Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 4,389 judgments in total from the Islamabad High Court.

• Sajjad Ahmed vs The State and others2012 YLR 1828 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-16
  post-arrest baildishonour of chequeprohibitory clausebeneficial interpretationcriminal breach of trustbail as rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Sajjad Ahmed, who was charged under Sections 489-F and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding the dishonour of a cheque issued for property sale consideration. The core legal question was whether the accused was entitled to bail given the nature of the offence and the statutory punishment prescribed. The Court held that the offence under Section 489-F, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries a maximum imprisonment of three years, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court emphasized that for offences outside the prohibitory clause, the grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception. Furthermore, the Court noted that since the statute allows for punishment by fine only, denying bail would be harsh and unjust. Applying the principle of beneficial interpretation in favour of the accused, the Court granted the bail petition, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Does an offence under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is bail the rule and refusal the exception for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should the court exercise discretion in favour of an accused when the maximum punishment for an offence is not severe?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif-Ur-Rehman and another vs The State through S.H.O. P.S. Neelor, Islamabad2012 MLD 77 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-09-13
  post-arrest bailadulterated foodfurther inquirybail bondsstatutory applicability
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for post-arrest bail arises from an F.I.R. registered against the petitioners for allegedly preparing adulterated cold drinks, involving charges under the Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958, the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960, and sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners were initially denied bail by the Duty Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail given the nature of the allegations and the applicability of the relevant statutes. The Court held that the Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958 was inapplicable to the facts of the case, and that the relevant provision under the Pure Food Ordinance, 1960 carried a maximum punishment of one year. Furthermore, the Court observed that no adulterated food was actually recovered, and the recovery of other ingredients rendered the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition and granted bail to the petitioners subject to the furnishing of bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958 applicable to the preparation of adulterated cold drinks?
  • Does the absence of recovered adulterated food justify the grant of bail in a case involving alleged food adulteration?
  • When does a criminal case regarding food adulteration qualify as a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Saif Ullah vs Waqar-Ul-Haq and 2 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 22, 2012 CLC 899 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-12
  civil procedureopportunity of hearingfingerprint expertcomparison of signaturesinterlocutory applicationsunreasoned orderfirst appeal against order
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal challenged an order passed by a learned single judge in chamber in a civil suit for specific performance, whereby applications seeking to send thumb-impressions and signatures to an expert for comparison were allowed after the conclusion of evidence and hearing arguments on the main suit. The core legal question was whether the impugned order was legally sustainable when passed without providing the parties an adequate opportunity of hearing on the interlocutory applications, contrary to the court's earlier noting, and without recording proper reasons. The Islamabad High Court held that disposing of applications adversely affecting a party's interest without affording a hearing violates the principle against condemnation unheard, and a decision based merely on opinion rather than reasoned analysis fails to meet legal requirements. The court set aside the impugned order, laying down the principle that interlocutory applications must be decided after a proper opportunity of hearing and by providing reasoned conclusions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed on interlocutory applications without affording an opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice?
  • Does a judicial decision based merely on opinion without reasons qualify as a valid judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court allow applications for sending signatures and thumb-impressions to an expert after concluding arguments on the main suit without hearing the parties on those specific applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Safeer Hussain and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2012 PLJ Islamabad 244 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Safeer Hussain and 6 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2012 PLJ Islamabad 244, 2012 C.L.R. 1181 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs Mrs. Rehana Zahid and 2 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 161 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-21Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmad vs Mrs. Rehana Zahid through Attorney and 2 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 161, 2012 MLD 1072 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-21Read full judgment →
• Rousch (Pakistan) Power Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through Chief Commissioner and 4 others2012 PLD Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-09-26Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Ahmed Bhatti, Former G.M., (PTCL), Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Privatization Commission Islamabad and 3 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 53 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rizwan Ahmed Bhatti vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others through Secretary Privatization Commission2012 PLJ Islamabad 53, 2012 PLC (C.S.) 681 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-10
  writ petitionmaster and servantnon-statutory rulesPTCL employeescontract employeemaintainability of writprivatizationShare Holders Agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a former General Manager of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) challenging his termination letter dated 17-10-2006. The petitioner was appointed under an open-ended contract and asserted protection under the Share Holders Agreement executed during PTCL's privatization process. The respondent company argued that PTCL is not performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, has non-statutory service rules, and that contractual obligations cannot be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that employees who joined PTCL after 01-01-1996 under contractual arrangements are governed by non-statutory rules and the principle of master and servant. The court held that a writ petition under Article 199 is not maintainable to enforce contractual obligations, seek specific performance of non-statutory terms, or resolve disputed contractual liability.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable against PTCL by a contract employee governed by non-statutory service rules?
