisite physical standard, so this subsequent relaxation had tarnished the recruitment process---Discipline in any uniform force could not be ensured without transparent and fair recruitment on merit---Respondents, who did not meet the physical criteria despite availability of other suitable candidates, were given relaxation in the physical standard set out clearly in the Police Rules, thus, such discretion exercised by the Caretaker Chief Minister may adversely affect the overall discipline of the force---Relaxations granted by the Chief Minister in favour of respondents were declared illegal and void ab initio---Some notifications of relaxation in physical standard subsequently were issued by the elected Chief Minister but in that regard too no justification for relaxation was provided---Special treatment was given to certain individuals in violation of applicable rules, thus all such recommendations in the impugned recruitment process whereby the rule regarding physical criteria had been relaxed were also declared illegal and without any legal effect---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances and relaxation granted by the Caretaker and elected government in physical standard criteria was set aside/withdrawn---Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Khawaja Asif case's 2013 SCMR 1205 rel.

Zareef Ahmed Soomro for Petitioners.

Ameer Hamza Jogezai, Additional Advocate General for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.

Muhammad Ali Kanrani and Ali Mujtaba Buledi for Respondents Nos.4 to 7.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 139

[Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal]

Before Mumtaz Ahmed, Chairman

REHMAT NABI

Versus

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT and others

Service Appeal No.476 of 2024, decided on 16th October, 2024.

Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act (XXXI of 1958)---

----S. 17(1)(b)---Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022 (II of 2023), S.2(b)---Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act (V of 2011), S.2(b)---Jurisdiction of Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal to entertain service appeal of WAPDA employees---Scope---Registrar of the Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal returned service appeal of the appellant for want of jurisdiction---Petitioner preferred a chamber appeal after availing remedies before the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court, and Supreme Appellate Court, Gilgit Baltistan, for determination of question of jurisdiction---Validity---Respondents/officials of WAPDA, performing their functions in respect of affairs of Government of Pakistan, and the organization were constituted under WAPDA Act, 1958, which was purely creation of the Constitution meaning thereby that the respondents/WAPDA had not been performing their function in respect of affairs under Gilgit-Baltistan Governance Order, 2018 and the terms and conditions given regarding the service of employees of Gilgit-Baltistan as enumerated in S.2(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 2011 and Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022, did not cover the service of appellant, thus, against the authorities, institution, department, organization, which were established under the authority of Government of Pakistan, were not performing the functions under the Gilgit-Baltistan Governance Order, 2018 and the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to hear the cases of employees of Gilgit-Baltistan as defined in S.2(b) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022---Services of the employee of WAPDA were governed by S.17(1)b of WAPDA Act, 1958 and service of employee of WAPDA was not covered within the definition of civil servant as provided under S.2(b) of Gilgit-Baltistan Service Tribunal (Amendment) Act, 2022, as well as S.2(b) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Servants Act, 2011 and Organization of WAPDA under WAPDA Act, 1958, were purely creation of the Constitution, thus, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter---Chamber appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Humayun Akhtar and others v. Chairman WAPDA and others PLJ 2008 Tr.C (Services) 374; 2013 SCMR 1707; Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602 and Muhammad Din v. WAPDA through its Chairman and others W.P. No. 08/20418 along with C. Misc. No. 18/2018 rel.

Aurangzeb Khan for Appellant.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 235

[Balochistan High Court]

Before Abdullah Baloch and Rozi Khan Barrech, JJ

Dr. CHAKAR RIAZ

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary Civil Secretarait, Quetta and 2 others

Constitutional Petition No.1652 of 2023, decided on 28th March, 2024.

(a) Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni Act (XV of 2021)---

----Ss. 4, 9 &11---Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni, appointment of---Procedure , non-observance of---Effect---Petitioner, who was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni ('Hospital'), sought to declare his transfer and appointment of respondent as new CEO, as illegal and void---Validity---According to the procedure for appointment of the CEO, as encapsulated under S.9 of Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni Act, 2021 ('the Act 2021'), the board shall appoint the CEO from a panel of three individuals recommended by the Special Selection Committee constituted under S. 11 of the Act 2021 after due selection process based on merit, while S. 4 of the Act 2021 clearly provides that appointment to the post of CEO falls within the purview of the board constituted under the Act---Surprisingly, the petitioner himself was transferred/posted as CEO of the hospital on the approval of the Chief Minister as a stopgap arrangement without recommendation/approval of the board while at the time of his transfer/posting the board had already been constituted---Similarly, the respondent was also posted / transferred as CEO of the hospital on the recommendation of the Chief Minister by the Secretary of Health without following the procedure laid down under S. 9 of the Act 2021---Therefore, the transfer/posting of both the petitioner and respondent being issued by Secretary Health on the recommendation of the Chief Minister were illegal, unlawful and had been issued without lawful authority and/or jurisdiction or contrary to the procedure as set out in the Act, 2021---Since both the transfer/posting of petitioner and respondent No.3 had been made in violation of the statutory enactment without jurisdiction, therefore, High Court directed the Board of Governors to make the appointment of a person as the CEO of the hospital under the provisions of the Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni Act, 2021---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

(b) Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni Act (XV of 2021)---

----Ss. 4, 9 &11---Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni, appointment of---Stopgap arrangement---Vested right---Petitioner, who was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni ('Hospital') as stopgap arrangement, sought to declare his transfer and appointment of respondent as new CEO, as illegal and void---Validity---Pertinently, at the time of transfer/posting, if the person possessing requisite antecedents to qualify for a particular post may not be available in the department and, while the selection for appointment is under process or is delayed due to some plausible reason for the time being, the competent authority, in view of exigency, may assign acting charge and current charge as a stopgap arrangement---Expression 'stopgap' means a temporary way of dealing with a problem or satisfying a need and/or something that can be used until something better or more permanent can be obtained---Ad-hoc appointment is made, or look-after/acting or additional charge is given, under exceptional situations as a stopgap arrangement for a limited period with the sole aim and intention to continue such appointment till the regular appointment on the post---Person appointed as a stopgap arrangement does not hold such a post in a substantive capacity; this arrangement characterizes a class which is distinct and dissimilar from those who are appointed to posts in service compliant with the relevant rules of recruitment---Look-after or additional charge as a stopgap arrangement does not entitle the incumbent to claim any benefit on account of such arrangement, which can be revoked or withdrawn by the competent authority at any time without assigning any reason---Since both the transfer/posting of petitioner and respondent had been made in violation of the statutory enactment without jurisdiction, therefore, High Court directed the Board of Governors to make the appointment of a person as the CEO of the hospital under the provisions of the Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni Act, 2021---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

(c) Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni Act (XV of 2021)---

----Ss. 4, 9 & 11---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Appointment of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni---Writ of quo warranto, issuance of---Scope---Petitioner, who was the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni ('Hospital'), sought to declare his transfer and appointment of respondent as new CEO, as illegal and void---Validity---Procedure of quo warranto gives the judiciary a weapon to control the Executive from making appointments to public office against the law and to protect a citizen from being deprived of public office to which he has a right---These proceedings also tend to protect the public from usurpers of public office, who may be allowed to continue either with the connivance of the Executive or by reason of its apathy---It will, thus, be seen that before a person can effectively claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to satisfy the Court that the office in question is a public office and is held by a usurper without legal authority and that inevitably would lead to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of the alleged usurper has been made in accordance with law or not---Transfer/postings of both the petitioner and respondent on the recommendation of the Chief Minister by the Secretary Health Department, who were not members of the board constituted under S. 9 of the Act 2021, were illegal and without jurisdiction---It is a popular principle of law that when a statute/law describes or requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all---Both the petitioner and respondent were not appointed as CEO of the hospital according to law and neither could claim their right as a matter of right---Such right can only be claimed when a decision is taken in accordance with the law---A wrong concession in favour of one person does not entitle any other person to claim the benefit of a wrong decision---Since both the transfer/posting of petitioner and respondent had been made in violation of the statutory enactment without jurisdiction, therefore, High Court directed the Board of Governors to make the appointment of a person as the CEO of the hospital under the provisions of the Pak-Oman Hospital Pasni Act, 2021---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Najamuddin Mengal, Hafeezullah and Salman Kakar for Petitioner.

Abdul Latif Kakar for Respondent No.3.

Nusrat Baloch, A.A.G. along with Abdul Nasir Kasi Law Officer Health Department for the Respondents/State.

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

2025 P L C (C.S.) 472

[Balochistan High Court]

Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, CJ and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J

AKHTAR HUSSAIN LANGOVE MEMBER PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY and 5 others

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Quetta and 3 others

C.P. No.905 of 2020, decided on 15th October, 2024.

Quetta Water and Sanitation Authority (Employee's Service) Regulations, 2011---

----Regln.13---Quetta Water and Sanitation Authority Act (XII of 2004), S.13(1)---Balochistan Water and Sanitation Authority Act (IX of 1989) (Since repealed), S.34(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Appointments in Quetta Water and Sanitation Authority (Q-WASA) from districts outside Quetta---Eligibility criteria---Determination---Residuary restrictions on employment---Participation of the petitioner in the recruitment process without challenging the regulations removing the residuary restriction for other districts of Balochistan---Laches---Contention of the petitioner was that employment in Q-WASA was only restricted to residents of Quetta District---Validity---Balochistan Water and Sanitation Authority Act, 1989 (Act, 1989), extended to all cities of the province of Balochistan having population of one lac or more and to such other areas, but Act, 1989 was subsequently repealed by the Quetta Water and Sanitation Authority Act, 2004 (Act, 2004), which was extended only to the Quetta District---Under S.13(1) read with S.34(2) of the Act, 2004 the authority with prior approval of the Government had made the Quetta Water and Sanitation Authority (Employees' Service) Regulations, 2011 (Regulations)---Regulation 13 of the same provides eligibility criteria for initial appointments---In the publication for the posts it was clearly mentioned that any applicant having either local certificate or domicile certificate of province of Balochistan could apply for the vacant posts lying in Q-WASA, which was in consonance with the Regulations---Petitioners instead of challenging Regln. 13 of the Regulations or the publication for appointment on different posts, participated in the recruitment process without any objection, but subsequently when they could not succeed they assailed the recruitment process on the ground that the candidates belonging to other districts of Balochistan could not have applied for the said posts and their subsequent appointments by Q-WASA were in violation of the Act of 2004---Petitioners despite having knowledge never questioned Regln. 13, which allowed all the residents of Balochistan either having local certificate or domicile certificate to apply for the posts advertised by the Q-WASA---Present petition also suffered from laches as the Regulations were in force since, 2011 but despite knowledge the same were not challenged and only after participating in the recruitment process and remaining unsuccessful the petitioners agitated their grievance---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Attaullah Langove for Petitioners.

Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, A.A.G for Respondents Nos.1 to 4.

Adnan Ejaz Sheikh for Private Respondent.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 523

[Balochistan High Court]

Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, CJ and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J

MUHAMMAD ILYAS

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary and 2 others

Constitution Petition No.1417 of 2022, decided on 22nd November, 2024.

(a) Balochistan Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Act (VI of 2011)---

----Ss. 13(6) & 17(2)(b)---Fundamental Rules, F.R. 54---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 13, 199 & 212---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Bar contained under Art. 212 of the Constitution---Scope---Reinstatement---Back benefits including arrears, seniority and promotion---Issuance of a directive by the Chief Secretary constituting a committee for determination of question as to back benefits---Misinterpretation of directive---Initiation of de novo inquiry on the same charges---Double jeopardy---Contention of the petitioner was that where an employee is reinstated/exonerated after detailed inquiry a subsequent de novo inquiry on the same allegations was illegal, void and violative of principle of double jeopardy---Validity---No final order qua terms and conditions of the service of petitioner had been passed, which could be assailed before the Service Tribunal, thus, the objection as to maintainability of the petition was without any merit---Petitioner, after reinstatement, applied for back benefits, arrears, seniority, and promotion---Secretary S&GAD directed the Balochistan Public Service Commission to proceed with the case under FR-54, subsequently, the Chief Secretary withdrew the S&GAD's letter, forming a committee to review the petitioner's back benefit claim in light of a judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan, however, Secretary S&GAD, misinterpreting the Chief Secretary's directive initiated a de novo inquiry with the same allegations the petitioner was already exonerated of---High Court found this new inquiry illegal, void, and violative the principle of double jeopardy under Art.13 of the Constitution---Statement of allegations/de-novo inquiry under S.13(6) of the Balochistan Employees' Efficiency and Discipline Act, 2011, was set-aside and the competent authority was directed to conduct the inquiry only to determine entitlement of the petitioner for back benefits in accordance with law or otherwise.

Muhammad Tariq Saeed and 2 others v. Government of the Punjab through Secretary Forest, Wildlife and Fisheries Department and 2 others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 884; Muhammad Bashir v. Government of Punjab and others 1994 SCMR 1801 and The Director-General (Field), Agricultural Department, Lahore and another v. Haji Abdul Rehman and 1989 SCMR 1224 rel.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 13---Double jeopardy---No one can be vexed twice for the same cause.

The Director-General (Field), Agricultural Department, Lahore and another v. Haji Abdul Rehman and 1989 SCMR 1224 rel.

Ms. Muhammad Ali Kanrani, Rasool Bakhsh Khosa and Ali Mujtaba for Petitioner.

Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Additional Advocate General ("AAG") assisted by Awais Ahmed, Law Officer Balochistan Public Service Commission for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 566

[Balochistan High Court]

Before Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar, CJ and Muhammad Aamir Nawaz Rana, J

REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Quetta and others

Constitution Petition No.1219 of 2024, decided on 16th October, 2024.

(a) High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020---

----Rr. 10 & 46---Alteration/change in the date of birth---Powers of Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC) to alter the date of birth of in-service employees of Balochistan High Court---Scope---Matter relating to terms and conditions of service---Remedy---Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC) altered the date birth of in-service employees of Balochistan High Court Establishment---Validity---Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC) was constituted to facilitate and dispose of the pension cases of retired civil servants which could not be disposed of by the administrative departments because of loss/tempering of service book, clerical error, alteration in date of birth or objection raised on the pension cases by the Accountant General Balochistan---Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC) had changed the dates of birth of certain employees of Balochistan High Court Establishment without any jurisdiction and lawful authority---Services of the employees of Establishment of Balochistan High Court were governed under the High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2020 (Rules, 2020), thus, relevant provisions relating to date of birth of an employee of the High Court establishment required judicial examination---As per R.10 of the Rules, 2020, date of birth of an employee shall be final if once entered in the record and it can only be challenged within one year of his entry in service---For matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of an employee of High Court Establishment, forum of Appellate Authority had been defined under R.46 of the Rules, 2020---Scrutiny of the orders/decisions of the PCDC in respect of change of date of birth of in-service employees of High Court Establishment and others showed that the incorporation of wrong dates of birth into the SAP system of Accountant General's Office had also been taken into account which was otherwise an illegality and irregularity warranting interference by High Court---Constitutional petition was disposed of declaring the decision of PCDC as to change of date of birth of employees of High Court as of no legal effect and were set aside and their dates of births were restored.

(b) Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009---

----R.11---Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1979, R.12-A (since repealed)---Alteration in date of birth by Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC)---Date of birth/declaration of age made at the time of entry into service shall be deemed to be conclusive as against the government servant, unless he applies for correction of his age within two years from the date of his entry into government service---Government, except in the cases of clerical mistake, could not change the date of birth of a civil servant, because a complete embargo had been imposed on its power---Permitting government servants to change their date of birth after two years of joining government service or at the twilight of their career would amount to permitting a civil servant to continue government service even after attaining the age of superannuation---Mere fact that the civil servants were able to obtain favorable orders from PCDC, having no jurisdiction, did not advance their cases---Constitutional petition was disposed of.

(c) Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009---

----R.11---Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1979, R.12-A (since repealed)---Alteration in date of birth of civil servant---Declaration from civil court after recording evidence, requirement of---For seeking correction in date of birth, a declaration is sine qua non which can only be issued by a civil Court of competent jurisdiction on the basis of evidence produced during the proceedings regarding the authenticity of the subject matter---In absence of any declaration, the Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC) was not empowered to change the date of birth, thus, the whole proceedings carried out by the PCDC were nothing, but squarely smacked mala fide at the part of PCDC as well as the civil servants---Constitutional petition was disposed of.

2021 SCMR 595 rel.

(d) Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (V of 1974)---

----S.4---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.212(1)(a)---Date of birth---Alteration---Civil servant---Matter relating to terms and conditions of service---Remedy---Remedy available to an aggrieved civil servant is to approach the Balochistan Service Tribunal through filing a service appeal under S.4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974----Date of birth of a serving public servant in his/her service record or service book is one of the terms and conditions of his/her service and matter pertaining to change and alteration of such date of birth amounts to service matter within the purview of Art. 212(1)(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan, which placed an embargo upon the jurisdiction of other ordinary Courts and authorities such as Pension Cases Disposal Committee (PCDC) to entertain service matters---Constitutional petition was disposed of.

Dawood Khan Nasar, Registrar Balochistan High Court (petitioner in person) assisted by Malik Shoaib Sultan, Deputy Registrar (Admin:) Balochistan High Court.

Muhammad Asif Reki Advocate General Balochistan assisted by Zahoor Ahmed Baloch, Additional Advocate General, Babar Khan, Secretary Finance, GoB, Syed Faisal Ahmed, Secretary S&GAD, GoB, Rehmatullah, Additional Secretary (Regulation) Finance Department, Najeeb-ur-Rehman, Law Consultant Finance Department, Muhammad Rafiq, Additional Secretary (Regulation) S&GAD and Noor Hussain Additional Secretary (Judicial) S&GAD for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 34

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Irfan Saadat Khan, Naeem Akhtar Afghan and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ

GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Agriculture, Peshawar and others

Versus

TAHIR MUSHTAQ and others

Civil Petition No. 288-P of 2015, decided on 12th September, 2024.

(Against the judgment dated 14.04.2015 of the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, passed in W.P. No. 468-A of 2013).