  • Does the principle of master and servant apply to PTCL employees who joined the company after 01-01-1996?
  • Can contractual obligations and liability under an open-ended employment contract be enforced through a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Khalil Akhtar vs Mst. Nadia Mir and 3 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 106 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-04-02Read full judgment →
• Qamar Abbas Shah vs The State2012 YLR 2663 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-04-19
  post-arrest bailcircumstantial evidencelast seen evidencefurther inquiryconfessional statementforensic evidencemurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail in a case involving the murder of two individuals whose bodies were discovered on the roadside. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution—specifically the 'last seen' evidence, a negative forensic report regarding the recovered weapon, matching shoe molds, and a co-accused's confessional statement—was sufficient to establish reasonable grounds to connect the petitioner to the offence, thereby precluding bail. The court held that the evidence was insufficient to deny bail. The forensic report regarding the weapon was negative, the shoe mold evidence was inconclusive, and the co-accused's confession failed to implicate the petitioner in the commission of the crime. The court emphasized that in the absence of direct evidence, the case against the petitioner required further inquiry into his guilt. Consequently, the court granted post-arrest bail, holding that the prosecution's evidence was tentative and did not meet the threshold to justify continued incarceration pending trial, while directing the trial court to conclude proceedings expeditiously.

  Questions settled

  • Does the 'last seen' evidence alone constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail in a murder case?
  • Can a co-accused's confession under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to deny bail if it fails to implicate the petitioner?
  • Is the matching of shoe molds from a crime scene with a suspect's shoes considered conclusive proof of guilt for the purpose of bail?
  • Does a negative forensic report regarding a weapon recovered from an accused entitle them to bail on the basis of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervez Akhtar Raja vs The State and anothers2012 P Cr. L J 1777 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-04-18
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictionabuse of process of lawcriminal intimidationdischarge of accusedfinal report
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings after the trial court dismissed the petitioner's application under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the continuation of trial proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law when the police had deleted major charges and no evidence remained on record to support the sole remaining charge under section 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, leaving no probability of conviction. The Islamabad High Court held that continuing the proceedings where no evidence exists to connect the accused with the offence is an abuse of process. The court established that inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A can be invoked in exceptional circumstances despite the availability of a revision remedy, and quashed the proceedings while reserving the complainant's right to file a direct complaint.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for quashment under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be directly invoked despite the availability of a revision remedy?
  • Does the continuation of criminal proceedings constitute an abuse of the process of law when there is no probability of the accused being convicted?
  • Whether proceedings can be quashed when no evidence is available on record to support the offence alleged in the final report?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited through General2012 PLC 460 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-05-17
  Employees Old-Age Benefits Actstatutory bodysocial securitycompulsory registrationbeneficial legislationcorporate statuswrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the registration of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) under the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, and the subsequent demand for contributions. The petitioner contended that as a statutory body, it was exempt from the EOB Act, arguing that the Act’s contributions constituted an illegal tax and that its suo motu registration was void. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that PTCL, having been incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, does not qualify as a statutory body and is subject to the EOB Act. The court clarified that the EOB Act is beneficial legislation providing social safety nets, not a tax statute, and the availability of other internal benefit schemes does not exempt an entity from its statutory obligations. Furthermore, the court affirmed that when an establishment fails to register itself as required by law, the authorities are empowered to conduct registration. The judgment establishes that corporate entities formed under the Companies Ordinance are subject to the EOB Act regardless of their previous status or internal pension schemes.