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 25 & 27---Civil service---Appointment---Quota reserved for son of retired employee---Constitutionality---Constitution prohibits discrimination as stated in Article 25 and further stipulates and entrenches the principle in respect of service of Pakistan in Article 27---In preferring the children of a government servant or reserving seats for them offends the Constitution---Same also detracts from a merit based system of employment---Taxpayers hard earned monies pay for the salaries, benefits and pensions of government servants---People's interest lies in having the best person for the job, and not to suffer at the hands of those who secure employment on the basis of a filial relationship.

Shah Faisal Ilyas, Additional A.G., Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for Petitioner.

Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate Supreme Court/Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 154

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Yahya Afridi, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and Irfan Saadat Khan, JJ

MOHSIN RAZA GONDAL and others---Petitioners

Versus

SARDAR MAHMOOD and others---Respondents

Civil Petitions Nos.949, 1025, 1028, 1132 to 1134 of 2023, decided on 13th September, 2024.

(Against the judgment dated 31.01.2023, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in I.C.A. No.514 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.2042 of 2020).

(a) Civil service---

----Contract employees---Regularization in service---Scope---Regularization of a contractual employee constitutes a fresh appointment into the stream of regular appointments in civil services.

Province of Punjab through Secretary Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others v. Dr. Javed Iqbal and others 2021 SCMR 767 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 90, 91 & 99---Executive authority of the Federation, exercise of---Scope---Article 90 of the Constitution provides that the executive authority of the Federation shall be exercised in the name of the President by the Federal Government, which includes the Prime Minister and Federal Ministers but the said authority has to be exercised subject to the Constitution---It means that whenever the authority is exercised, it has to be within the limits prescribed by the Constitution---Neither the Prime Minister nor the members of the Federal Cabinet are permitted to perform their functions beyond the legal provisions i.e. the Constitution, statutory law, and the rules.

(c) Civil service---

----Contract employees---Regularization of posts in BS-16 and above---Cabinet Sub-Committee, powers of---Scope---Rules of Business, 1973, were duly framed to conduct the business of the Federal Government---Under these rules, although there is a concept of Cabinet Sub-Committees on different subjects, there is no provision for the intervention of a Cabinet Sub-Committee in governing the terms and conditions of service of employees---However, the Cabinet Sub-Committee can recommend reforms in the service structure, which can be approved by the Cabinet in accordance with the law and the Constitution---As, the Cabinet Sub-Committee lacks the authority to recommend the regularization of posts in BS-16 and above, therefore, any recommendation by the Cabinet Sub-Committee to regularize appointments in BS-16 and above is void ab initio and without any lawful authority.

(d) Void order---

----Any action that is void ab initio and without lawful authority cannot be protected under the doctrine of a 'past and closed transaction'.

(e) Civil service---

----Contract employees---Regularization in service---Factors to be considered by an employer/institution opting for regularization of its contract employees---Any institution opting for regularization of its employees must be either mandated by law or must carry out regularization through a well-thought-out policy of the institution concerned laying down the criteria and the process for regularization; performance evaluation of the contractual employee must be assessed to determine if the employee meets the standards required for a regular position; there must be availability of positions that match the skills and experience of the contractual employee; the budgetary considerations and financial implication of a regular employee must be weighed and considered---There must be a fair assessment of the employee's qualifications, performance and merit, so as to ensure only competent and committed employees are granted permanent employment status.

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Islamabad and another v. Fazal-e-Subhan and others PLD 2024 SC 515; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest, Peshawar and others v. Sher Aman and others 2022 SCMR 406 and Messrs State Oil Company Limited v. Bakht Siddique and others 2018 SCMR 1181 ref.

(f) Employment---

----Appointments and promotions in public sector organizations---Transparency, merit and open competition, significance of---Appointments in the public sector based on corruption, nepotism, favoritism, lack of due process, and misuse of authority have long been a significant issue in our society---These practices undermine the principles of fairness and equality, eroding public trust in governmental institutions---When positions are filled not on merit but through personal connections or corrupt practices, it not only deprives deserving candidates of opportunities but also weakens the overall efficiency and integrity of the public sector---Upholding the values of transparency, merit, and open competition in public sector employment is essential for fostering a system where the most qualified individuals serve, ensuring that public resources are utilized effectively and justly for the benefit of all---Without adherence to these principles, the public sector risks becoming a tool for the powerful rather than a service for the people, perpetuating cycles of inequality and inefficiency---Therefore, it is imperative that the recruitment and promotion processes in the public sector be conducted with the highest standards of fairness and accountability, free from any undue influence or bias.

Hafiz S.A.Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Mrs. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.949 and 1028 of 2023).

Tariq Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1025 of 2023).

Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1032 of 2023)

Muhammad Ramzan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1033 of 2023).

Dr. G. M. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1034 of 2023).

S.A. Mahmood Khan Sadozai, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.2-3 (in C.P. No.949 of 2023).

Zubair Hussain Jarral, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.1025 and 1134 of 2023).

Nemo for Respondents (in other cases).

Hassan Nawaz Makhdoom, Additional Attorney General, Hammad Nazar, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Pakistani and HRD and Muhammad Abdullah, A.D. Legal FPSC for the Federation.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 200

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Munib Akhtar, Shahid Waheed and Irfan Saadat Khan, JJ

Dr. KHALID IQBAL TALPUR

Versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH and others

C.P.L.A. No. 1417-K of 2022, decided on 15th November, 2024.

(Against judgment dated 17.11.2022 passed by the High Court of Sindh at Hyderabad in C.P. No.D-1879 of 2022.).

Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Administrative Structure, Powers and Duties of Institute Officers Rules, 2021---

----Rr. 4(7)(i) & 4(7)(iv)---Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021, R. 6---Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Act (XXVI of 2013), S. 11---Executive Director ("ED") of the Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences ("Institute")---Appointment and re-appointment---Process and eligibility---Maximum age of candidate, dispute over---Whether an applicant for the post of ED can be up to 65 years of age, or cannot be older than 60 years?---Held, that proper resort to clause (iv) of sub-rule (7) of rule 4 of the Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Administrative Structure, Powers and Duties of Institute Officers Rules, 2021 (herein after "clause (iv)") must be regarded as a two-stage process---In the first stage, the Board must, if it is so minded, consider whether the outgoing ED is at all suitable for reappointment under clause (iv)---If it concludes that reappointment is not warranted or legally permissible the matter ends, and the Board must then move to appointing a new ED in terms of clause (i) of sub-rule (7) of rule 4 of the Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Administrative Structure, Powers and Duties of Institute Officers Rules, 2021 (herein after "clause (i)") and other applicable provisions---If however, the Board is of the view that a reappointment is both legally permissible and desirable for the purposes, and in the best interests of the Institute the matter would move to the second stage---Board must then move to seeking applications for appointment of other persons as ED under clause (i) and other applicable provisions---Any advertisement or other circular etc issued in this regard must clearly state that the outgoing ED is also under consideration for reappointment under clause (iv)---Once the fresh applications have been received and shortlisted and interviews held etc (which must be done independently of, and separately from, any consideration of the outgoing ED) the Board must then consider why the (best of the) applicants under clause (i) should not be appointed as the new ED and the outgoing ED be reappointed under clause (iv)---Here, the Board must also keep in mind the possibility of a "chilling effect" on actual or potential applicants of the fact that the outgoing ED is also under consideration for reappointment---If a decision is reached in favor of reappointment, then detailed reasons for the same must be given in writing by the Board and made public (by, inter alia, posting the same on the website of the Institute)---It is only by applying this two-stage process that there will be a proper, legally valid and harmonized application of clause (iv), as would allow for a reappointment of the outgoing ED that is sustainable in law---In the present case the retirement age was set by the Board itself, in exercise of section 24 of the Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Act, 2013 whereby the power of reappointment was reserved---In the impugned judgment the High Court failed to keep in mind that the only manner in which clause (iv) could be actuated, for purposes of reappointment, was by recognizing that the age limit would get enhanced beyond the sixty years set by the Sindh Institute of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Employees (Terms and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 ("TCS Rules"), which was for appointment---At the same time, one cannot lose sight of the fact that the procedure actually adopted by the Board was also legally defective---There was no application at all of the two-stage process by which alone a lawful resort could be had to clause (iv)---In setting a uniform age of 65 years in its decision and the consequent advertisement, the Board failed to keep in mind that it was dealing with two distinct exercises, one of appointment and the other of reappointment---Leave petition was converted into an appeal and was disposed of with the directions that the Board shall, if it is so minded, consider the case of petitioner for reappointment in terms of clause (iv); that if it is of the view that petitioner cannot or ought not to be considered for reappointment his case will come to an end, and the Board shall then proceed to consider the shortlisted candidates for appointment in terms of clause (i); that if however the Board is of the view that petitioner can be considered for reappointment, it shall then proceed to consider the shortlisted candidates for appointment in terms of clause (i) and thereafter and thereupon make a decision for appointment or reappointment, as the case may be; that the detailed reasons in writing required (twice) from the Board must be made public by inter alia posting the same on the website of the Institute and, in particular, provided to the respondent-candidate.

Prof. Dr. Asad Alam Khan and others v Government of Punjab and others 2021 PLC (C.S.) 304 distinguished.

Malik Naeem Iqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Hakim Ali Sh., Addl. AG., Sindh, Saghir Ahmed Abbasi, Addl. A.G., Sindh for Respondents Nos. 1-3 (via Video-Link, Karachi).

Sarmad Hani, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.4.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 227

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Yahya Afridi, Shahid Waheed and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President, Karachi

Versus

ROZ-UD-DIN and another

Civil Petition No.3649 of 2023, decided on 12th September, 2024.

(Against the judgment dated 30.08.2023 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta passed in C.P. No.570 of 2021).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 25---Employee of National Bank of Pakistan---Allegations of omissions and irregularities regarding ATM cash feeding, maintenance and balancing---Penalty of dismissal from service reduced to down gradation by one step in pay scale---Other employees facing similar allegations awarded lesser punishment---Discrimination---In the impugned judgment, the High Court rightly held that under similar facts and circumstances as well as the same set of allegations and charges the other employees of the Bank were awarded lesser punishment by the Disciplinary Cases Committee of the Bank, and no reason whatsoever had been assigned to single out the respondent who had been awarded the major punishment of dismissal from service which amounted to clear discrimination---Nothing had been brought on record to show that respondent was directly responsible or had committed any gross misconduct or negligence in respect of the allegations as contained in the charge sheet/show cause notice, whereas, the guilt regarding allegations and charges in the instant case had been duly accepted through confessional statement by another employee of the bank i.e. the Branch Manager against whom a criminal case was also registered, however, such aspect had been totally ignored while awarding the major punishment of dismissal from service, which, on the face of it, was otherwise not commensurate with the magnitude of the guilt and the role assigned to respondent---Neither in the charge sheet nor in the proceedings before the Disciplinary Cases Committee there was any direct charge of misconduct, fraud, embezzlement of fraud or even the connivance of respondent with the offence committed by the Branch Manager who had accepted his guilt and entire responsibility, therefore, on the allegation of not complying with office circulars to handle the ATM cash feeding and allowing the Branch Manager, who was reportedly performing the said duty as joint custodian, major penalty of dismissal from service was not only harsh but also disproportionate to the allegations/charge besides being discriminatory---Impugned judgment of the High Court by which it modified the penalty of dismissal from service awarded to the respondent to down gradation by one step in his pay scale was upheld---Petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Secretary to Government of the Punjab Food Department, Lahore and another v. Javed Iqbal and others 2006 SCMR 1120 ref.

(b) Civil service---

----Punishment, quantum of---Discretion of competent authority---Authority vested with discretion to award punishment to an employee has to ensure that such punishment should commensurate with the magnitude of guilt.

Malik Khushal Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (via video link from Quetta).

Kamran Murtaza, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat H. Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 255

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Amin-ud-Din Khan and Athar Minallah, JJ

SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, FINANCE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others

Versus

MUHAMMAD ANWAR

Civil Petition No. 848 of 2022, heard on 12th December, 2023.

(Against the judgment dated 05.1.2022 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No. 814(R)CS of 2019).

(a) Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973---

----Rr. 7 & 7-A---Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 9---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 5---Ante-dated promotion---Proforma promotion---Federal Service Tribunal, jurisdiction of---Whether the Tribunal was competent and vested with jurisdiction to declare the respondent (retired civil servant) 'qualified' for promotion when others were promoted and then simultaneously direct the competent authority to consider him for proforma promotion---Held, that it is implicit from the scheme provided under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 ('Act of 1973') read with the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 ('Rules of 1973') that promotion to a higher post is confined to a civil servant who has not retired or superannuated after attaining the age of superannuation---Said scheme does not contemplate for a civil servant to be considered for promotion after retirement or having attained the age of superannuation---Civil servant who has retired after attaining the age of superannuation cannot claim to be considered for promotion to a higher post---Question of evaluating the fitness or suitability for promotion has always been within the exclusive jurisdiction of the competent authority and it is not shared by the Service Tribunal or a Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction in respect of eligibility and qualification---Tribunal is, therefore, not competent nor vested to alter, vary or in any manner modify the scheme of promotion to a higher post explicitly prescribed under the Act of 1973 and the Rules of 1973---In the present case the Tribunal had transgressed its jurisdiction by declaring the respondent (retired civil servant) to be 'qualified' for promotion from the date others were promoted---Tribunal also fell in error by pre-empting the process required to be adopted by the designated forum for determining the eligibility and entitlement of the respondent for the purposes of proforma promotion---Petition was converted into an appeal and was partly allowed.

(b) Civil service---

----Promotion---Not a vested right---Promotion is neither a vested right nor could it be claimed with retrospective effect---What a civil servant may claim as of right under the law is that the latter should be considered when the cases for promotion are taken up---Civil servant cannot call upon a Tribunal or Court to direct the department to fill the promotion post forthwith or on a particular date or to keep it vacant or under consideration.

Abid Hussain Shirazai v. Secretary Ministry of Industries and Production 2005 SCMR 1742 and Muhammad Yousaf v. Chairman Railway Board 1999 SCMR 1559 ref.

(c) Administration of justice---

---If the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner it has to be done accordingly, otherwise it would not be in compliance with the legislative intent.

Zia ur Rehman v. Syed Ahmed Hussain and others 2014 SCMR 1015 ref.

Rana Asadullah Khan, Additional Attorney General for Petitioners.

Respondent in person.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 287

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Qazi Faez Isa, C.J., Amin-ud-Din Khan and Athar Minallah, JJ

MUHAMMAD HASSANULLAH (OMG/B-18), ACTING ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, BALOCHISTAN

Versus

CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA and another

Civil Petition No. 5795 of 2021 and Civil Petition No.2-Q of 2022, decided on 13th December, 2023.

(Against the judgment dated 30.10.2021 of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta passed in C.P. No.631 of 2021).

(a) Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (V of 1974)---

----S.4---Balochistan Civil Servants Act (IX of 1974), S. 2(1)(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 199 & 212---Employees of Balochistan Secretariat Service---Matter concerning terms and conditions of service--- Ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court---Scope---Questions and grievances relating to transfer and postings of a civil servant fell within the ambit of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant and thus were within the exclusive domain of an administrative Tribunal established under the command of Article 212 of the Constitution---In the present case, the respondents (employees of Balochistan Secretariat Service) were asserting a right which fell within their terms and conditions of service---They were admittedly civil servants within the meaning of the said expression as defined under the Balochistan Civil Servants Act, 1974 ('Act of 1974')---There was nothing on record to show that the respondents had availed the departmental remedies provided under the law---It was mandatory for them to have agitated the grievance in the manner prescribed under the scheme of law applicable to a civil servant under the Act of 1974 and the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974 ('the Tribunals Act)---Moreover, they had explicitly stated in the memorandum of the petition that the same matter was challenged and it was pending before the Tribunal---Objection regarding maintainability of the petition and its adjudication under Article 199 of the Constitution was raised by the Government but it was not adverted to by the High Court---Respondents were attempting to achieve an object which was not justiciable before the High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution---Bar under Article 212 had ousted the jurisdiction of the High Court---Declaration made by the High Court was, therefore, not sustainable---Matter was already pending before the Tribunal and thus the latter had the exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon it---Petitions were converted into appeals and allowed, and the impugned judgment was consequently set aside.

Ayyaz Anjum v. Government of Punjab, Housing and Physical Planning Department and others 1997 SCMR 169 and Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others 2007 SCMR 54 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 212---Civil service---Matter concerning terms and conditions of service---Bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution---Scope---Exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal and the bar contained under Article 212 are of such a nature that that they are attracted even if the grievance arises from an order which may involve questions of mala fide, coram non judice or having been passed without jurisdiction---Civil servant cannot bypass the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal by adding a ground of violation of fundamental right(s)---Service Tribunal will have exclusive jurisdiction in a case founded on the terms and conditions of service even if it involves the question of violation of fundamental rights---Service Tribunal will be vested with jurisdiction even where the case involves the vires of a statutory rule or notification---If a statutory rule or notification adversely affects the terms and conditions of a civil servant the same will be treated as a final order for the purposes of the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal.

Syed Arshad Ali and others v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. and others 2008 SCMR 314; Peer Muhammad v. Government of Balochistan through Chief Secretary and others 2007 SCMR 54; Khalid Mahmood Wattoo v. Government of Punjab and others 1998 SCMR 2280; Asadullah Rashid v. Haji Muhammad Munir and others 1998 PLC (C.S.) 1371; Noor Badshahd Khattak v. Government of NWFP and others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 1084 and I.A. Sherwani and others v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and others 1991 SCMR 1041 ref.

Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 5795 of 2021).

Ayaz Khan Swati, Additional Advocate General, Balochistan for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 2-Q of 2022)

Nemo for Respondents

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

2025 P L C (C.S.) 467

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

TARIQ KHAN and another

Versus

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL (NORTH) FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, ISLAMABAD and others

Civil Petitions Nos. 3463 and 3464 of 2021, decided on 7th November, 2024.