  Questions settled

  • Is a company incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, considered a statutory body for the purposes of exemption from the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • Does the existence of internal employee pension schemes or trusts exempt an establishment from the applicability of the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976?
  • Are contributions required under the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, classified as a tax?
  • Can the Employees Old-Age Benefits Institution proceed with the suo motu registration of an establishment that fails to register itself within the statutory timeframe?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. through General Attorney vs National2012 PLD Islamabad 50 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-06Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Medical Cooperative Housing Society vs Azra Latif and others2012 PLJ Islamabad 63, 2012 CLC 662 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-16
  cooperative societycancellation of membershipaudi alteram partemconstitutional jurisdictionnatural justiceplot allotmentmala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Islamabad High Court arises from a constitutional petition filed by the Pakistan Medical Cooperative Housing Society challenging concurrent orders passed by the Registrar's nominee, the Deputy Registrar, and the Chief Commissioner under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, which had set aside the cancellation of respondent No. 1's membership and plot. The core legal question was whether the society's cancellation of a member's plot and membership without prior notice and opportunity of hearing, driven by mala fide intent and personal vendetta, was sustainable in law. The court held that the impugned orders were passed with lawful authority after proper procedure and that the society's action violated the fundamental principle of natural justice, 'Audi Alteram Partem'. The court laid down the principle that cooperative societies and their management committees are custodians of members' rights and cannot arbitrarily cancel valuable property rights without notice or for extraneous, mala fide reasons. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a cooperative society can cancel a member's plot and membership without issuing a prior show-cause notice and affording an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does the High Court interfere in constitutional jurisdiction with concurrent orders of cooperative authorities that are based on proper procedure and lawful authority?
  • Can personal vendetta and mala fide intentions of a management committee invalidate administrative actions taken against a society member?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Medical Cooperative Housing Society vs Azra Arif etc.2012 PLJ Islamabad 63 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-16Read full judgment →
• Osman Mehmood vs Quaid-I-Azam University through its Registrar, Islamabad and another2012 PLJ Islamabad 93 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-20Read full judgment →
• Omv Maurice Energy Limited through General Manager vs Ocean2012 CLD 619, 2012 PLD Islamabad 21 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-11-29Read full judgment →
• Omv (Pakistan) Exploration GmbH, Islamabad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division, Islamabad and 2 others2012 PTD 396 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-11-01
  delayed judgmentAppellate Tribunal Inland Revenuedirectory provisionprejudiceincome tax appealwrit petitionrehearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition, along with several connected petitions, challenged the delay by the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue in announcing its judgment after the conclusion of arguments, seeking a direction for the rehearing of the cases. The core legal question was whether a delay in pronouncing judgment by a tribunal renders the proceeding void or necessitates a rehearing based on the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Islamabad High Court held that the provisions of Order XX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 do not apply to tax matters governed by the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, and that the time limit prescribed under Section 132(2A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for deciding appeals is directory rather than mandatory. The court laid down the principle that mere delay in the pronouncement of a judgment by a tribunal does not vitiate the decision or render it a nullity unless actual prejudice to a party is established, and relief cannot be granted on the basis of mere apprehensions that the tribunal members may have forgotten the arguments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 apply to proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue?
  • Is the time period prescribed under Section 132(2A) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 for the disposal of appeals mandatory or directory?
  • Does a delay in the pronouncement of a judgment by a tribunal automatically render the decision void or illegal?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained on the mere apprehension that members of a tribunal have forgotten the arguments advanced by the parties due to a delay in judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Omv (Pakistan) Exploration Gmbh vs Federation Of Pakistan,EtcPTCL 2012 CL. 1 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-11-01Read full judgment →
• Oil and Gas Development Company Limited through General Manager2012 PLJ Islamabad 34 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ocean Pakistan Limited through Chief Executive Officer vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice and 3 others2012 PTD 1590 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-06-07
  constitutional petitionvires of statuteincome taxalternate remedyappellate tribunaltax recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court challenging the vires of sections 127 and 130(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as being ultra vires Articles 9, 10-A, and 175 of the Constitution, and sought interim relief against tax recovery. The core legal questions involved the constitutional validity of vesting appellate and tribunal member powers in tax department personnel and the maintainability of a writ petition when statutory remedies exist. The court held that the petitioner failed to justify interference on the touchstone of Article 8 of the Constitution, noting that the challenge brought after eleven years appeared aimed at evading tax liability. The court concluded that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be used to trammel statutory proceedings when the statute provides adequate remedies. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not interfere in tax recovery proceedings under constitutional jurisdiction where alternate statutory remedies are available and challenges to statutory provisions lack substantive constitutional justification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sections 127 and 130(4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 are ultra vires Articles 9, 10-A, and 175 of the Constitution?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against tax recovery proceedings when the statute provides an alternate remedy?
  • Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction trammel proceedings commenced under the mandate of a statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Batool vs D.G. N.A.R.C. and 2 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 164, 2012 CLC 1129 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-20Read full judgment →
• Not vs Not2011-IHC-10 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-15Read full judgment →
• Noorish Sabah vs Federal Public Service Commission through its2012 CLC 840, 2012 PLJ Islamabad 45 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-23Read full judgment →
• Noorish Sabah vs Federal Public Service Commission through Chairman and 2 others2012 CLC 840 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Jahan alias Ahmed vs Judge Special Court2 and 2 others2012 PLD Islamabad 35 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-21
  criminal revisioncross-examinationrecall of witnessesright to defenseaudi alteram partemanti-terrorism trialprevious statement confrontation
  Summary & questions settled

  The present criminal revision petition is directed against an order passed by the Judge Special Court-II, Anti-Terrorism, Rawalpindi/Islamabad, whereby an application for recalling prosecution witnesses for cross-examination was declined. The petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered under the Pakistan Penal Code, Anti-Terrorism Act, and the Explosive Substances Act. During the trial, the depositions of certain prosecution witnesses were recorded in the absence of the petitioner's counsel. The trial court declined the subsequent application to recall the witnesses for cross-examination, fearing delays in the trial. The Islamabad High Court held that denying the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses violates the right of an accused to be defended by a pleader under procedural law and the principles of natural justice. The court ruled that lapses affecting the opportunity to cross-examine must be cured, and the accused should be permitted to confront witnesses with their previous statements. Consequently, the revision petition was allowed and the trial court was directed to summon the witnesses for cross-examination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused can be denied the right to cross-examine prosecution witnesses examined in the absence of defense counsel?
  • Does Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 empower the court to summon witnesses for cross-examination to ensure a fair trial?
  • Can an accused person confront prosecution witnesses with their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 during cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad Qureshi and 12 others vs Federation of Pakistan2012 PLC (C.S.) 90 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-10-18
  constitutional petitiondiscriminatory policyUnited Nations Peacekeeping Missionpolice selection criteriaadministrative lawarbitrary actionright to fair competition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional challenge to a policy letter issued by the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, which established new eligibility criteria for the selection of police officers for United Nations Peacekeeping Missions. The petitioners, police officers, contended that the government's policy, which imposed stricter age limits and quotas for repeaters compared to the United Nations' own guidelines, was discriminatory, arbitrary, and lacked a legal basis. The core legal question was whether the government could unilaterally impose restrictive eligibility criteria that contradicted the established international standards, thereby depriving eligible officers of the opportunity to compete. The court held that while policy-making is a government prerogative, any such policy must be fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory. Finding that the government's policy lacked a supporting legal framework and was inherently discriminatory by arbitrarily excluding qualified candidates, the court declared the impugned letter illegal and void. The key principle laid down is that where the state initiates a selection process for international assignments, it cannot impose discriminatory criteria that restrict fair competition among eligible candidates without a valid legal or rational basis.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government impose eligibility criteria for international peacekeeping missions that contradict the criteria established by the United Nations?