(Against the judgment dated 07.04.2021 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeals Nos. 118(P)CS of 2020 and 119(P)CS of 2020).

(a) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---

----Rr. 5 & 6---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 133---Disciplinary proceedings---Cross-examination, opportunity not provided---Effect---Civil servants were proceeded against departmentally and major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed---Validity---Main object of affording fair opportunity of cross examination in defence is to obliterate testimony of witness or witnesses to disprove charge or allegations both in civil and criminal matters, including domestic/departmental inquires conducted under labour laws or civil servant laws---Mere statement of any witness has no legal value unless he is subjected to cross-examination which cannot be envisaged as a concession---It is a vested right and a fundamental limb of dogma of fair trial---During regular inquiry, it is an unavoidable obligation of inquiry officer to provide fair opportunity of cross examining the witnesses without which it was not possible to fix responsibility for charges of misconduct---Such violation of an elementary principle of law sabotaged the fabric and substratum of entirety of disciplinary proceedings and worth and credibility of inquiry---On the basis of defective inquiry, major punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon civil servants---In total five persons were indicted in inquiry and on the strength of same inquiry report only two civil servants were punished with compulsory retirement, while one accused was punished with reduction to a lower time-scale and two senior officers were exonerated from inquiry proceedings---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal and matter was remanded to departmental authorities for de novo inquiry into the allegations against civil servants---Appeal was allowed.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 10A--- Civil service---De novo inquiry---Object, purpose and scope---Word "de novo" is a Latin expression which means "afresh, from the beginning or anew"---In de novo trial or de novo disciplinary proceedings, Court or competent authority is not required to refer to or rely on any conclusion or outcome of previous decisions or adjudications of Courts or authorities that had earlier seized the matter referred for de novo trial or inquiry---De novo trial or inquiry may be ordered or directed in order to meet the ends of justice and due process of law and further to ensure strict observance of conditionality envisioned for fair trial under Article 10A of the Constitution.

Aftab Alam Yasir, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Raja Shafqat Mehmood Abbasi, DAG and Anis M. Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record along with Sajjad, AD FIA for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 483

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Ayesha A. Malik, Irfan Saadat Khan and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ

GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore and another

Versus

ZAKA ULLAH and others

Civil Petition No. 1114-L of 2022, decided on 20th December, 2024.

(Against order dated 02.02.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Review Application No. 20 of 2021).

Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011---

----Rr. 19 & 25---Regularization of posts---Procedure---Vested right---Absence of approval of Finance Department---Provincial Government was aggrieved of direction issued by High Court to adopt special measures to regularize services of respondents / contract employees---Validity---Creation of new posts and change in employment status of respondents were decisions that fell squarely within the purview of R. 19 of Punjab Government Rules of Business Rules, 2011---Absence of Finance Department's approval for such decisions clarified the fact that there is no approval by Provincial Government---Posts were not approved for regularization---Employees cannot claim regularization as a matter of right---Regularization requires a statutory or legal backing and in absence of such a framework, Courts cannot impose any obligation on Government---Mere passage of time or length of service does not give rise to a vested right to regularization---There was no approval by Cabinet and no approval by Finance Department---Matter of regularization was never placed before Cabinet therefore, no recommendations could create any right in favour of respondents / contract employees---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court---Appeal was allowed.

Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2016 SC 808; Government of Balochistan v. Attock Cement Pakistan Limited 2024 SCMR 876; Mohsin Raza Gondal v. Safdar Mahmood 2025 SCMR 104 and Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest, Peshawar v. Sher Aman 2022 SCMR 406 ref.

Khalid Ishaq, Advocate General, Punjab for Petitioners.

Ch. Pervaiz Akhtar Gujjar, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and 5.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 510

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and another

Versus

MUHAMMAD AHMED KHAN and others

Civil Appeal No. 1671 of 2021, decided on 6th November, 2024.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 29.01.2021 passed by the Islamabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 1834 of 2020).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 185 (3)---Civil service---Upgradation of posts---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider whether respondents were already granted upgradation by means of Office Memorandum dated 03-10-2019 and grant of upgradation and redesignation of posts was a matter of policy and unless there existed a policy, relief regarding grant of upgradation and redesignation of posts could not be allowed by High Court.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 25---Civil service---Upgradation of post---Discrimination---Upgradation of post and promotion---Distinction---Authorities were aggrieved of direction issued by High Court in favour of respondents/civil servants regarding upgradation and redesignation of posts---Validity---Upgradation of a post is not a vested right, rather it stems from a policy decision intended to benefit a particular set of employees under the scheme embedded in the policy---Upgradation cannot be mixed up with promotion---In case of upgradation, employee continues to hold same post without any change in his duties but he is accorded a higher pay scale in order to mitigate distress associated with stagnation due to lack of progression of promotional avenues---Once Government announces a policy, it is also responsible for enforcing such policy across the board to accord benefit of policy to all those who are eligible under it and may benefit because of it---Court cannot interfere in policy making domain of government but when a widespread and comprehensive policy is announced to benefit employees, it should be implemented bigheartedly and generously, without adding any ifs and buts or discrimination that can stifle main objective of the policy---Similar laws, rules and polices should apply uniformly to all in similar situations, without any discrimination or distinction between one employee and another within the sphere of legislation or policy, provided that their status is substantially equivalent and indistinguishable---Even in cases of classification or categorization, such distinctions must not be arbitrary but should be based on reasons, qualities and characteristics that establish an intelligible differentia for those who have been left out of the arena or who have been excluded with clarity regarding the objective sought to be achieved---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art.25---Civil service---Discrimination---Effect---Literal connotation of word "discrimination" essentially refers to different treatment of the same kindor class of persons or behaving less favourably towards them---During the course of employment, discrimination occurs when an employer treats an employee less favourly or disadvantageously than others without any intelligible differentia---Equal treatment with equal opportunity is a corner stone for an egalitarian society, while acts of discrimination in workplace seriously undermine a harmonious working environment and create unrest among employees discriminated who are deprived of perks and privileges.

Rashdeen Nawaz Qasuri, Additional Attorney General of Pakistan for Appellants.

Ms. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court and Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 18.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 533

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

GUL ZARIF KHAN and others

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others

Civil Petitions Nos. 1925 to 2006 of 2024, decided on 5th November, 2024.

(On appeal from the Judgment dated 12.02.2024 passed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar in Service Appeals Nos. 1620, 1622 to 1624, 1626 to 1628, 1001, 1022,1052, 698, 723 of 2022, 1529, 999 of 2022, 1043, 687, 1049, 1039, 970, 976, 978, 958, 1736, 1053, 1026, 971, 1000, 1032, 711, 1033, 1009, 973, 686 of 2022, 1525 of 2023, 995, 1041, 1045, 758, 968, 956, 1017 of 2022, 1514 of 2023, 957, 1003 of 2022, 1524, 1522, 1520 of 2023, 1050, 961, 977, 1047, 1036, 1048, 751, 1020 of 2022, 1516 of 2023, 689, 994 of 2022, 1518 of 2023, 974, 1515, 1013 of 2022, 1523 of 2023, 738, 1028, 757, 955, 966 of 2022, 1527 of 2023, 1008 of 2022, 1511 of 2023, 967, 1056, 986, 708, 1002, 1016, 992, 959, 1023 and 714 of 2022).

(a) Career Structure for Health Personnel Scheme Ordinance (VI of 2011)---

----S. 2(b)---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974), S.4---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4 & 25---Service benefits---Discrimination---Health allowance---Devolved employees---Petitioners / civil servants were aggrieved of the fact that they were not given health allowance which was being given to devolved employees in same department---Appeals filed by petitioners/civil servants were dismissed by Service Tribunal---Validity---Petitioners/civil servants were not in the category of devolved employees who became employees of the Province by virtue of 18th Amendment to the Constitution---Petitioners/civil servants were employees of the Province since the beginning, whereas benefit of allowance was only extended to devolved employees who were covered under section 2 (b) of Career Structure for Health Personnel Scheme Ordinance, 2011---No such law or rule was ever promulgated by Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa for extending same benefits to originally employed persons to be treated alike---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Service Tribunal---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Capital Administration and Development Division, Islamabad and others v. Nusrat Tahir and others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 669 ref.

(b) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 25---Discrimination---Intelligible differentia, principle of---Applicability---Persons may be classified into groups and such groups may be treated differently if there is a reasonable basis for such difference---Principle of equality does not imply or connote that every law must have universal application to all class of persons---Oscillating or wavering needs of dissimilar sets of persons, which may have little in common, can be treated differently on logical perspicacity---For such classification to meet standards of fairness, self-actualization of two vital constituents must be fulfilled---Classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which may judiciously distinguish persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and second, the differentia must have a logical and sensible nexus with the object sought to be achieved---Expression "intelligible differentia" insinuates an act of exodus capable of making sense.

Pakcom Limited v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2011 SC 44 rel.

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Arts. 184(3) & 199---Judicial review---Government policy---Scope---Court under power of judicial review of governmental policy can neither act or represent itself as an appellate authority with the aim of scrutinizing rightness or aptness of a policy nor may it act as an advisor to the executives on matters of policy which they are entitled to formulate---However, judicial review can be sought when a decision-maker fails to observe statutory procedures; misdirects itself in law; exercises a power wrongly; improperly purports to exercise a power that it does not have; or the policy decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it.

Federation of Pakistan v. Shuja Sharif 2023 SCMR 129 and Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 201 rel.

Noor Muhammad Khattak, Advocate Supreme Court and Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Muzammil Khan, Additional Advocate General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Qayum Khan, Deputy Director and Abdur Rasheed, Deputy Secretary Finance for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 549

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Amin-ud-Din Khan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Irfan Saadat Khan, JJ

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE and 2 another

Versus

ALI AHMAD KHAN

Civil Petition No. 2330-L of 2019, decided on 23rd October, 2024.

(Against the order dated 18.06.2019 passed by Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 3212 of 2016).

(a) Civil service---

----Deterrent punishment---Object, purpose and scope---Purpose of deterrent punishment is not only to balance gravity of wrong done but also to maintain discipline and decorum in an establishment---Such punishment at times serves as a preventive measure or example for others in the interest of societal reformation.

Postmaster General Balochistan v. Amanat Ali and others 2024 SCMR 1484 = 2024 PLC (C.S) 1051; Postmaster General Sindh Province, Karachi v. Syed Farhan 2022 SCMR 1154; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Nargis Jamal 2022 SCMR 2114 and Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services, D.G. Khan v. Nadeem Raza 2023 SCMR 803 rel.

(b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)---

----S. 4---Service appeal---Absence without leave---Appellate jurisdiction, exercise of---Pre-conditions---Respondent/civil servant remained absent from duty without leave and was proceed against departmentally---Authorities imposed major penalty of reduction to lower post---Service Tribunal allowed appeal filed by respondent/civil servant and set aside the penalty---Validity---While exercising appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of Service Tribunals Acts the first and foremost duty is to thoroughly examine all facts of the case and diligently address all factual and legal pleas raised by parties, and then decide whether proceedings for misconduct, initiated through show cause notice and statement of allegations, have duly been proved or not---In case penalty is imposed as a result of a regular inquiry, it is also necessary to examine inquiry proceedings and inquiry report, along with recommendations forwarded by inquiry officer/inquiry committee to competent authority for further action in accordance with law---In service appeals challenging minor or major penalties imposed upon civil servants, core issue is to evaluate gravity of charges and proof of guilt of delinquent during inquiry---Without adverting to inquiry proceedings and report, it would not be possible for Service Tribunal to reach a just and proper conclusion---Merely treating period of absence without pay in cases where punishments are imposed by competent authority other than dismissal/removal from service neither exonerate respondent from charge of misconduct nor act of misconduct is vanished on such count alone---In the present case such benefit was accorded by taking a lenient view to avoid breakup in the length of service only which did not amount to exoneration from period of absence---Supreme Court set aside order passed by Service Tribunal and service appeal filed by respondent / civil servant was dismissed---Appeal was allowed.

Lahore Development Authority v. Muhammad Nadeem Kachloo 2006 SCMR 434 distinguished.

Baleegh-uz-Zaman Ch., Addl.AG, Punjab for Petitioners.

Muhammad Anwar Bhanr, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent (through video link Lahore).

2025 P L C (C.S.) 575

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Amin-ud-Din Khan and Jamal Khan Mandokhail, JJ

Mst. ANITA ANAM

Versus

GENERAL PUBLIC and another

Civil Petition No. 256-Q of 2020, decided on 2nd January, 2025.

(Against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dated 28.09.2020 passed in Civil Revision No. 199 of 2020).

(a) Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989---

----R. 4.10 (2) [as amended]---Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), Ss. 372 & 373---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. II, R. 2---Succession certificate---Family monthly pension---Failure to include all claims---Successive proceedings---Scope---Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Applicability---Petitioner was unmarried daughter of deceased civil servant and had applied for family monthly pension---Succession Certificate was refused to her by the Courts below on the plea that she did not include claim of family monthly pensionin earlier succession application---Validity---Judge is empowered to issue more than one certificates, as provided by sections 372 (3) and 373 (3) and (4) of Succession Act, 1925---No limitation under Succession Act, 1925, has been placed upon right of parties in filing more than one application---Any decision made under Part-X upon any question of right between parties, does not bar trial of the same or related question in any subsequent proceedings under Succession Act, 1925 or in any suit or other proceedings between same parties---No person has been restricted under Succession Act, 1925 from filing application in respect of a portion of claim which he omitted while filing earlier application---Provisions of C.P.C. cannot be applied to matters falling under Succession Act, 1925 which is a special law and a specific procedure has been provided---Provisions of Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. are not attracted in the matters under Succession Act, 1925---Where Succession Act, 1925 is silent on matters relating to procedure for trial of case, procedure provided by C.P.C. may be adopted to regulate proceedings--Earlier certificate issued to petitioner was in respect of amount left by her late father in his bank account, whereas, through second application, she was claiming her share in monthly family pension---Supreme Court set aside decision of High Court which was based upon unamended Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989, and was an illegality---Supreme Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to determine status, entitlement and share of petitioner in family monthly pension---Appeal was allowed.

(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)---

----Ss. 372 & 373---Successive application for grant of Succession certificate---Maintainability---There is no bar under Succession Act, 1925 in filing successive applications for grant of a certificate---No limitation can be imposed upon filing second application for grant of a certificate---Any person aggrieved from order granting earlier certificate, has a right to avail his remedy provided by law, subject to all just exceptions.

Manzoor Ahmed Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Gohar Yaqoob Yousafzai, Advocate-on-Record along with petitioner for Petitioner.

Muhammad Riaz Akhtar Tareen, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.M.A. No. 185-Q of 2024).

Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, Addl. A.G. Balochistan, Muhammad Ayub Tareen, Asstt. A.G. Balochistan, Noor Hussain Baloch, Addl. Secy S&GAD, Haji Muhammad Naeem, Addl. Secy, S&GAD (PAY), Rehmat Ullah Kakar, Dy. Secretary Finance and Abdul Wajid, Representative, A.G., Balochistan for Respondent No.1.

Muhammad Mehmood Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 583

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance Division and another

Versus

ABDUL RASHEED MEMON

Civil Petition No. 1124-K of 2023, decided on 20th December, 2024.

(Against judgment dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (Karachi Bench) in Appeal No. 134 (K) CS of 2021).

(a) Words and phrases---

----Per incuriam---Connotation---Verdict of a Court is considered per incuriam when it is rendered in ignorance of a statute or rule having force of statute.

Rupert Cross & J.W. Harris, Precedent in English Law, 149 (4th ed., 1991); Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition)]; C.C.K. Allen in Law in the Making (Page 246); Huddersfield Police Authority v. Watson (1947) 2 All E.R.193; Morelle Ltd. v Wakeling (1955) 2 QB 379 and Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. 1944 KB 718 at 729 = (1944) 2 All E.R. 293 at 300 rel.

(b) Service Tribunals Act ( LXX of 1973)---

----S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 189---Service appeal---Stare decisis and precedent---Distinction---Authorities were aggrieved of judgment passed by Service Tribunal in violation of the principle already laid down by Supreme Court---Effect---Doctrine of stare decisis, is a Latin term that connotes "let the decision stand" or "to stand by things decided"---Law declared by Supreme Court should be certain, translucent and rational, as most decisions not only constitute a determination of rights of parties but also set down a declaration of law that serves as binding principles in future cases, thereby contributing to development of jurisprudence---Doctrine of precedents, vis-à-vis stare decisis has fundamental value in ensuring an objective certitude and firmness in legal system---Rule of adherence to judicial precedents finds it expression in the doctrine of stare decisis, which posits that when a point or principle of law has officially been decided or settled by ruling of a competent Court in a case where it was directly and necessarily involved, it should no longer be considered as open to re-examination or to a new ruling---Such policy of Courts is conveniently termed as doctrine of stare decisis---Rationale behind such policy is the need to promote certainty, stability and predictability in law---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal as the same was passed against the law settled by Supreme Court---Appeal was allowed.

Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 483 rel.

Khalique Ahmed, Deputy Attorney General for Petitioners.

Respondent in person.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 612

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Amin-ud-Din Khan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance, Islamabad

Versus

MUHAMMAD ATIQ-UR-REHMAN and others

Civil Petition No. 687 of 2022, decided on 5th December, 2024.

(On appeal from the Judgment dated 05.01.2022 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 814(R)CS of 2019).

Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---

----S. 4---Terms and conditions of service---Pay package---Employments of two different creeds---Judgment per incuriam---Respondent/civil servant was employee of Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC), an autonomous body, who switched his service through Federal Public Service Commission and was appointed as Assistant Director---Respondent/civil servant was aggrieved of disallowing the benefit of pay protection by government---Service Tribunal allowed his appeal on the foothold that when contract employees, who were also non-civil servants, could get their pay-protection vide Finance Division's O.M dated 31-05-2013, then it would be discriminatory not to allow benefit of pay-protection to other non-civil servants---Validity---There was no rationale to compare or equate two different creed of employees within the one and the same employment status/pattern to invoke or bring up equality clause or treating it discriminatory rather than considering grant of pay-protection strictly in accordance with applicable rules and policy---When any decision of Court or Tribunal was found in ignorance or lack of knowledge of a relevant statutory provision or a binding decision of Court of earlier provisions or decisions, it was called a decision per incuriam, i.e., the decision was made in unfamiliarity/ignorance or obliviousness of pertinent statues or precedents as done by Service Tribunal in the present case---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal resultantly appeal filed by respondent / civil servant was dismissed---Appeal was allowed.

Muhammad Azam Chaudhry v. Federation of Pakistan Civil Appeal No. 1158 of 2009; The Ministry of Finance through Secretary Government of Pakistan, Islamabad v. Atiq-ur-Rehman and another C.P. No. 5046 of 2017; Wharton's Law Lexicon Fifteenth Edition; Satrucharla v. Vijayarama (2006) 1 SCC 212 and Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder and others v. Federation of Pakistan and another PLD 2010 SC 483 rel.

Ch. Aamir Rehman, Additional Attorney General, Aitzaz Alam, S.O. Ministry of Finance, Faraz Ahmad, S.O. Ministry of Finance and Syed B.H.Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

M.D.Shahzad, Advocate Supreme Court for FBR.

Ms. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No. 1.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 640

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Amin-ud-Din Khan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

CHAIRMAN, NADRA, NADRA HEADQUARTER, ISLAMABAD and others

Versus

ABDUL MAJEED and another

Civil Petition No. 6059 of 2021, decided on 28th November, 2024.

(On appeal from the Judgment, dated 18.10.2021 passed by the Lahore High Court Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur in W.P. No. 6539 of 2014).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 25---Employment---Regularization of service---Disabled person---Discrimination---Petitioner/National Database Registration Authority (NADRA) was aggrieved of direction passed by High Court to regularize services of respondent/employee---Validity---Petitioner/NADRA provided job opportunities to disabled persons based on their ability and capacity to work---If a disabled person, initially appointed on a contractual basis, had performed his duties for a considerable period of time to the satisfaction of his superiors/department, then proprietary demanded that he should be regularized as a permanent employee so that he could reap all employment benefits, rather than being dragged on contractual basis perpetually---Respondent/employee was only three days short of completing required one year of service, but was denied regularization, while other similarly situated employees, who were short by a greater margin than the respondent/employee were accommodated as directed by High Court without any challenge to that judgment---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court as there was no illegality or perversity---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Chairman NADRA, Islamabad, through Chairman, Islamabad and another v. Muhammad Ali Shah and others 2017 SCMR 1979; Federal Board of Revenue v. Messrs. Hub Power Company Ltd. and others PLD 2023 SC 207; NWFP Public Service Commission v. Muhammad Arif 2011 SCMR 848; Fida Hussain v. The State PLD 2002 SC 46; Pakistan Telecommunication Co. Ltd. v. Iqbal Nasir PLD 2011 SC 132; Imtiaz Ali Malik v. Mst. Surrya Begum 1979 SCMR 22; Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Samina Masood PLD 2005 SC 831; Accountant General for Pakistan (Revenue) through Auditor-General v. Zia Mohy-ud-Din PLD 2008 SC 164; Mst. Shohrat Bano v. Ismail Dada Adam Soomar 1968 SCMR 574; Punjab Employees Social Security Institution Lahore and others v. Manzoor Hussain Khan 1992 SCMR 441; Province of Punjab through Secretary Excise and Taxation, Government of Punjab v. Sargodha Textile Mills Ltd., Sargodha PLD 2005 SC 988 and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Messrs Media Network PLD 2006 SC 787 ref.

(b) Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) Ordinance (XL of 1981)---

----Preamble---Islamabad Capital Territory Rights of Persons with Disability Act (XXXV of 2020), Preamble---Punjab Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act (XLII of 2022), Preamble---Sindh Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act (XLVIII of 2018), Preamble---Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Disabled Persons (Employment and Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Act (XVI of 2012), Preamble---Balochistan Persons with Disabilities Act (II of 2017), Preamble---Rights of disabled persons---Object, purpose and scope---Raison d'etre of such legislation is not to merely provide some benefits as an act of compassion but to rejuvenate category of such persons who suffer from some disabilities, despite their challenges, and are differently abled, and deserve to live with dignity and contribute meaningfully to society---These are individuals who require encouragement and motivation so that they may also enjoy fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution, just as other citizens do---It is imperative for all government levels to facilitate their integration into mainstream, enabling them to leverage their abilities and sense of worth---This in turn, allows them to earn a livelihood with respect and independence, rather than relying on financial assistance or help, which may hurt their ego and undermine their self-esteem and dignity---Teachings of Islam also emphasize benevolence, care, and compassion towards such individuals, urging to adopt a wide ranging and solicitous approach to empower them for active participation in society with dignity and vitality.

Hafiz S.A.Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court along with Anis Muhammad Shahzad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Muhammad Tariq, Aftab Alam Yasir, Advocates Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 675

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Amin-ud-Din Khan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

AAMIR AKBAR

Versus

ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BAHAWALPUR and others

Civil Petition No. 921-L of 2017, decided on 4th December, 2024.

(On appeal from the Judgment dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 5720 of 2015).

(a) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)---

----S. 4---Appeal---Object, purpose and scope---Misconduct---Departmental inquiry is to determine whether a case of misconduct is made out and whether accused is found guilty by inquiry officer/committee---As a fact finding forum, Service Tribunal is obligated to ascertain whether due process of law or right to a fair trial, as envisaged under Article 10A of the Constitution, was followed---Regular inquiry cannot be considered or labelled as regular inquiry unless fair opportunity is provided to defend the charges.

(b) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)---

----S. 4---Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, R. 5---Departmental inquiry---Object, purpose and scope---Misconduct---Proof---Principle of natural justice---Applicability---Petitioner/civil servant was dismissed from service on the charges of misconduct and his appeal was also dismissed by Service Tribunal---Validity---Principles of natural justice require that delinquent should be afforded fair opportunity to contest charges before he is found guilty---No efforts were made by inquiry officer either intentionally or unintentionally to explore guilt of petitioner/civil servant---Such inquiry report could not be construed as fair and impartial, nor was it commensurate with the procedure provided under Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 for conducting an inquiry into allegation of misconduct---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal and order passed by authorities imposing major punishment of dismissal from service was also set aside---Supreme Court remanded the matter to departmental authorities for conducting a de novo regular inquiry into the same allegation of misconduct jotted down in the charge sheet and provide fair opportunity to petitioner/civil servant to defend the charges, as inquiry proceedings and report were defective---Supreme Court directed the authorities to pass speaking order and convey the same to petitioner/civil servant---Appeal was allowed.

Muhammad Munir Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court and Syeda B.H. Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.

Baleegh uz Zaman, Addl. AG, Punjab and Muhammad Wasif, DSP (Legal) Bahawalnagar for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 699

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through Chairman Pakistan Railways, Islamabad and another

Versus

MUHAMMAD AMIN

Civil Petition No. 512 of 2022, decided on 11th December, 2024.

(On appeal from an Order dated 29.11.2021, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad on Misc. Petition No. 1893 of 2018 moved in Appeals Nos. 1879 to 1883 (R) CS of 2013).

Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---

----S. 4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12 (2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212 (3)---Order of Service Tribunal---Plea of fraud, misrepresentation or lack of jurisdiction---Petitioner/Pakistan Railways was aggrieved of dismissal of its application to set aside order passed by Service Tribunal directing the petitioner/Pakistan Railways to upgrade post of respondent/employee---Validity---All sweeping grounds were alien to the provision of Section 12(2), C.P.C. for setting aside any judgment and decree, wherein applicant/person is obligated to characteristically and judiciously point out act of fraud, misrepresentation or want of jurisdiction, if any---Elementary constituents were missing from the application filed by petitioner/Pakistan Railways before Federal Service Tribunal, which was rightly dismissed---Service Tribunal exercises exclusive jurisdiction as a fact finding forum in respect of matters relating to terms and conditions of service of civil servants and for the matters connected there with or ancillary thereto---Exclusive appellate jurisdiction is exercised by Service Tribunal in the cases of civil servants to vet and examine departmental orders passed against civil servants---Civil servants may approach Tribunal against an adverse order within the specified limitation period for filing an appeal, where either an order is passed on his departmental appeal, or if departmental appeal is not decided within the prescribed period of time, the aggrieved civil servant may approach and file appeal before Service Tribunal within the statutory period---Matter reaches Service Tribunal against adverse orders but after it has been filtered through departmental hierarchy or chain of command---Onerous duty of service Tribunal, as an appellate forum, is to determine whether departmental action taken against civil servant, complies with the law or not---Filing application under section 12(2), C.P.C. with the prayer to dismiss an application moved for implementation of a judgment of Federal Service Tribunal was no solution after the judgment had attained finality up to Supreme Court---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Federal Service Tribunal as the same was based on correct exposition of law---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Umer Sharif, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (via video link from Lahore).

Nemo for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 723

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ

MUHAMMAD NASIR ISMAIL

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Law and Parliamentary Affairs Division, Lahore and others

C.P.L.A. No. 3062 of 2022, decided on 25th February, 2025.

(Against the judgment dated 30.05.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi in W.P. No. 1806 of 2013).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 10A---Civil service---Disciplinary proceedings---Due process---Affected civil servants must be granted a fair hearing, and disciplinary proceedings must adhere to legal requirements---Due process ensures that no officer is unjustly penalized without being given an opportunity to present their defense---Courts must exercise judicial restraint and avoid undue interference with executive discretion---Judicial review is necessary to prevent abuse of power---Courts must respect autonomy of Executive branch in managing its employees---Judicial intervention should be limited to cases involving clear illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fide intent---Courts must balance individual rights with the larger public interest.

(b) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)---

----Ss. 5 & 13(5)(ii), second proviso---Disciplinary proceedings---Major penalty, imposing of---Absence without leave---Principle of proportionality---Applicability---Punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed upon civil servant who remained absent from service for 48 days, without leave---Validity---Authority of competent authority in imposing any of the three major penalties is not restricted under second proviso to section 13(5)(ii) of Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, even where period of absence from duty is less than one year---Where competent authority elects to impose a major penalty in cases of absence from duty for less than a year, it must do so in accordance with the principle of proportionality---Civil servant remained absent from duty for a total of 48 days and imposition of major penalty of compulsory retirement failed to meet test of proportionality---Neither the punishment established rational nexus between misconduct and severity of penalty nor it considered less restrictive alternatives---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by High Court to the extent of the penalty imposed---Supreme Court directed that reinstatement of civil servant would be subject to a fresh determination by competent authority---Supreme Court directed competent authority to revisit case of civil servant and impose a penalty commensurate with the gravity of misconduct---Appeal was allowed.

Sunni Ittehad Council v. Election Commission of Pakistan PLD 2025 SC 67; East and West Steamship v. Pakistan PLD 1958 SC 41; Pramath Nath v. Kamir Mondal PLD 1965 SC 434; Hamdard Dawakhana v. C.I.T PLD 1980 SC 84; Kadir Bux v. Province of Sindh 1982 SCMR 582; K.E.S.C. Progressive Workers' Union v. K.E.S.C Labour Union 1991 SCMR 888; Nawaz Bibi v. Allah Ditta 1998 SCMR 2381; N S Bindra, Interpretation of Statutes Lexis Nexis, 13th Edition, 2022; De Smith's Judicial Review Sweet and Maxwell, 8th Edition, 2018; Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board PLD 2019 SC 189; Muhammad Iqbal Khan Noori v. NAB PLD 2021 SC 916 and Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza 2023 SCMR 803 rel.

Haseeb Shakoor Paracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Haroon Irshad, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 746

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Amin-ud-Din Khan, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Additional Chief Secretary Development, P&D Department, Quetta and another

Versus

MUHAMMAD AKHTAR and others

Civil Petition No. 100-Q of 2023, decided on 3rd December, 2024.

(On appeal from the Judgment dated 14.03.2023 passed by the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta in Constitution Petition No. 2080 of 2022).

(a) Civil Service---

----Recruitment---Duties of Recruitment Committee---Principle---Exercise of recruitment is an onerous and conscientious duty and if it is assigned to a person or committee, they are obligated to conduct the process fairly and squarely and according to the mandate given by recruitment agency/department to recommend suitable candidates for filling up vacant positions/posts advertised for application by interested candidates---Selection/Recruitment Committee cannot travel beyond its mandate---Neither can it subtract any post nor add any post in selection process and it is obligated to adhere to the terms of reference and conduct recruitment process strictly for the sanctioned posts allowed to be included in written test and interview by candidates---Selection Board or Recruitment Committee can only recommend candidates for issuing offer or appointment letters who are strictly selected on merit for the sanctioned posts, without deviating from terms and conditions of advertisement published for the information of general public---Predominant task of Recruitment Committee should be selection of suitable candidates, which is the substratum of a fair, transparent and efficient recruitment process---Key responsibilities of Recruitment Committee are to first determine how many positions have been advertised for inviting applications; to scrutinize all applications for shortlisting; and to examine whether all required antecedents and credentials have been attached and vetted for the purpose of initial shortlisting of applicants; whether applicant joined competitive process and qualified written test, if any such condition is required to be complied with, then to assess marks on merits; and subsequently conduct interview according to the merit list, awarding interview marks---Recruitment Committee may also consider granting additional marks for additional/value-added qualifications or experience as mentioned in the advertisement inviting applications.

(b) Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1979---

----R. 3---Recruitment---Appointment letter, non-issuance of---Recruitment process, annulment of---Petitioner/authorities were aggrieved of direction issued by High Court to issue appointment letters to respondents/candidates who had been recommended for selection by Recruitment Committee---Held, that Recruitment Committee must undertake recruitment process according to conditions outlined by concerned department in consultation with Services and General Administration Department of Balochistan Government---Recruitment Committee was bound to strictly follow the criteria fixed for appointments with required number of posts---Committee was obligated to complete the process and send recommendations without deviating from or departing from benchmarks to achieve the goal---Recruitment process was declared null and void by competent authority, however it did not debar respondents/candidates from participating in competitive process initiated afresh by authorities for appointment to the same required post---All respondents/candidates could apply afresh in response to advertisement published in newspaper inviting applications for vacant situations---Supreme Court set aside the direction issued by High Court on Constitutional petitions filed by respondents/candidates---Appeal was allowed.

Uzma Manzoor and others v. Vice-Chancellor Khushal Khan Khattak University, Karak and others 2022 SCMR 694 distinguished.

M. Ayaz Swati and Tahir Khattak, Addl. Advocates General, Balochistan for Petitioners.

Taimoor Aslam Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record along with Ahmad Raza, in person for Respondents

2025 P L C (C.S.) 767

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Ayesha A. Malik and Malik Shahzad Ahmad Khan, JJ

MUZAMMAL KHAN

Versus

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, LAHORE and others

Civil Petition No. 1354 of 2023, decided on 4th February, 2025.

(Against judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 4271 of 2020).

Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---

----S. 4---Dismissal from service---Absence without leave---Interference in penalty---Principle---Substantial question of law of public importance---Scope---Petitioner/civil servant remained absent from service and was proceeded against departmentally and was dismissed from service---Penalty imposed by authorities was maintained by Service Tribunal---Validity---Tribunal or Court intervenes due to severity or nature of penalty imposed by competent authority by considering it unreasonable, perverse, excessively harsh, or by exercising leniency---Such interference is based on conclusion that penalty is disproportionate to proven misconduct as determined through test of proportionality---Interference with penalty imposed by department must be approached with caution and careful consideration, reserved for cases where order is entirely perverse or so clearly disproportionate and excessive to the misconduct that allowing it to stand would be unfair, unjust, and inequitable---Petitioner/civil servant was repeatedly served and called to present his defence but chose not to, particularly in the appeal and the revision which he himself filed yet failed to appear in or tender his defence---Cases of willful absence from duty are fairly straightforward as government officers who deliberately are absent from duty without permission are aware of the fact that they would be proceeded against for their absence from duty---Legal issue may qualify as a substantial question of law of public importance if it; (i) requires interpretation of law, rules, instructions, notifications or governmental policy; (ii) remains unresolved by Supreme Court or is subject to ambiguity, conflicting interpretations, or requires a discussion of alternative perspectives; (iii) exposes a lack of clarity in law, particularly where contradictory judicial precedents exist; or (iv) reveals a serious violation of due process that affects fundamental rights or procedural fairness under the Constitution---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Service Tribunal as petitioner/civil servant failed to raise any substantial question of law of public importance---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Tahira Waheed v. Director, Federal Government Educational Institutions 2003 SCMR 1090; Secretary to Government of the Punjab v. Zakir Ali 2022 SCMR 951; Fayyaz Hussain v. Executive District Officer (Education) 2023 PLC (C.S.) 422; Tasawar Hussain v. Deputy Commissioner 2023 PLC (C.S.) 69; Muhammad Ali S. Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan through Establishment Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 428; Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza 2023 SCMR 803; Secretary Revenue Division v. Iftikhar Ahmed Tabassum PLD 2019 SC 563; Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services Faisalabad v. Muhammad Zafarullah 2021 SCMR 400; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Nargis Jamal 2022 SCMR 2114 and Secretary Revenue Division v. Iftikhar Ahmed Tabassum PLD 2019 SC 563 rel.

Mudassar Khalid Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner with Petitioner.

Sanaullah Zahid, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 798

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ

The PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi and others

Versus

ABID ALI JATOI and others

Civil Petitions Nos. 220-K to 442-K of 2025, decided on 20th March, 2025.