  • Is a government policy that restricts participation in a selection process based on discriminatory age and repeater quotas subject to judicial review?
  • Does the government have the authority to issue policy guidelines regarding international mission deployments without approval under the Rules of Business 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Nauman Aslam and 4 others vs Chairman, National Accountability2012 PLC (C.S.) 730 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-17
  writ jurisdictionpromotionselection postsvested righteligibility criteriaservice rulesseniority-cum-fitness
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Deputy Directors (BPS-18) at the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court challenging the promotion of junior officers to the rank of Additional Directors (BPS-19). The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who lacked the mandatory 12 years of service required for promotion to BPS-19, had a vested right to be considered for promotion or to challenge the promotion of others who met the eligibility criteria. The Court held that the posts in BPS-19 are classified as 'selection posts' under the NAB Employees Terms and Conditions of Service (TCS) Rules, 2002, requiring promotion based on merit and a minimum length of service. Since the petitioners did not possess the requisite 12 years of service, they were ineligible for promotion and suffered no violation of a vested right. The Court affirmed that promotion to selection posts is governed by merit and eligibility, not merely seniority. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as the petitioners failed to demonstrate a legal entitlement to the relief sought.

  Questions settled

  • Are posts in BPS-19 under the NAB Employees Terms and Conditions of Services (TCS) Rules 2002 classified as selection posts?
  • Does an employee lacking the prescribed length of service have a vested right to be considered for promotion to a selection post?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained to challenge promotions when the petitioners do not meet the minimum eligibility criteria for the post in question?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad and 7 others vs Nescom through Chairman Nescom, Islamabad and 2 others2012 PLC (C.S.) 924 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-14
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilityNESCOMNational Command Authoritymaster and servantnon-statutory rulesservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, non-technical employees of the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM), challenged an administrative order that froze their pay advantages, effectively reducing their basic pay. They sought relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, alleging discriminatory treatment and violation of fundamental rights. The core legal question was whether NESCOM’s service rules are statutory, which would determine the maintainability of a constitutional petition regarding service matters. The Court held that the National Command Authority Act 2010 does not mandate that the Authority frame service rules with the prior approval of the Federal Government. Consequently, the Court determined that NESCOM’s service rules are non-statutory, and the relationship between the organization and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the constitutional petition was not maintainable, as the petitioners had to seek alternative remedies, and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Are the service rules of the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM) considered statutory?
  • Can employees of the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM) invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 regarding service grievances?
  • Does the National Command Authority Act 2010 require the National Command Authority to obtain Federal Government approval to frame service rules for its employees?
  • What legal principle governs the relationship between the National Engineering and Scientific Commission (NESCOM) and its employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmad and 7 others vs N.E.S.C.O.M. through its Chairman, Islamabad and 2 others2012 PLC (C.S.) 924, 2012 PLJ Islamabad 49 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-14
  writ jurisdictionnon-statutory rulesmaster and servantNational Command Authorityservice mattersmaintainabilityNESCOM
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by employees of the National Engineering & Scientific Commission (NESCOM) challenging orders that froze their pay scales and converted certain benefits into personal allowances. The core legal question was whether the service rules governing NESCOM employees are statutory in nature, thereby rendering the organization amenable to the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court held that the service rules of NESCOM are non-statutory, as the National Command Authority Act, 2010 does not mandate that the Authority frame rules with the prior permission of the Federal Government. Consequently, the relationship between the petitioners and the respondent organization is governed by the principle of 'master and servant.' The Court concluded that the writ petition was not maintainable and dismissed it, directing the petitioners to pursue alternative legal remedies. The key principle laid down is that organizations operating under the National Command Authority, whose service rules are not statutory, are not subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Are the service rules of the National Engineering & Scientific Commission (NESCOM) statutory in nature?