(Against the impugned judgment dated 19.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Bench at Sukkur in C.Ps. Nos. D-176, 264, 544, 284, 1422, 1437, 1461, 1471, 1489, 1493, 1502, 1504, 1535, 1510, 455 of 2023, C.P. No. D-1699 of 2018, C.P. No. D-910 of 2020, C.P. No. D-1543 of 2021, C.P. No. D-1273, 211, C.Ps. Nos. D-1256, 1399, 1424, 1474, 1479, 1480, 1485, 1487, 1488, C.Ps. Nos. D-2889 of 2014, 1492, 1499, 1505, 1696,1515, 1519, 1521, 1529, 1532, 1545, 1536, 1538, 1539, 1547, 1554, 1555, 1561, 1562, 1571, 1572, 1573, 1617, 1621, 1622, 1623, 1611, 1625, 1626, 1627, 1628, 1633, 1641, 1643, 1644, 1646, 1649, 1664, 1665, 1689, 1707, 1708, 1713, 1719, 1720, 1724, 1725, 1729, 1731, 1749, 1750, 1751, 1772, 1773, 1774, 1786, 1789, 1791, 1792, 1796, 1800, 1803, 1804, 1809, 1810, 1811, 1819, 1835, 1836, 1837, 1845, 1846, 1875, 1904, 1905, 1908, 1909, 1910, 1911, 1913, 1914, 1929, 1934, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1947, 1973, 1997, 2004, 1629, 1838, 1645, 1697, 1821, 1878, 1889, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1978, 1982, 1991 and 2000 of 2024).

(a) Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act (XLVIII of 2018)---

----Ss. 3, 11 & 25---Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S. 5---Disabled/differently-abled, persons---Appointments---Reserved quota---Respondents were disabled/differently-abled persons who approached High Court and sought directions against Government of Sindh for their appointment according to 5% quota, reserved under section 5 of Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973---Validity---Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act, 2018 Act is a beneficial legislation enacted for empowerment of persons with disabilities, focused on a particular subject---As such Sindh Empowerment of 'Persons with Disabilities' Act, 2018 has to be enforced and implemented in letter and spirit across the board without any bias and discrimination---There was no logical justification to cause any interference in judgment passed by High Court merely on the foothold of alleged or purported objectionable portion highlighted by authorities, which was nothing but an amplification in the broader context---High Court had directed that all such persons who had already applied for jobs against vacant situations should have their applications considered at the outset rather than shelved or deferred under the garb or guise of fresh applications submitted for the same purposes by new entrants---High Court also cautioned Deputy Commissioners that any appointment made without inclusion of petitioners, who were differently-abled persons, would not be accepted and would be subject to legal scrutiny and action---Such observations of High Court were logical and did not prejudice interest of the petitioners / authorities in any event but rather served as a guideline to ensure finality and conclusiveness in recruitment process of disabled or differently-abled persons in accordance with the law---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Chairman, NADRA and others v. Abdul Majeed and another 2025 SCP 30 ref.

(b) Legislation---

----Enforcement of law--- Object, purpose and scope---Judicial review---Scope---Mere legislation is not sufficient, nor does it serve any purpose unless it is specifically enforced and administered---Implementing and enforcing laws in right dimensions represents unfeigned strategy through which government authorities put laws into action for effective and meaningful compliance under their beneficiaries---Effectual and proficient implementation of law is not only essential for maintaining order but it also guarantees justice, evenhandedness and equality in society with impartiality---Tool of judicial review is also a significant modus operandi that authorizes Courts to dwell on legislative competence, the Constitutionality of law and executive actions, to analyze whether the law aligns with Constitutional mandates and whether its implementation is fair and just, without any arbitrariness or discrimination---This is necessary for safeguarding and upholding rights of people as a key element in strengthening rule of law.

Sibtain Mehmood, Additional Advocate General Sindh, Dr. Rana Khan, Advocate-on-Record along with Bhuro Mal, Additional Director (Law) (SGA&CD) for Petitioners.

Zaheeruddin Mujahid, Advocate Supreme Court and Ms. Abida Parveen Channar, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents (in C.P.L.As. Nos. 220-K of 2025, 271-K of 2025 and 307-K of 2025).

Farman Ali Tanwari, focal person for Court cases for Department of Employment of Persons with disabilities.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 821

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

AHMED OWAIS PEERZADA, CHIEF COMMISSIONER (RTD) FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD

Versus

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE PRIME MINISTER, PRIME MINISTER'S SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD and others

C.P.L.A. No. 44 of 2022, decided on 14th January, 2025.

(On appeal against order dated 17.11.2021 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Misc. Petition No. 241 of 2019 in Appeal No. 3124(R)CS of 2012).

(a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---

----Ss. 4 & 5---Service Tribunal, duties of---Pro forma promotion---Retirement of civil servant---Grievance of civil servant was that his case for promotion to BS-22 was placed before High Power Selection Board but due to paucity of time matter could not be decided and before next meeting he had retired from service---Directions issued by Service Tribunal were not complied with by the authorities---Validity---Federal Service Tribunal is the first judicial fact finding forum provided for civil servants, to ensure implementation of its orders/ judgments, come what may, unless it is set aside by Supreme Court---It is the function of Federal Service Tribunal to execute its orders and judgments in letter and spirit---To ensure timely and proper execution and implementation of its judgments and orders, Federal Service Tribunal while exercising its jurisdiction under section 5 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, is always deemed to be a Civil Court with all powers as are vested in such Court under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for execution---In case of delay or evasion, Service Tribunal should take all necessary steps to enforce compliance with its judgments and orders to alleviate suffering of recipient of judgment or order, rather than divesting itself of jurisdiction or simply disposing of miscellaneous petition of civil servant without ensuring proper implementation---Supreme Court set aside order passed by Service Tribunal and remanded the matter to High Power Selection Board to consider case of civil servant for proforma promotion to BS-22---Appeal was allowed.

(b) Maxim---

----Interest republicae ut sit finis litium---Connotation---It is in the interest of State that there should be an end to litigation.

Ravinder Kaur v. Ashok Kumar AIR 2004 SC 904 rel.

Habib Ahmed Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Ashiq Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Rana Asadullah Khan, Additional Advocate General for Pakistan along with Sajid-ul-Hassan, S.O., Establishment on Court Notice.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 844

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ

The CHIEF COMMISSIONER REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, BAHAWALPUR and others

Versus

SHAHEEN YOUSAF

C.P.L.A. No. 808 of 2023, decided on 16th April, 2025.

(Against the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur in W.P. No. 5193/2017).

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 25---Employment---Prime Minister's Assistance Package for the Families of Deceased Government Employees---Re-marriage of widow of deceased civil servant---Reinstatement in service---Respondent was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk, under Prime Minister's Assistance Package for the Families of Deceased Government Employees but later on her services were terminated on the ground of her remarriage---High Court reinstated the respondent in service---Validity---Constitution secures fundamental rights for individuals as equal citizens not as appendages of patriarchal roles or marital identities---Women are not defined by the men in their lives; they are autonomous and rights-bearing individuals---Denying a woman right to employment on the basis of her remarriage is a blatant reinforcement of patriarchal control, seeking to subordinate her legal identity to societal expectations---Financial independence is not a concession to women, it is the foundation of their Constitutional agency, dignity, and full participation in public life---Law must dismantle, not perpetuate, the structures that reduce women to secondary citizens in the eyes of society---Impugned office order was discriminatory as it singled out widows, the female spouses of deceased government employees for disqualification from compassionate employment upon remarriage, without imposing a corresponding restriction on widowers, notwithstanding the Prime Minister's Assistance Package which offered compassionate employment to both a widow and a widower---Gender-specific disqualification amounts to direct discrimination based on sex, contravening Articles 25(1) and 25(2) of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by High Court, whereby respondent was reinstated in service---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused.

Zahida Parveen v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa C.P.L.A No. 566/2024 2025 SCP 107; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Syed Sadiq Shah 2021 SCMR 747; Federation of Pakistan v. Shuja Sharif 2023 SCMR 129; Hadayat Ullah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 1691; Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 201; Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 265; Margaret Owen, 'The Human Rights of Widows in Developing Countries' in Kelly D Askin and Dorean M Koenig (eds) Women and International Human Rights Law (Brill 2023) and Kate Young, 'Widows without rights: challenging marginalization and dispossession' (2016) 14(2) Gender and Development. Paragraph 25 of the judgment provides that "it is clarified that the instant judgment shall not affect the appointments already made of the widow/widower, wife/husband or child of deceased or retired civil servants." Zarai Taraqiati Bank v. Sarfraz Khan Jadoon 2021 SCMR 1305; Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Muhammad Fahad Malik 2018 SCMR 1956 and General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 rel.

General Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 ref.

Hafiz S. A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Assisted by: Umer A. Ranjha, Judicial Law Clerk.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1004

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, ACJ and Shahid Bilal Hassan, J

AATIKA HINA MUSHTAQ

Versus

SECRETARY SPECIAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT LAHORE and others

C.P.L.A. No. 3116 of 2022, decided on 21st April, 2025.

(Against the order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 5689 of 2019).

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 9---Right to life---Civil service---Promotion---Fair, transparent and merit-based consideration for promotion forms an essential facet of the right to livelihood, and thus, of right to life itself---Where civil servant meets prescribed qualifications and conditions for promotion, lawful and transparent consideration of their case creates a legitimate expectation that such progression has to materialize unless cogent reasons to the contrary exist---Denial or indefinite deferral of such consideration, particularly when based on arbitrary, opaque, or shifting grounds violates such expectation and reduces Constitutional guarantees to mere rhetoric.

Federal Service Public Commission v. Shiraz Manzoor 2023 SCMR 2087; Federation of Pakistan v. Misri Ladhani 2023 SCMR 915; Fazali Rehmani v. Chief Minister, N.W.F.P PLD 2008 SC 769; M.A. Rafique v. Managing Director (Power), WAPDA 1990 SCMR 927; Union of India v. Sangram Keshari Nayak (2007) 6 SCC 704; Islamabad Wildlife Management Board v. Metropolitan Corporation PLD 2021 Islamabad 6; Shehla Zia v. WAPDA PLD 1994 SC 693; Divisional Superintendent v. Umar Daraz 2023 SCMR 761; Province of Punjab v. Kanwal Rashid 2021 SCMR 730; Pir Imran Sajid v. Managing Director 2015 SCMR 1257; Abdul Wahab v. HBL 2013 SCMR 1383; Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation AIR 1986 SC 180; Novita Wahyu Setyawati, Dewi Sri Woelandri PG and Muhammad Richo Rianto, 'Career Development, Motivation and Promotion on Employee Performance' (2022) 1 East Asian Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 1957; Federation of Pakistan v. Jahanzeb 2022 SCMR 2020; Contempt Proceedings Against Chief Secretary, Sindh 2013 SCMR 1752; Mrs. Farkhanda Talat v. Federation of Pakistan 2007 SCMR 886 and Muhammad Nasir Ismail v. Government of Punjab 2005 SCMR 708 rel.

(b) Civil service---

----Effective role---Principles---Fundamental characteristic of an effective civil service is impartiality and meritocracy---In order to perform such role effectively, civil service must remain free from political interference---Independence, integrity and intellectual honesty of civil service are essential to sustaining rule of law and the Constitution---Allegiance of civil service lies with the Constitution and the law, not with shifting political winds.

(c) Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)---

----S. 4---Punjab Special Education Department (Directorate of Special Education) Service Rules, 2006 [since repealed]---Departmental promotion---Civil bureaucracy---Political influence---Withholding of promotion till amending of service rules---Legality---Civil servant was aggrieved of deferring her promotion till the amendment of Punjab Special Education Department (Directorate of Special Education) Service Rules, 2006---Validity---Arbitrary obstruction, unwarranted delay, capricious interference, unjustified hindrance, manipulation or undue delay in career progression of a civil servant erodes independence and morale of civil bureaucracy, transforming it into an instrument of political patronage, a phenomenon that is antithetical to the ethos of Constitutional democracy and democratic governance---Such interference fosters networks of favoritism and erodes impartiality and credibility of civil service---It is therefore imperative that service laws must be transparent, predictable, and uniformly applied, to ensure equal treatment---Purity of service can be obtained only if promotions are made on merit without favouritism or nepotism---Decision of Departmental Promotion Committee of withholding promotion till such time that Punjab Special Education Department (Directorate of Special Education) Service Rules, 2006 were suitably amended was not sustainable---Supreme Court directed Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the case of civil servant for promotion to the post of Lecturer Physical Education on merits and decide the same within one month from the receipt of this judgment---Appeal was allowed.

Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Anwar 2025 SCMR 153; Naseem Khan v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 2024 SCMR 1341; Federal Service Public Commission v. Shiraz Manzoor 2023 SCMR 2087; Muhammad Amjad v. D.G. Quetta Development Authority 2022 SCMR 797; Abdul Hameed v. Ministry of Housing and Works PLD 2008 SC 395; Zafar Iqbal v. Director, Secondary Education 2006 SCMR 1427; Muhammad Ishaque v. Government of Punjab 2005 SCMR 980 and Tariq Aziz-ud-Din's case 2010 SCMR 1301 rel.

Mahmood Ahmad Qazi Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Khalid Masood Ghani, Additional Advocate General, Punjab along with Abu Bakar, L.O. Special Education Department Punjab for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1022

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ

SHAHBAZ LATIF

Versus

DIG, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, LAHORE and others

C.P.L.A. No. 2646 of 2023, decided on 19th May, 2025.

(Against the judgment dated 11.04.2023 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 970(R)CS of 2019).

(a) Civil service---

----Considerable length of service---Appointment later found to have been procured through misrepresentation---Dismissal from service---Retrospective recovery of salary---Scope---Petitioner, after rendering services for fifteen years, was dismissed on account of defect in his initial appointment, and salaries received by him were also held recoverable---Validity---Though a public employment secured through misrepresentation or tampered credentials is void ab initio and confers no vested right upon the appointee, nonetheless, the issue of retrospective salary recovery for services rendered over a significant period engages broader principles of fairness, equity, and administrative accountability---In the present case, after fifteen years of continuous and uninterrupted service of petitioner, the Department initiated an inquiry into educational credentials of the petitioner---There is no material on record to show that the petitioner deliberately concealed or suppressed his academic record during this time or resisted verification---On the contrary, service of the petitioner was accepted, utilized, and remunerated without demur or objection---Petitioner had indeed discharged all assigned responsibilities without lapse---In such circumstances, the employer having accepted and benefited from fifteen years of unblemished service cannot now seek restitution of benefits already consumed---Principles of equity, good conscience, and public interest dictate that in the absence of fraud or dishonest conduct by the employee, retrospective recovery of wages is unjust---The recovery of salary for services lawfully and diligently performed is impermissible, notwithstanding defects in the initial appointment---Thus, the order for recovery in the present case is arbitrary, excessive, and in clear violation of equitable principles---Supreme Court set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent of recovery of salary from the petitioner, however, the petitioner's dismissal from service, on account of ineligibility at the time of appointment, would remain intact---Petition was converted into an appeal and was partially allowed accordingly.

Shams ur Rehman v. Military Accountant General, Rawalpindi 2020 SCMR 188 and Engineer in Chief v. Jalaluddin PLD 1992 SC 207 ref.

(b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)---

----S. 70---Employment---Considerable length of service---Appointment later found to have been procured through misrepresentation---Dismissal from service---Retrospective recovery of salary---Scope---Doctrine of quantum meruit---Petitioner, after rendering services for fifteen years, was dismissed on account of defect in his initial appointment, and salaries received by him were also held recoverable---Validity---In the present case, the doctrine of quantum meruit finds clear and compelling application---This equitable principle permits reasonable compensation for services rendered where one party has knowingly accepted and benefited from the work of another, even in the absence of a valid or enforceable contract---For over fifteen years, the petitioner continuously performed duties that fulfilled institutional needs and was compensated accordingly---To retrospectively invalidate such remuneration despite the employer's full knowledge and acceptance of the services rendered would be contrary to the fundamental tenet that no person should unjustly enrich themselves at the expense of another---In the present case, it was the employer/ Department that stood to benefit unjustly---Said principle finds statutory recognition under Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872---Therefore, even where an employment / appointment is found to be irregular, if the employee has continuously and faithfully discharged official functions and the employer has enjoyed the resulting benefit over a significant period, the doctrine of quantum meruit furnishes both a moral and legal basis to preclude retrospective recovery of salary---Labours that is not donated but knowingly accepted must be compensated regardless of technical infirmities in the appointment process---The recovery of salary for services lawfully and diligently performed is impermissible, notwithstanding defects in the initial appointment---Thus, the order for recovery in the present case was arbitrary, excessive, and in clear violation of equitable principles---Supreme Court set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent of recovery of salary from the petitioner, however, the petitioner's dismissal from service, on account of ineligibility at the time of appointment, would remain intact---Petition was converted into an appeal and was partially allowed accordingly.

Craven-Ellis v. Cannons Ltd (1936) 2 KB 403 and Benedetti v. Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50 ref.

(c) Employment---

----Doctrine of quantum meruit---Scope---The doctrine of quantum meruit, literally meaning "as much as he has earned" or "as much as he deserves" and is a foundational principle of equity and restitution in both common law and civil law jurisdictions---Said principle enables a party to claim reasonable compensation for services rendered or work performed, even where a contract is void, unenforceable, or otherwise defective---The doctrine rests not merely on contractual notions, but on the broader equitable premise that a person who has received and retained a benefit should not be allowed to do so without paying reasonable compensation, particularly where the services were not intended to be gratuitous; which creates an implied obligation in law, akin to a quasi-contract, compelling restitution where unjust enrichment would otherwise result.

State of West Bengal v. Messrs B.K. Mondal and Sons AIR 1962 SC 779 ref.