  • Can employees of an organization under the National Command Authority invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Does the principle of 'master and servant' apply to the employees of the National Engineering & Scientific Commission (NESCOM)?
  Read full judgment →
• Nakhara through L.Rs, and others vs Chief Federal Land Commissioner, Islamabad and 9 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 173, 2012 CLC 849 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-02Read full judgment →
• Nakhara (deceased) through his legal heirs & others vs Chief Federal2012 PLJ Islamabad 173 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nadeem Asghar vs Dr. Sheikh Siraj-Ul-Haque and 4 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 259, 2012 CLC 1257 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-21Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan Ordnance Factories (Pof) Wah Cantt. vs Collector Of2012 P.C.T.L.R. 1111 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan Ordnance Factories (Pof) Wah Cantt vs Collector ofPLJ 2012 Tax Cases (Isl.) 29 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. King Clothing vs Muhabat Khan etc.2012 PLJ Islamabad 128 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-20Read full judgment →
• M/s. Indus Rags Karachi & 3 Other vs Govt. Of Pakistan Through M/OPTCL 2012 CL. 441 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Business Impex vs Deputy Director, Customs Intelligence And2012 PTD 71, PTCL 2012 CL. 551 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zahir vs State etc.2012 PLJ Islamabad 265 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Younas vs Rana Muhammad Zahid, etc.2012 PLJ Islamabad 157 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-11-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yaseen and 2 others vs S.S.P., Islamabad and 5 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 238 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-05-09Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Syed vs Comsats, Institute of Information2012 PLJ Islamabad 122 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman Syed vs Comsats Institute of Information and Technology through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 122, 2012 MLD 1289 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-04-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riaz Khan vs The State and anothers2012 P Cr. L J 603 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-11-22
  post-arrest bailquestion paper leakageprohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustheinous offencetentative assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for post-arrest bail filed by Muhammad Riaz Khan, who was charged along with co-accused in F.I.R. No. 396 dated 9-8-2011 registered under sections 409, 419, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 at Police Station Sabzi Mandi, Islamabad, for allegedly leaking entry test question papers of NUST. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given his specific role in a heinous economic and educational crime falling within the prohibitory clause. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was directly nominated with a specific role, the offence under section 409 fell within the prohibitory clause where refusal of bail is the rule, and the petitioner's case was distinguishable from co-accused who were released on bail. The court laid down the principle that in cases involving heinous offences affecting societal and educational integrity and causing massive financial and academic losses, and where prima facie connection exists through tentative assessment, bail ought not to be granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused nominated in an F.I.R. for leaking university entry test question papers is entitled to post-arrest bail under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does an offence falling within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the refusal of bail as a general rule?
  • Can the principle of consistency be invoked when the role of the accused seeking bail is distinguishable from co-accused who have been released on bail?
  • Is deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the bail stage under Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Ministry of Health through Secretary, Islamabad2012 PLJ Islamabad 1, 2012 PLJ Islamabad 220, 2012 PLC (C.S.) 328 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-13
  writ jurisdictionmaster and servantPakistan Red Crescent Societyconstitutional petitionemployment disputeArticle 199non-governmental organization
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former employee of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society seeking payment of gratuity and pensionary benefits following the termination of his services. The core legal question was whether the Pakistan Red Crescent Society performs functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, thereby making it amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether the relationship between the society and its employee is governed by the principle of master and servant. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the matter. The Court determined that the Pakistan Red Crescent Society is an independent non-governmental organization, not a state functionary, and its employees do not hold the status of civil servants. Consequently, the relationship between the society and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant, rendering the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 inapplicable to employment disputes involving the society.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Pakistan Red Crescent Society amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the relationship between the Pakistan Red Crescent Society and its employees constitute a master and servant relationship?