(d) Civil service---

-----Doctrine of administrative acquiescence---Scope---Considerable length of service---Appointment later found to have been procured through misrepresentation---Dismissal from service---Retrospective recovery of salary---Scope---Petitioner, after rendering services for fifteen years, was dismissed on account of defect in his initial appointment, and salaries received by him were also held recoverable---Validity---The doctrine of administrative acquiescence rooted in principles of equity and fairness, which (doctrine) is based on the idea that if a person, observing another about to perform an act that might infringe upon their rights, remains silent in circumstances where an objection might have prevented the act, they may later be estopped from objecting---Transposed to public law, it implies that prolonged inaction or silence by a public authority, particularly where it had the duty and opportunity to act may amount to institutional acquiescence---In such cases, the authority's delay in enforcing its rights or correcting an irregularity can defeat retrospective punitive action, especially where the individual affected has acted in good faith and to the authority's benefit throughout---The prolonged inaction by the department, its failure to undertake any meaningful verification or scrutiny of the petitioner's appointment for fifteen years amounted to institutional negligence---Significantly, it was only after the passage of fifteen years that the department initiated an inquiry into the petitioner's appointment---Said belated action, without any intervening misconduct by the petitioner, underscored that the lapse lies entirely with the department---Administrative silence over such an extended period, particularly where it results in the receipt and acceptance of services, may amount to acquiescence and estop the department from seeking retrospective punitive measures---Petitioner could not be faulted for the department's own dereliction of its gatekeeping responsibilities---While the eventual termination of service due to irregular appointment may be legally sustainable, the direction for recovery of fifteen years' salary without any allegation or proof of fraud or mala fide intent on the part of the petitioner was manifestly disproportionate, inequitable, and legally untenable---The recovery of salary for services lawfully and diligently performed was impermissible, notwithstanding defects in the initial appointment---Thus, the order for recovery in the present case was arbitrary, excessive, and in clear violation of equitable principles---Supreme Court set-aside the impugned judgment to the extent of recovery of salary from the petitioner, however, the petitioner's dismissal from service, on account of ineligibility at the time of appointment, would remain intact---Petition was converted into an appeal and was partially allowed accordingly.

Ramsden v. Dyson (1866) LR 1 HL 129; Sardar Ali Khan v. State Bank of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 1454 and Market Committee, Multan v. Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) Multan 2023 SCMR 1683 ref.

Misbah Gulnar Sharif, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Imran Masood, Advocate Supreme Court (Through V.L. Lahore Registry) and Mian Ghulam Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

Assisted by: Umer A. Ranjha, Judicial Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Pakistan

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1034

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Athar Minallah, JJ

ZAHIDA PARVEEN

Versus

GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar and others

C.P.L.A. No. 566-P/2024, decided on 17th March, 2025.

(Against the impugned judgment dated 03.06.2024 passed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar in S.A. No. 1959 of 2023).

(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989---

----R.10(4)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 14, 25 & 27---Compassionate appointment---Married daughter of deceased civil servant---Discrimination---Principle of intelligible differentia---Appellant was daughter of deceased civil servant and was appointed under Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989---Appointment of appellant was terminated after she contracted marriage---Validity---Reasonable classification must be founded on intelligible differentia and must bear rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by law---Exclusion of married daughters, despite Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, itself is inclusive and silence on marital status lacks any rational basis---No intelligible differentia is discernible between a married son and a married daughter that would justify such exclusion in light of the underlying purpose of Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, which is to provide compassionate economic relief to bereaved family of a deceased or incapacitated civil servant---Such arbitrary classification is not only unreasonable but plainly unconstitutional, offending the guarantees of equality (Article 25), non-discrimination in public service (Article 27), and the right to dignity (Article 14)---Such act of authorities had undermined expectations of deceased civil servants whose families were assured of lawful security under the compassionate appointment framework---Supreme Court declared clarification of authorities and letter dated 28-04-2023, whereby married daughters were excluded from compassionate appointment under Rule 10(4) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989, to be discriminatory, ultra vires, issued without lawful authority, and incompatible with Constitutional guarantees and international legal obligations---Supreme Court directed respondent/authorities to restore appointment of appellant with all back-benefits and set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal---Supreme Court reaffirmed that all judicial and administrative authorities bear a Constitutional responsibility to adopt gender-sensitive and gender-neutral language; that this was not a mere formality but reflected a substantive commitment to the values of dignity, equality, and autonomy guaranteed to all citizens under Articles 14, 25, and 27 of the Constitution---Supreme Court observed that the Judiciary must lead by example, ensuring that the words used to interpret and apply law did not themselves had become instruments of exclusion---Appeal was allowed.

S.G.G. Edgar, Craies on Statute Law (Universal Law Publishing Co, 7th Edition, 1971); Muhammad Nadeem Arif v. IG Police, Punjab 2011 SCMR 408; Federal Public Service Commission v. Altaf Hussain 2015 SCMR 581; Muhammad Bashir Limited v. Government of Pakistan 2015 SCMR 630; Province of Punjab v. Kanwal Rashid 2021 SCMR 730; Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 SC 1910; Union of India v. Majji Jangammayya AIR 1977 SC 757; B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka AIR 1979 SC 1676; P.D. Aggarwal v. State of U.P. AIR 1987 SC 1976; Union of India v. Arun Kumar Roy AIR 1986 SC 737; State of Madhya Pradesh v. GS Dall AIR 1991 SC 772; JAC of Airlines Pilots Association v. DG, Civil Aviation AIR 2011 SC 2220; N S Bindra, Interpretation of Statutes (LexisNexis, 13th Edition, 2022); Khawaja Ahmad Hassan v. Government of Punjab 2005 SCMR 186; Federation of Pakistan v. Shuja Sharif 2023 SCMR 129; Hadayat Ullah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 1691; Syed Azam Shah v. Federation of Pakistan 2022 SCMR 201; Dr. Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 265; Meenakshi Dubey v. Madhya Pradesh AIR 2020 MP 60; Smt. Bhuvaneshwari V. Puranik v. State of Karnataka AIR 2020 Kar. 2303; Superintendent of Police v. Ijaz Aslam 2024 SCMR 1831; Vice Chancellor Agriculture University v. Muhammad Shafiq 2024 SMCR 527; Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 574; Dr. Vijaya Manohar v. Kashi Rao AIR 1987 SC 1100; Sir William Blackstone in William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Book The First: Chapter the Fifteenth: Of Husband and Wife (Oxford Press) defines coverture as, "By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection and cover, she performs everything; and is therefore called in our law-French a feme-covert; is said to be covert-baron, or under the protection and influence of her husband, her baron, or lord; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture. Upon this principle, of a union of person in husband and wife, depend almost all the legal rights, duties, and disabilities that either of them acquires by the marriage; E. H. Deering, 'Coverture and Lasting Effects of Gender Inequality: An Analysis through Equal Protection Jurisprudence' Washington University Jurisprudence Review (Volume 16, Issue 2, 2024); Reed v. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971); Frontiero v. Ricardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973); Kirchberg v. Feenstra 450 U.S. 455 (1981); Bombay Labour Union v. Messrs International Franchises AIR 1966 SC 942; C. B. Muthamma v. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 1868; Air India v. Nargesh Meerza AIR 1981 SC 1829; Joseph Shine v. Union of India AIR 2018 SC 4898; Murdoch v. Murdoch [1975] 1 SCR 423; Bhe v. Magistrate Khayelitsha 2005 (1) SA 580 (CC); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966); International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (1966). Pakistan ratified ICCPR in 2010 and ICESCR in 2008 and Pakistan ratified the CEDAW on 3 December, 1996; CEDAW Committee, General Recommendation No. 33 on Women's Access to Justice, UN Doc. CEDAW/C/GC/33 (2015) https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/ 807253/files/CEDAW_C_GC_33-EN.pdf?ln=en accessed 23 March, 2025; Martha Albertson Fineman, The Autonomy of Myth: A Theory of Dependency (The New Press, 2005); bell hooks, Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics (South End Press, 2000). She chose to write her name in lowercase to de-emphasize her personal identity and draw attention to her work and message, rather than herself; Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (translated by H.M. Parshley) (Jonathan Cape, 1953); In existentialist terms (drawing on Jean-Paul Sartre, a French philosopher), the "other" means being objectified, excluded from subjectivity, and treated as something less than fully human, especially in social, cultural, and legal systems; Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (translated by H.M. Parshley) (Jonathan Cape, 1953); General

Post Office, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024

SC 1276; Paragraph 25 of the judgment provides that "it is clarified that the instant judgment shall not affect the appointments already made of the widow/widower, wife/husband or child of deceased or retired civil servants"; Zarai Taraqiati Bank v. Sarfraz Khan Jadoon 2021 SCMR 1305; Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Muhammad Fahad Malik 2018 SCMR 1956; According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the term "liability" connotes "the quality or state of being liable" or "one that acts as a disadvantage"; Paragraph 7 of the impugned judgment rel.

(b) Islamic law---

----Women rights over their earnings---Scope---Under Islamic jurisprudence, a woman retains full ownership and control over her property, earnings, and financial affairs, irrespective of her marital status---Any presumption that a married woman becomes financially dependent on her husband is not only legally untenable but also religiously unfounded, and contrary to egalitarian spirit of Islamic law.

Surah An-Nisa (4:7): "For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, and for women is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, be it little or much-a share ordained rel.

Rehman Ullah, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (through V.L. Peshawar Registry).

Shah Faisal Ilyas, A.A.G. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa along with Ms. Sabra Parween, DEO (F) Karak for Respondents.

Assisted by: Umer A. Ranjha, Judicial Law Clerk.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1266

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi and

Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ

Syed ZAKIR HUSSAIN

Versus

The STATE and another

Cr.P.L.As. Nos. 48-K to 51-K of 2025, decided on 5th June, 2025.

(Against the order dated 18.02.2025 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Cr. Revision Applications Nos. 35 to 38 of 2025).

Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997)---

----S. 14(2)---Judge, Anti-Terrorism Court---Judicial strictures---Expunction of remarks---Principle---Appellant was a judicial officer who was aggrieved of remarks against him, passed by Division Bench of High Court in the judgment in question---Validity---Petitioner only sought expunction of stricture, which had nothing to do with merits of the decision of High Court---High Court was required to evaluate whether the passage complained of was reprehensible; its preservation on record would cause disparagement to the credit of petitioner; and its expunction would not affect the judgment or order on merits---Before passing any stricture on demeanour and career of petitioner, Division Bench of High Court should have given him an opportunity to submit his comments/report---No such opportunity was provided to him by Divisional Bench of High Court before passing order in the Court---Even in the case of some lapses found to be surfacing on part of the judicial officer, the order or report could be sent to Chief Justice for taking action on administrative side through the Confidential Branch---Supreme Court set aside the remarks/directions made in relevant paragraph of order in question which were essentially structured on oral motion of Acting Prosecutor General; were unjustified, and made without probing into the issue and without calling for comments from the Presiding Officer or without even affording him a right of audience---Appeal was disposed of.

Braj Kishore Thakur v. Union of India and others (1997) 4 SCC 65; (2001) 3 SCC 54; Miss Nusrat Yasmin v. Registrar, Peshawar High Court, Peshawar and others PLD 2019 SC 719; Aijaz Ahmed Tunio v. The State PLD 2021 SC 752; Hasnain Raza and another v. Lahore High Court, Lahore and others PLD 2022 SC 7; Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Islamabad v. Muhammad Hamid Mughal PLD 2024 SC 515; 2023 SCP 293 and Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder and others v. Federation of Pakistan and another PLD 2010 SC 483 ref.

Syed Ghulam Shabbir Shah, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Irtafa-ur-Rehman, Advocate High Court for Petitioner.

Muntazir Mehdi, Acting Prosecutor General and Siraj Ali Chandio, Additional Prosecutor General for the State.

Saleem Akhtar Buriro, Additional Prosecutor General/Advocate-on-Record for the State.

Zulfiqar Ali, Public Prosecutor for the State.

Danish Qureshi, SHO, AVCC for the State.

Muhammad Ali, Inspector for the State.

Sibtain Mehmood, Additional Advocate General on Court's Call.

Zain-ul-Abideen, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant.

Mrs. Abida Parveen Channar, Advocate-on-Record assisted by Mustafa Mamdani, Iftikhar Shah, Jahanzaib Aftab and Umair Usman, Advocates for the Complainant.

Nemo for the Accused.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1296

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Yahya Afridi, CJ, Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and

Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, JJ

FAHEEM ARSHAD and others

Versus

MANZOOR-UL-HAQ and others

C.P.L.A. No. 55 of 2025, decided on 30th June, 2025.

(Against order dated 23.12.2024 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore passed in Appeal No. 3450 of 2024).

(a) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)---

----S. 23(i)---Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, Cl.2(a), Column-7, Sched. I---Consideration for promotion to the posts of Provincial Management Service (PMS) Officers (BS-17) amongst Tehsildars ("Promoted Tehsildars" and "Inducted Tehsildars")---Amendment in the method of recruitment while removing the condition of 5 years' service only for "Promoted Tehsildars"---Process of consideration of cases of promotion of "Promoted Tehsildars" was halted by the Punjab Service Tribunal through its injunctive order---Validity---Promotee Tehsildars' consideration of promotion as PMS Officers could not be indefinitely placed in abeyance---Vacant posts must be filled in accordance with the prescribed method of appointment at the earliest---Process of the promotion could not be halted at the instance of the Inducted Tehsildars for the simple reason that when the Inducted Tehsildars were directly appointed in the year 2022, the notification dated 21.08.2019 had already been issued---Inducted Tehsildars were aware or expected to be aware of their terms and conditions of service to be governed by the Rules of which the amendment made in Sched-I to the Rules through notification dated 21.08.2019 was an integral part---They joined service knowing fully well the adverse effect of the notification on their promotion prospects, thus, unless and until and if at all the amendments brought about in Sched-I to the Rules through the notification were declared ultra vires by a competent court/tribunal or the said notification was withdrawn on the basis of the Governor reversing the amendment made in the method of promotion of Tehsildars as PMS Officers contained in Sched-I to the Rules, the process of promotion could not be halted---Public sector employment in Pakistan was a significant source of financial stability for many households---Prolonged vacancies not only limit their employment opportunities but also diminish public confidence in government institutions---Practice of routinely leaving posts in public institutions unfilled undermines the very rationale of sanctioned strength---If a post is not needed, it should be abolished through proper procedure; but if it has been duly approved and budgeted, it must be filled without undue delay---Keeping a post vacant hampers the functioning of public institutions and is not conducive to the maintenance of efficiency of administration---Objective of timely promotions of eligible employees in various public institutions can be achieved only by convening of meetings of DPCs---Timely filling of vacant posts is not only an administrative imperative but is essential for maintaining the integrity, efficiency and responsiveness of public institutions---Petition was converted into appeal and was allowed in terms that the process for promotion of Tehsildars as PMS Officers already initiated may continue unless amendment made in the Rules through notification was withdrawn by the Governor.

Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Hizbullah Khan 2021 SCMR 1281 and Aatika Hina Mushtaq v. Secretary, Special Education, Government of the Punjab C.P.L.A. No. 3116 of 2022 rel.

(b) Civil service---

----Words "Post" and "Vacancy"---Connotation and meaning---"Post" denotes the number of posts in the cadre, whether filled or vacant---"Vacancy" means a vacant post available for appointment, through recruitment/promotion, on the creation of new post(s) or retirement, death or resignation or removal of the incumbent working on the post---In public administration, every post in the organizational hierarchy is created after due deliberation and approval, taking into account the functional requirements of the department, the workload and the efficient delivery of services to the public---Such process ensures that each sanctioned post is essential for the functioning of public institutions---In other words, each sanctioned post reflects a deliberate recognition of a need - whether technical, supervisory, operational, or strategic within the framework of good governance. Importantly, financial allocations are also secured through budgetary processes to ensure that post is funded and resourced.

(c) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)---

----S. 23(i)---Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, Cl.2(a), Column-7, Sched. I---Amendment made in the Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004, (Rules) made under section 23 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (Act)---Scope---Section 23(i) of the Act provides that the Governor, or any person authorized in this behalf, may make such Rules as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for carrying out the purposes of the said Act---Rules in question have been made by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred on him under section 23 of the Act, and so has the amendment in Sched-1 to the said Rules through notification dated 21.08.2019---These Rules have the same force as the provisions of the statute under which they framed---Amendments made in Sched-I to the Rules through the said notification issued by S&GAD, Government of the Punjab, whereby the condition of five years of service as Tehsildar for the Promotee Tehsildars for their consideration for promotion as PMS Officers was done away with, were still in the field till date the notification had not been declared ultra vires the provisions of the Act or the Constitution either by any Court or Tribunal.

Ahmed Hassaan v. Government of Punjab 2005 SCMR 186 rel.

(d) Punjab Provincial Management Service Rules, 2004---

----Cl. 2(a), Column-7, Sched. I---Annulment of amendment made in Rules by the Governor through notification---Views of executive authority about such Rules through its executive order---Effect---Views that the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, may have expressed in his order dated 18.11.2024 qua the said notification or the directions that he may have issued to the Secretary, Revenue, Government of the Punjab, would not have the effect of the annulment of the said notification dated 21.08.2019---Notification was based on an amendment made in Sched.-I to the Rules by the Governor in exercise of statutory power and it was he alone who could in the exercise of the very same power undo the amendment.

Ibad ur Rehman Lodhi, Advocate Supreme Court with Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.

Junaid Jabbar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.

Khalid Masood Ghani, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab, Muhammad Tahir Riaz, Superintendent and Muhammad Ishaq, Senior Clerk, Board of Revenue, Punjab for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1318

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, JJ

ASAD HUSSAIN

Versus

The CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS FEDERAL CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING, SECTOR G-5/2, ISLAMABAD and another

C.P.L.A. No. 2258 of 2023, decided on 19th May, 2025.

(Against the judgment dated 31.03.2022 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad in Appeal No. 1250(P)CS of 2018).

(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974)---

----S.4---Promotion---Vacant post---Current charge---Administrative neglects---Civil servant was aggrieved of being assigned the post on current charge basis instead of being promoted n the said post being a vacant post---Validity---When the post in question fell vacant, the civil servant was the senior-most eligible officer at that time, who was entitled to be considered for promotion with effect from that date---Delay caused by authorities in convening DPC or in processing petitioner's case due to procedural irregularities such as issues with the author of his PERs could not be used to defeat his rightful claim---Competent authority was under a duty to act with a fine sense of judgment, which it had failed to do---The moment the post became vacant and civil servant met required qualifications, legitimate expectation arose in his favour that he would be considered for promotion in a fair and timely manner---Failure to fulfil such expectation, without lawful justification, amounted to arbitrariness and procedural unfairness---Such delay in promotion of civil servant stemmed not from personal shortcoming but from systemic inefficiencies and administrative neglect---Civil servant must not bear the consequences of internal procedural lapses---Supreme Court directed the authorities to promote the civil servant to post in question with effect from the date on which vacancy in his quota first became available---Supreme Court also directed the authorities that all consequential benefits, including seniority, arrears of pay and service entitlements would follow from backdated promotion---Supreme Court set aside judgment passed by Service Tribunal---Appeal was allowed.

Secretary, Government of Punjab v. Khalid Hussain Hamdani 2013 SCMR 817; Brean v. Amalgamated Engineering Union (1971) 2 QB 175; Messrs Gadoon Textil Mills v. WAPDA 1997 SCMR 641; Province of Sindh v. Ghulam Shabbir 2023 SCMR 686; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Fazli Ghufran 2022 SCMR 1765; Dr. Yasmeen Zafar v. Dr. Shehla Sami 2019 SCMR 993; Khalid Mehmood v. Chief Secretary, Punjab 2013 SCMR 544; WAPDA v. Haji Abdul Aziz 2012 SCMR 965; Muhammad Siddique v. Director, Special Education 1998 SCMR 88; Narender Chadha v. Union of India AIR 1986 SC 638; A. Janardhana v. Union of India AIR 1983 SC 769; B.S Yadav v. State of Haryana AIR 1981 SC 561; Dr. Muhammad Amjad v. Dr. Israr Ahmed 2010 SCMR 1466; WAPDA v. Muhammad Nawaz Khan 1998 SCMR 640; S. Abu Saeed v. Government of N.W.F.P. 1990 SCMR 1623; Government of N.W.F.P. v. Buner Khan 1985 SCMR 1158; Federation of Pakistan v. Jahanzeb 2023 PLC (C.S.) 336; NADRA v. Jawad Khan 2023 SCMR 1381 and Bashir Ahmed Badini v. Hon'ble Chairman and Member of Administration Committee 2022 SCMR 448 rel.

(b) Civil service---

----Vacant post, filling of---Principle---Every sanctioned post within a government department or public institution exists to serve a defined functional need and must be filled promptly upon falling vacant---So long as the post continues to exist and has not been formally abolished or frozen pursuant to a lawful policy decision, such as due to budgetary constraints or other demonstrable administrative exigencies, it must be filled within a reasonable time---Unjustified delays in such regard not only disrupt efficient functioning of the institution but also weaken its service delivery capacity---Vacancies, when left unattended, often lead to informal arrangements and ad hoc delegations of authority that foster opacity, enable nepotism and corrode principles of merit and transparency.

Ms. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.

Raja Muhammad Shafqat Abbasi, DAG, Riaz Hussain Azam, Advocate-on-Record along with Javed Iqbal, Additional Secretary, Finance and Fiaz Afridi, DAG, CGA Office and Abdullah A.A.O. for Respondents.

Assisted by: Umer A. Ranjha, Judicial Law Clerk, Supreme Court of Pakistan.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1337

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, A.C.J., Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ

DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), CHARSADDA and others

Versus

SONIA BEGUM and 5 others

C.R.P. No. 5/2023 in C.P.L.A. No. 448-P/2017 and C.R.P. No. 6/2023 in C.P.L.A. No. 651-P/2019 and C.R.P. No. 7/2023 in C.P.L.A. No. 655-P/2019 and C.R.P. No. 8/2023 in C.P.L.A. No. 658-P/2019 and C.R.P. No. 9/2023 in C.P.L.A. No. 666-P/2019 and C.P.L.A No. 402-P of 2023, decided on 25th April, 2025.

(Against the judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by this Court).

C.P.L.A No. 402-P of 2023

(Against the judgment dated 17.03.2023 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in W.P. No. 4180-P of 2022).

Per Syed Mansoor Ali Shah, J; Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Shahid Bilal Hassan, JJ. agreeing.

(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors and Doctors) Regulatory Act (XII of 2011)---

----S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI & O.XXVIII, R.3---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 114---Review jurisdiction---Scope---Appointment, posting and transfer---Imposing of costs---Petitioner sought review of judgment passed by Supreme Court with regard to determination of place of residence for employment purposes---Validity---Power of review, as articulated in Article 188 of the Constitution and governed by Supreme Court Rules, 1980 ('Rules') and C.P.C. is not an open invitation to revisit judgments merely on the basis of dissatisfaction with the outcome---It is a limited jurisdiction, exercised with great caution and circumspection---Conditions for filing a review petition are specifically enumerated and they do not extend to re-arguing points of law or fact that have already been conclusively determined---Petitioner did not disclose any new or important evidence nor pointed any error that was apparent on the face of record---Issues raised by petitioner were mere reiteration of arguments that had already been considered and rejected by Supreme Court---Supreme Court declined to review its earlier judgment, as there was no ground made out for review and petitions were frivolous and vexatious---Supreme Court imposed cost under Order XXVIII, Rule 3 of Supreme Court Rules, 1980 upon petitioner for squandering valuable time of Supreme Court---Review petition was dismissed.

District Education Officer (Female) Charsadda and others v. Sonia Begum and others 2023 SCMR 217; Justice Qazi Faez Isa v. President of Pakistan PLD 2022 SC 119; Messrs Habib and Co. v. Muslim Commercial Bank PLD 2020 SC 227; Engineers Study Forum v. Federation of Pakistan 2016 SCMR 1961; Government of Punjab v. Aamir Zahoor-ul-Haq PLD 2016 SC 421; Haji Muhammad Boota v. Member (Revenue) BOR 2010 SCMR 1049; Mehdi Hassan v. Province of Punjab 2007 SCMR 755; Anwar Husain v. Province of East Pakistan PLD 1961 Dacca 155; Ghulam Murtaza v. Abdul Salam Sheikh 2010 SCMR 1883; Haji Muhammad Boota v. Member (Revenue) BOR 2010 SCMR 1049; Abdul Rauf v. Qutab Khan 2006 SCMR 1574; Nawabzada Muhammad Amir Khan v. Controller of Estate Duty PLD 1962 SC 355; Pakistan International Airlines v. Inayat Rasool 2004 SCMR 1737; Noor Hassan Awan v. Muhammad Ashraf 2001 SCMR 367; Kalsoom Malik v. Assistant Commissioner 1996 SCMR 710; Abdul Majeed v. Chief Settlement Commissioner 1980 SCMR 504; Inter Quest Informatics Services v. Commissioner of Income Tax 2025 SCMR 257; Mukhtar Mai v. Abdul Khaliq 2019 SCMR 1302; Zakaria Ghani v. Muhammad Ikhlaq Memon PLD 2016 SC 229; Jamshoro Joint Venture v. Khawaja Muhammad Asif 2014 SCMR 1858; Suja A Thomas, 'Frivolous Cases' (2010) 59(2) DePaul Law Review 633; Cooter and Gell v. Hartmax Corp 496 U.S. 384 (1990); Wormer. 765 F.2d 86 (7th Cir. 1985); Cropper v. Smith (1884) 25 Ch D 700 (affirmed in Prince Abdulaziz v. Apex Global Management Ltd 120141 UKSC 64); De Cruz Lee v. Lee 2015 ONSC 2012; Irmya v. Mijovick 2016 ONSC 5276; British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71; Sanford Levinson. 'Frivolous Cases: Do Lawyers Really Know Anything at All?' (1986) 24(2) Usgoode Hall LJ 353; Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust 2012 (1) See 455; Bakht Biland Khan v. Zahid Khan PLD 2024 SC 1273; S.M. Sohail v. Sitara Kabir-ud-Din PLD 2009 SC 397; Lutfullah Virk v. Muhammad Aslam Sheikh PLD 2024 SC 887; National Highway Authority. Islamabad v. Messrs Sambu Construction 2023 SCMR 1103; Capital Development Authority v. Ahmed Murtaza 2023 SCMR 61; Javed Hameed v. Aman Ullah 2024 SCMR 89;

Zakir Mehmood v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence 2023 SCMR 960; Pirbhai v. Singh 2011 ONSC 1366; Vinod Seth v. Devinder Bajaj (2010) 8 SCC 1; Pandurang Vithal Kevne v. Bharat Sanchar 2024 1NSC 1051 and Ashok Kumar Mittal v. Ram Kumar Gupta (2009) 2 SCC 656 rel.

(b) Supreme Court Rules, 1980---

----O.XXVIII, R.3---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 35 & 35A---Costs, imposing of---Object, purpose and scope---Consistent imposition of meaningful and proportionate costs rooted in statutory authority, judicial discipline and Constitutional imperatives is essential to deter abuse of process and restore procedural integrity.

Per Muhammad Ali Mazhar, J. agreeing

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 114---Review jurisdiction---Scope---Every judgement rendered by Court of law is presumed to be a solemn and conclusive determination of all points arising out of the lis---Irregularities if any which have no significant effect or impact on outcome would not be sufficient to warrant review---If incongruity or ambiguity is of such a nature as to transmute the course of action from being one in aid of justice to a process of injustice then a review decision may be instituted for redressal to demonstrate error if it is found floating conspicuously on the surface of the record---Mere desire for rehearing of the matter cannot constitute sufficient ground for the grant of review which by its very nature cannot be equated with the right or remedy of appeal---Sanctity and finality of judicial determinations must not be compromised by mere persistence of litigants or mechanical issuance of advocate certificates---Review jurisdiction is not a fall back for unsuccessful litigants to reopen a lis but a narrowly confined judicial tool intended to correct palpable and consequential mistakes.

(d) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 114---Review---Phrase "error apparent on the face of record"---Scope---Orders based on an erroneous assumption of material facts or those made without adverting to a provision of law or reflecting departure from undisputed construction of law and the Constitution may amount to an error apparent on the face of the record and can be rectified.

Commissioner Inland Revenue Z-III, Corporate Regional Tax Office, Tax House, Karachi v. Messrs MSC Switzerland Geneva and others 2023 SCMR 1011 = 2023 SCP 150 rel.

Shah Faisal Ilyas, Addl. AG, KPK for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Umer A. Ranjha, Judicial Law Clerk and Ms. Uzma Zahoor, Research Officer, Supreme Court of Pakistan.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1384

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Munib Akhtar, Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, JJ

NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President, Karachi and others

Versus

MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ and another

C.P.L.As. 121 and 122 of 2024

(Against judgment dated 06.12.2023 passed by the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar in Civil Revisions Nos. 916-P and 917-P of 2021).

C.M.As. 507 and 509 of 2024

(Stay)

C.P.L.As. Nos. 121 and 122 of 2024, C.M.As. Nos. 507 and 509 of 2024, decided on 9th January, 2025.

Constitution of Pakistan---

----Art. 185(3)---Employment---Bank employees---Termination from service---Master and servant relationship---Principle---Civil suit seeking reinstatement, filing of---Employees were reinstated by trial court and such decision was upheld by revisional court (High Court)---Could the trial court order for reinstatement in service or it could ordinarily entertain suit for damages merely as per the principle of master and servant?---Whether the basic principle of master and servant still fits in the present day and age or it requires re-evaluation?---The main legal issue concerned the long-standing principle that in master and servant (contractual employment) relationships, courts could not order reinstatement and instead only damages could be awarded---The petitioner bank relied on the precedent set in the case reported as 'PLD 1961 SC 531', however, the Supreme Court questioned as to whether this precedent being 65 years old remains relevant in the modern context and would continue to be fit for purpose?---For a number of reasons, this was a question which required consideration by the Supreme Court before granting leave to appeal---Given the modern age of internet and even in relation to what was called the "gig economy" (where the position of the hired/engaged person was at its most precious) the courts in many jurisdiction have held that the relationship could not be reduced to that of master and servant---Even the ancient concept as set out in traditionalist terms and certainly as appeared to be in the mind of the court in 'PLD 1961 SC 531' appeared to be outmoded---It appeared that the law might have ossified and became outmoded, being no longer congruent with the demands and requirements of modern times---Rule laid down in 'PLD 1961 SC 531' was ultimately of an equitable nature and it was of the essence of equity that it must retain flexibility and the discretion of the Court (in the judicial sense) so that the law could appropriately develop, and continue to develop, with the passage of time---The rule at hand had prima facie (barring a few developments, which do not however address the issue at the most fundamental level) now acquired a rigidity that was a negation of the discretion that was the hallmark of equity, and became little more than a self-denying ordinance that barred the healthy and organic development of the law so that it remained fit for purpose and the modern age---In the context of the modern economy, the termination of service, in particular by a large corporation, may well in practical terms make a person effectively unemployable even if the termination is later found to be unlawful by a court and compensated by an award of damages---In such circumstances, the decree, when (and if) ultimately honored, may well be cold comfort only---Supreme Court emphasized that it was now long overdue that matters be reappraised at a fundamental level and even, perhaps on the basis of recourse to first principles---Accordingly, leave to appeal was granted to, inter alia, consider the question as to "Whether the rule laid down by this Court in the case reported as PLD 1961 SC 531, and others that follow and/or lay down or affirm the same or similar principle are, and continue to be, fit for purpose or require any modification, replacement or substitution and if so, in what manner and to what extent?

Malik and Haq and another v. Muhammad Shamsul Islam Chowdhury PLD 1961 SC 531 rel.

Faisal Mahmood Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners/Applicants.

Amjad Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.

The file is currently being updated. Plz try again later. If the link still does not work, report to pakistanlawsite@oratiertechnologies.com

2025 P L C (C.S.) 606

[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]

Before Raza Ali Khan, J

GHAZANFAR ALI

Versus

VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR and others

Civil PLA No.422 of 2024, decided on 1st October, 2024.

(For leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 7-5-2024 in Writ Petition No.698 of 2023).

(a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)---

----Arts. 42 & 44---University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act (XXXIV of 1985 ), S. 38---Associate Professor at the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir---Removal from service, challenging of---Right of appeal, non-availing of---Writ petition before the High Court---Maintainability---High Court dismissed the writ petition on the basis that the petitioner had the right to file an appeal before the Syndicate---Validity---In presence of any other efficacious remedy, discretionary relief under writ jurisdiction is not available to an aggrieved person---Law with respect to exercise of judicial review of public actions or inactions, in presence of alternative adequate remedy, is firmly settled---Although the decision-making powers of lower courts or other executive bodies are subject to judicial review of constitutional Courts, but it is essential to emphasize that judicial review should only be invoked as a residual jurisdiction in exceptional circumstances, which must be proven---This power should not be exercised sparingly where an adequate alternative legal remedy is available to an aggrieved person---Whenever an alternative statutory mechanism exists to redress the grievance of an aggrieved party, the Court will be reluctant to grant any relief---Alternative remedies may encompass various statutory mechanisms and when the public interest demands that power of judicial review should be exercised speedily, it is necessary to limit the number of cases in which such power may be exercised---In many ways, adherence to the exhaustion of alternate remedies rule helps to reduce the burden placed on constitutional Courts---In presence of an alternate remedy a writ petition is not maintainable---It is evident that under section 38 of the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act, 1985, an alternative remedy in the form of an appeal to the Syndicate was available to the petitioner---Instead of availing this option, the petitioner rushed to the High Court and filed a writ petition just six days after his removal order was issued---High Court had not committed any illegality while passing the impugned judgment dismissing writ petition filed by the Assistant Professor---Petition for leave to appeal, being meritless, was dismissed.

Muhammad Munir v. Chairman Azad Jammu and Kashmir Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others 2006 SCR 29 ref.

(b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)---

----Arts. 42 & 44---University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act (XXXIV of 1985), S. 38---Associate Professor at the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir---Removal from service, challenging of---Right of appeal, non-availing of---Writ petition before the High Court---Maintainability---High Court dismissed the writ petition on the basis that the petitioner had the right to file an appeal before the Syndicate---Validity---Rule of exhaustion of alternate remedy is not an absolute one---There may be exceptional cases where a person may be permitted to seek judicial review despite the availability of an alternate remedy, but frequent deviation from the general rule will overwhelm the constitutional Courts with matters that could be addressed by alternative fora---Moreover, strict adherence to this settled principle will improve the functioning of statutory bodies in resolving disputes, reducing the need to invoke the jurisdiction of judicial review---High Court had not committed any illegality while passing the impugned judgment dismissing writ petition filed by the Assistant Professor---Petition for leave to appeal, being meritless, was dismissed.

PLD 1996 SC 246 ref.

(c) Judicial review---

----Principle---Adequate alternate remedy----Under common law, remedy of judicial review through writ jurisdiction is also not available in presence of adequate alternate remedy and this principle has been settled by the English Courts---It is settled there that remedy by way of judicial review should be treated only as a remedy of last resort and should only be used in exceptional circumstances when other remedies, which could provide efficacious redressal, have been properly exhausted by a litigant.

R. v. IRC, Ex parte Preston [1985] BTC 208 and Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Swati, [1986] 1 WLR 477 ref.

(d) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974)---

----Arts. 42 & 44---University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Act (XXXIV of 1985), S. 38---Associate Professor at the University of Azad Jammu and Kashmir---Removal from service, challenging of---Right of appeal, non-availing of---Writ petition before the High Court---Maintainability---Petitioner approached the Supreme Court as High Court dismissed his writ petition on the basis that the petitioner had the right to file an appeal before the Syndicate---Validity---Claim of the petitioner is that he submitted an application requesting for supplying the copies of relevant record necessary for filing an appeal before the Syndicate ; he deposited the requisite fee and attempted to submit the appeal, but the relevant officer refused to accept it, forcing him to submit the appeal via email---Validity---Story narrated by the petitioner before the Supreme Court regarding filing of appeal appeared to be an afterthought, as there was no mentioning of it in (memo of) the original writ petition before the High Court---High Court had not committed any illegality while passing the impugned judgment dismissing writ petition filed by the Assistant Professor---Petition for leave to appeal, being meritless, was dismissed.