  • Are employees of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society considered civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Ministry of Health through its Secretary2012 PLJ Islamabad 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz vs Ministry of Health and another2012 PLJ Islamabad 220 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Munawar Hussain and 16 others vs Federation of Pakistan2012 PLC (C.S.) 362 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-09-23
  service lawequal protectiondiscriminationupgradation of postreasonable classificationparity of payconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, Medical Assistants in the Islamabad Capital Territory, filed a writ petition seeking the upgrading of their posts from BPS-8 to BPS-16, claiming parity with their counterparts in the Punjab Government. The petitioners argued that since the qualification and nature of duties for Medical Assistants in both jurisdictions were identical, their lower grading constituted discriminatory treatment in violation of Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The respondents contended that the petitioners had accepted the terms of their appointment in BS-8 and that the Punjab Government's policies were not binding on the Islamabad Capital Territory. The Court held that when qualifications and duties are identical, similarly placed employees must be treated equally under the law, absent any reasonable classification. Rejecting the argument that accepting a lower grade precludes a claim for parity, the Court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to equal treatment. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to upgrade the petitioners' posts to match those of the similarly placed employees in the Punjab Government.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acceptance of a post in a lower grade preclude an employee from subsequently claiming parity with similarly placed employees in other jurisdictions?
  • Is the principle of equal treatment under Article 25 of the Constitution applicable to employees performing identical duties with the same qualifications but working under different provincial or federal administrations?
  • Can the government deny the upgrading of posts to employees when the nature of their duties and qualifications are identical to those of counterparts who have already been granted higher grades?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khushal and another vs Capital Development Authority2012 PLJ Islamabad 255, 2012 CLC 1063 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jameel vs Naseer Ahmad Bhutta and 2 others2012 CLC 1973 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-06-13
  constitutional petitionex parte ejectmentservice of summonsopportunity of hearingrent restrictionnewspaper publication
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Articles 199 and 203 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging orders passed by the lower appellate court and the Rent Controller, Islamabad, whereby an ex parte ejectment order against the petitioner and an application for setting aside the same were dismissed. The core legal question was whether an ex parte ejectment order could be sustained when service through publication in a newspaper of limited circulation was effected without fulfilling proper legal requirements and without granting a proper opportunity of hearing. The Islamabad High Court held that the publication in a newspaper of limited circulation did not constitute valid service under Section 25 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001, and that any eviction order passed without proper service and inquiry violates Section 24 of the Ordinance. The court laid down the principle that mandatory requirements of service and affording an opportunity of hearing must be strictly fulfilled before passing an ex parte ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether publication in a newspaper of limited circulation amounts to valid service of summons under the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001?
  • Can an ex parte ejectment order be sustained if passed without affording the tenant an opportunity of hearing as mandated by Section 24 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001?
  • Is a Rent Controller competent to entertain an application for setting aside an ex parte order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad-Ul-Hassan, Asstt. Executive Engineer vs Pak Public2012 PLJ Islamabad 114 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad Ul Hassan vs Pak Public Works Department (Pak2012 PLJ Islamabad 114, 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1275 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-04-30
  constitutional jurisdictiondeputationtransfer and postingcurrent chargebad governancefavoritismservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the appointment of a private respondent on deputation from an autonomous body to the Pak Public Works Department to hold a current charge post of Executive Engineer. The core legal questions involved whether an employee of an autonomous body can be brought on deputation to a department governed by specific transfer and promotion rules, and whether such an appointment marred by favoritism and non-transparent procedures is lawful. The Islamabad High Court held that the appointment of the private respondent on deputation was illegal, void ab initio, and tainted with favoritism, as the post of Executive Engineer is a promotion post and the deputation violated the applicable departmental rules. The Court laid down the principle that executive authorities cannot bypass regular employees and applicable service rules to accommodate persons from autonomous bodies on deputation through non-transparent and arbitrary orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of an employee from an autonomous body on deputation to a government department against a promotion post is lawful?