Muhammad Saghir Javed, Advocate for Petitioner.

Raja Gul Majeed Khan, Advocate for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 886

[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]

Present: Kh. Muhammad Nasim, J

AZAD GOVERNMENT and others

Versus

Kh. SHOUKAT ABDULLLAH and others

Civil PLA No.761 of 2024, decided on 28th January, 2025.

(For leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 1-10-2024 in Writ Petitions Nos.3254 of 2023 and 1096 of 2024).

(a) Civil service---

----Pensionary benefits---Timely disbursement---Authorities, responsibilities of---Payment of pension is not only a legal obligation but also a fundamental right of retired employees, ensuring their financial security and dignity in their post-service years---Delay or denial of pensionary benefits creates significant hardship, especially for those who have spent the prime years of their lives serving in public offices---Timely disbursement of pension is critical in upholding the trust that employees place in the government or relevant authorities, assuring them that their contributions will be acknowledged and rewarded even after their retirement---Pension is a vital component of the social contract between the state and its citizens, fostering a sense of security for employees who have served the public and contributed to the welfare of society---Therefore, the prompt and regular payment of pension is not merely a financial transaction but a moral and social responsibility that must be fulfilled without delay or excuse.

(b) Development Authority Muzaffarabad Act (II of 1989)---

----Ss. 16, proviso & 21---Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Rules of Business (Revised), 1985---Pensionary benefits of retired employees of Development Authority Muzaffarabad (DAM), payment of---Whether responsibility of DAM itself or Government Departments?---Petitioners (Physical Planning and Housing /PPH and the Finance Department) assailed acceptance of writ petitions, filed by retired employees of DAM directing the petitioners to manage the funds for the pension payments forthwith---Ground taken by the petitioners was that under S. 12 of the Development Authority Muzaffarabad Act, 1989 ('the Act, 1989'), the responsibility for paying pensions laid with the Development Authority itself, which must bear the costs from its own budget---Validity---DAM, which was the creation of the Act, 1989, was an autonomous body/special institution of PPH under the Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Rules of Business (Revised), 1985---Section 16 of the Act, 1989 empowers the DAM to employ such officers, servants, experts or consultants as it may consider necessary; a proviso to this section provides that salaried officers and servants of BPS-16 and above shall not be appointed except with the previous sanction of the Government---As per S. 21 of Act, 1989 there shall be a fund known as the DAM Fund---Said Fund is to be utilized for the payment of salaries and other remunerations to the employees, which (fund) consists of development grants and other grants made by the Government from time to time for execution of its schemes and conduct of its business---Section 12 of the Act, 1989, relied upon by the petitioners, did not deal with payment of pension rather it dealt with the powers of the DAM and bore no relevance with the matter-in-hand---Although DAM was an autonomous body, its autonomy was not absolute, and it operated under the administrative control and supervision of the Physical Planning and Housing Department---Therefore, the decision of the High Court to direct for the payment of pensionary benefits was just and appropriate and its directions to the relevant authorities to arrange for the release of funds was both fair and in accordance with law---As no legal question of public importance was involved, hence, leave was refused---Petition for Leave to Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

(c) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978---

----O. XIII---Appeal before Supreme Court, filing of---All parties impleaded in writ petition before the High Court not in memo. of appeal/Petition for Leave to Appeal (PLA)---Appeal, competency of---Record showed that writ petition in question was originally filed by 10 employees; subsequently, five more retired employees filed an application to be arrayed in the line of petitioners in the writ petition---Application was accepted and they were entered in the line of petitioners but despite this subsequent petitioners (Nos. 11 to 15 before the High Court) had not been made parties in the present petition---In absence of these parties the impugned judgment of the High Court could not be interfered with---Petition for Leave to Appeal was dismissed.

Akhlaq Hussain Mughal, Advocate for Petitioners.

Nasir Masood Mughal, Advocate for Private Respondents.

Muhammad Yaqoob Khan Mughal, Advocate for DAM.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 895

[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]

Present: Kh. Muhammad Nasim, J

ZOBIA BEGUM and others

Versus

AZAD GOVERNMENT and others

Civil PLA No.691 of 2024, decided on 17th February, 2025.

(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated

11-9-2024 passed in Writ Petition No.2837 of 2023).

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Procedure) Rules, 1994---

----R. 13---Candidates on waiting list---Entitlement for appointment---Scope---Petitioners (candidates of waiting list), relying on official letter (letter), sought their posting against the quota of District Sudhnoti---Record revealed that the advertisements-in-question were published in the years 2018 and 2019, while, the said letter was issued by District Education Officer District Sudhnoti on 28.03.2023, meaning thereby, that these posts were not available at the time of advertisements-in-question, therefore, it could not be said that any clear vacancy of Secondary School Teacher (B-16) male and female, was available at the time of advertisements except the advertised posts---Petitioners failed to point out that at the time of advertisements-in-question any clear vacancy of Secondary School Teacher (B-16) male and female, against the quota of District Sudhnoti was available, which was withheld by the Department---Available posts were advertised accordingly and no post was withheld by the department at the time of sending the requisition of the said posts to the Public Service Commission---Admittedly, the petitioners could not secure a merit position rather, they were placed in the waiting list and only 49 posts were reserved for District Sudhnoti against which the incumbents who obtained top merit positions were appointed as Secondary School Teacher (B-16) and at the time of issuance of the advertisements-in-question, no other post was available against which the recommendations of the petitioners, who were placed in the waiting list, could have been sent---Even otherwise, according to the statutory provisions of R. 13 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission Procedure Rules, 1994, a candidate next on merit from the waiting list can only be appointed against the post if the selected person is recommended by the PSC on the basis of merit but fails to join the service or is declared medically unfit---Thus, there are only 2 eventualities justifying appointment from the candidates of waiting list, whereas, both these eventualities were not applicable in the present case---Petitioners failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by High Court---Leave could not be granted in routine just to create a false hope in the mind of a party---Petition for leave to appeal, having no substance, was dismissed.

Sarfraz Ahmed Khan v. Azad Government and others 2012 PLC (C.S.) 755 and Azad Government and 2 others v. Muhammad Qadir Javaid and another 2014 PLC (C.S.) 1334 ref.

Shahid Ali Awan, Advocate for Petitioners.

Nemo. for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 911

[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]

Present: Raja Saeed Akram Khan, CJ and Kh. Muhammad Nasim, J

SAIMA MIR ZAMAN

Versus

AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION through Chairman and others

Civil Appeal No.188 of 2024, decided on 22nd November, 2024.

(Against the judgment of the High Court dated 12-3-2024 in Writ Petition No.22 of 2024).

Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)---

----Art. 129(g)---Recruitment---Relevant document, non-tendering of---Doctrine of adverse inference---Scope---Candidate applied with her (irrelevant) degree (MA Political Science) and later claimed merit for having relevant degree MA Library and Information Science(relevant degree)---Public Service Commission (PSC) excluded the relevant degree (MA Library and Information Science) of the candidate /Appellant for merit determination claiming the same was issued over six months after the deadline(cut-off date) had passed---Validity---Appellant /candidate failed to bring on record anything contrary to rebut the claim of the PSC---Appellant did not even append the copy of application filed before the PSC to enable the Court to assess her claim---Thus, it could safely be presumed that the Appellant never filed any subsequent application in pursuance of advertisement---In legal proceedings, the failure of the party to produce a document in support of its claim can significantly impact the party's case---Courts expect the parties to present all relevant documents to substantiate their claims or defences---When a party fails to do so, it may give rise to adverse inferences and can even lead to the dismissal of case if the evidence is deemed insufficient---Courts may draw an adverse inference against a party who fails to produce relevant document without a valid reason---According to the doctrine of adverse inference as stipulated under Art. 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, if a party in possession of relevant evidence, does not produce it, the Court may assume that the evidence, if presented, would have been unfavorable to that party---Further more, in a civil case, the burden of proof generally rests on party making a claim---If that party does not produce evidence in support of its claim, it fails to meet its burden of proof, which can result in dismissal of its claim---In the present case, the High Court's dismissal of the Appellant's writ petition appeared to be well-founded---Public Service Commission acted within its authority and in accordance with relevant rules by discarding the degree issued after the deadline---Appellant's inability to furnish the supporting documents further weakened her position, and there existed no basis to interfere with the impugned judgment---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mst. Zarsheda v. Nobat Khan PLD 2022 SC 21 ref.

Shahid Ali Awan, Advocate for Appellant.

Miss Aalia Abdul Rehman, Advocate for Respondents.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 999

[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]

Present: Kh. Muhammad Nasim and Raza Ali Khan, JJ

WASEEMA ANAYAT

Versus

ABIDA BIBI and 5 others

Civil P.L.A. No.820 of 2024 and Civil Miscellaneous No.495 of 2024, decided on 14th January, 2025.

(On appeal from the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated

10-12-2024 in Service Appeal No.438 of 2024).

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act (VI of 1976)---

----S. 9---Transfer order, cancellation of---Short span in recalling transfer order---Service Tribunal set-aside departmental order by which earlier transfer order was cancelled / recalled after just eleven (11) days---Validity---Record revealed that vide transfer order (dated 10.06.2021) the petitioner and respondent were transferred against each others posts, after the stay period of 3 years and 8 years respectively---Said stay period mentioned in the transfer order dated 10.06.2024 was admitted, which was more than sufficient period for serving at one station---Under S. 9 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, a civil servant was obliged to serve under the Government, inside or outside of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, wherever he/she was posted---A civil servant has no absolute right to remain posted at a particular station for an indefinite period or to seek posting at a station of his/her own choice---It appeared from the record that the transfer order dated 10.06.2024 was issued on the basis of the stay period, which had been cancelled just after a period of 11 days, without assigning any reason, vide order dated 21.06.2024---In such state of affairs, the Service Tribunal had committed no illegality while accepting the appeal and setting aside the earlier-transfer-recalling order dated 21.06.2024---Practice of cancellation of the transfer orders within a short span of time, without assigning any reason, on the face of it is a malpractice and such orders cannot be protected by the Courts---In the present case, the Service Tribunal while handing down the impugned judgment had dealt with the proposition involved in the matter in a legal manner and had committed no illegality while setting aside the impugned departmental order dated 21.06.2024---Petitioner had failed to point out any legal question of public importance involved in the petition for leave to appeal and leave could not be granted in every case as a routine, just to create false hopes in the mind of the litigant---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Naila Bashir v. Syeda Zanib-un-Nisa and 4 others 2013 PLC (C.S.) 831 ref.

Raja Ibrar Hussain, Advocate for Petitioner.

Raja Arshad Khan, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1046

[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]

Present: Raja Saeed Akram Khan CJ and Kh. Muhammad Nasim, J

NUSRAT SHAHEEN

Versus

SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE AND WOMEN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MUZAFFARABAD and 3 others

Civil P.L.As. Nos.458 and 503 of 2024, decided on 11th October, 2024.

(From the judgment of the High Court dated 7-6-2024, in Writ Petition No.1897 of 2019).

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act (VI of 1976)---

----Preamble---Shifting of post from a development scheme to normal budget---Merit, determination of---Appointment on temporary / contract basis---Entitlement for permanent induction subsequently---Procedure---Petitioner, having initially been appointed as Lady Instructor against a scheme of Social Welfare and Women Development Department, was later appointed as Headmistress B-14 against a scheme named as Establishment of Employment and Women Development Centre---Petitioner assailed order whereby the High Court ordered to advertise the post-in-question and to place the matter before the Selection Committee for consideration---Stance of the petitioner was that a right had accrued in her favour as she occupied the post-in-question after determination of merit while post-in-question had subsequently been shifted from a development scheme to normal budget; hence, there was no need to advertise the post-in-question and place the matter before the Selection Committee for consideration---Validity---Pertinently, in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the appointments in the service were regularized under the Azad Jammu and Kashmır Civil Servants Act, 1976 and Rules made thereunder ; the spirit of said law emphasized that the appointment should be made on the basis of merit determined by the concerned selection authorities---Azad Jammu and Kashmır Interim Constitution Act, 1974, has guaranteed the right of equality before law and equal treatment of law, thus, this right can only be enforced by following the prescribed mode for appointment by advertising the vacancies and determining the merit of the eligible candidates through a transparent selection process---Law does not admit any such mode that any person who has been appointed on temporary / contract basis and thereafter becomes entitled for permanent induction, it may amount to violate the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right of equality before law and the enforced law regulating the mode of appointment---In the present case, the appointment orders of the petitioner postulated that she was appointed purely on temporary basis against a development scheme---Later on, the posts of that scheme were shifted to normal budget (vide notification dated 11.10.2010)---After shifting of the post to the normal budget it was enjoined upon the concerned authority to fill in the same after following the procedure prescribed in the statutory law i.e. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, but the same had not been done as yet ---Without following the due process of law, the services of the petitioners could not be regularized---Thus, stance taken by the petitioners was ill-founded, hence, was repelled---Findings recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment were in consonance with the statutory law dealing with the subject matter, however, the impugned judgment was modified to the extent that the selection process shall be conducted within a period of four months from communication of present order---Petition was disposed of accordingly.

Nemo for Petitioner (in Civil P.L.A No.458 of 2024).

Syed Meher Ali Shah Bukhari, Advocate for Respondent No.4 (in Civil P.L.A No.458 of 2024).

Syed Meher Ali Shah Bukhari, Advocate for Petitioner (in Civil P.L.A No.503 of 2024).

Nemo for Respondents (in Civil P.L.A No.503 of 2024).

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1061

[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]

Present: Kh. Muhammad Nasim and Raza Ali Khan, JJ

SABEEL KHAN

Versus

MUHAMMAD LATIF KHAN and others

Civil PLA No.622 of 2024 and Civil Miscellaneous No.355 of 2024, decided on 14th October, 2024.

(On Appeal from the Order of the Service Tribunal dated

14-9-2024 passed in Service Appeal No.276 of 2024).

(a) Civil service---

----Transfer notification---Recalling of notification within a short span of time---Reason, non-assigning of---Practice of cancellation of the transfer notifications within a short span of time (i.e. after 25 days) without assigning any reason, on the face of it, was a malpractice and such orders/notifications cannot be protected by the Courts, therefore, the impugned departmental notification dated 11.09.2024 was prima facie a proof of exercise of powers in an injudicious manner and without proper application of mind ---No illegality or legal infirmity was noticed in the impugned order whereby the Services Tribunal, while admitting for regular hearing the appeal preferred by aggrieved officer (respondent), suspended the transfer cancellation order---Petition for leave to appeal was refused.

(b) Civil service---

----Transfer notification---Recalling of notification within a short span of time---Reason, non-assigning of---Contention of the official respondents was that the department had assigned the reasons for cancellation of the transfer notification in the objections/written statement submitted before the Service Tribunal---Validity---It was revealed from the departmental transfer cancellation notification that no reason, whatsoever, had been assigned/mentioned in the said notification for cancellation of the transfer notification within a short span of time i.e. 25 days---Reasons/justifications for cancellation of a lawful notification have to be mentioned in the cancellation notification rather than in the objections/written statement, therefore, said argument of the official respondents was repelled---No illegality or legal infirmity was noticed in the impugned order whereby the Service Tribunal, while admitting for regular hearing the appeal preferred by aggrieved officer respondent, suspended transfer cancellation order---Petition for leave to appeal was refused.

Shahid Ali Awan, Advocate for Petitioner.

Mir Tanveer Hussain, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

2025 P L C (C.S.) 1068

[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]

Present: Kh. Muhammad Nasim and Raza Ali Khan, JJ

SALMA KHATOON and another

Versus

PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION through Chairman and 4 others

Civil P.L.A. No.454 of 2024, decided on 14th October, 2024.

(On appeal from the judgment of the High Court dated 13-6-2024, in Writ Petitions Nos.49 and 50 of 2020).

Civil service---

----Selection process---Public Service Commission---Powers and responsibilities---Petitioners (two candidates) were aggrieved of the handout by the Public Service Commission (PSC), whereby the contesting respondent was recommended for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (BPS-18)---Contention of the petitioners was that initially 17 candidates were shortlisted for interview and the name of the (contesting) respondent was not amongst them, so her participation in the interview and subsequent issuance of her appointment order was a manipulation in the selection process---Validity---Original record (award list, marks obtained by the candidates in the written test, academic qualifications and the interview) revealed that the respondent secured an aggregate of 66.96 marks, while the candidates ranked at 16 and 17 in the list i.e. the petitioners, herein, obtained 61.24 and 58.61 marks, respectively---Thus, the respondent had a higher merit position as compared to the candidates short listed for interview, thus, her inclusion in the interview for appointment against one of the posts, appeared to be in accordance with merit---Allegation of manipulation by the PSC was found to be devoid of substance---However, official respondents (the Director / Secretary PSC) admitted that it was failure not to include the name of private respondent in the shortlisted candidates due to an error on the part of the PSC---Such like mistakes are concerning, particularly for an institution like the PSC, which is entrusted with the critical responsibility of ensuring merit-based selection for public service positions---Error of such like nature, not only compromise the integrity of the recruitment process but also erode public confidence in the fairness and transparency of the PSC---Moreover, these lapses lead to an increase in litigation, as affected individuals seek to challenge the validity of the selection process, as was the situation in the present case---Thus, situation underscores the urgent need for the PSC to implement robust measures to prevent such errors in the future---Strengthening its procedures will help in restoring public trust and upholding the PSC's role as a reliable and impartial authority in public service recruitment---Maintaining the integrity of PSC is essential to ensure that merit and transparency remain the cornerstone of public sector appointments---No illegality was noticed in impugned judgments passed by the High Court dismissing writ petitions filed by the petitioners/ candidates---Petition for leave to appeal was refused.

Sardar M. R. Khan, Advocate for Petitioners.

Muhammad Ilyas Chaudhary, Advocate for Respondent No.5.