  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to set aside an illegal and non-transparent deputation order tainted with favoritism?
  • Can a person holding a post on current charge basis challenge the arbitrary appointment of a deputationist in violation of prescribed departmental rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ilyas and 7 others vs Arif Khan and another2012 PLJ Islamabad 168, 2012 PLD Islamabad 68 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-01Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fawad and another vs Standard Chartered Bank2012 CLD 1633 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faraz vs Mehfeez and others2012 PLJ Islamabad 29 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Faraz vs Mehfeez and 2 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 29, 2012 PLD Islamabad 61 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Adnan Luqman vs Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis through Secretary and 2 others2012 PLC (C.S.) 1525 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-05-09
  writ jurisdictionmaintainability of writ petitionpublic employmentmerit-based appointmentfavouritismnatural justiceadministrative transparencyjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a legal officer, challenged the appointment of respondent No. 3 as a Law Officer (Grade-7) at the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation (OPF), alleging that he was the top candidate on the merit list and that the appointment was made due to political pressure and favoritism. The respondents argued that the writ petition was not maintainable against the OPF as an autonomous body and denied the petitioner's claim of being on top of the merit list. The court held that the writ petition was maintainable because the OPF operates under the control and management of the Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis, which bears responsibility for ensuring transparency and merit. While the court found no conclusive evidence that the petitioner was entitled to the appointment, it determined that the appointment of respondent No. 3 was made in a clandestine and mysterious manner, lacking transparency and violating principles of natural justice and fair play. Consequently, the court directed the Secretary of the Ministry to conduct an inquiry into the appointments and mandated that the post be properly advertised to ensure a transparent, merit-based selection process.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an autonomous body like the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation when it operates under the control of a government ministry?
  • Can a court direct an inquiry into recruitment processes where allegations of favoritism and non-transparency are substantiated?
  • Does a candidate have a vested right to appointment merely by claiming to be at the top of a merit list without conclusive evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mufti Pervaiz Manzoor vs The State and 2 others2012 P Cr. L J 731 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-05-20
  quashment of FIRcivil disputemala fideabuse of processevictionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, contending that it was lodged with mala fide intentions by the respondent to harass and blackmail the petitioner and to frustrate an eviction order passed in respect of a shop. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings could be quashed when the dispute was essentially of a civil nature, marked by considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R., and initiated after concurrent findings in eviction proceedings and civil litigation went against the complainant. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and quashed the F.I.R., holding that the High Court possesses ample powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings in exceptional circumstances where no offence is made out, the dispute is purely civil, and criminal process is abused for ulterior motives following unsuccessful civil litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash an F.I.R. under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when a dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
  • Whether an F.I.R. lodged with an unexplained delay of several years after the initiation of civil litigation can be sustained?
  • Does the existence of prior civil litigation and concurrent eviction orders against a complainant affect the maintainability of a criminal case involving the same subject matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shakeela Bibi vs Muhammad Israr etc.2012 PLJ Islamabad 59 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Adeela Bibi and another vs State and 4 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 140 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mst, Nasreen Begum and anothers vs Ministry of Interior, Government2012 PLD Islamabad 17 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-21
  Exit Control Listfundamental rightsfreedom of movementmoney launderingconstitutional petitionhundiright to travel
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan seeking the removal of their names and that of respondent No. 3 from the Exit Control List (ECL). The Ministry of Interior had placed the names on the ECL based on a pending inquiry into allegations of money laundering and hundi, initiated upon a private complaint. The court observed that respondent No. 3 must seek relief independently and that petitioner No. 1's name was not actually on the list. Regarding petitioner No. 2, the court held that the mere pendency of an inquiry, without the registration of a criminal case or the presence of incriminating material, is insufficient to justify restricting a citizen's movement. The court emphasized that the right to travel abroad is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. Consequently, the court directed the respondents to remove petitioner No. 2's name from the ECL, ruling that such restrictions in the absence of concrete legal proceedings violate Articles 2-A, 4, 9, 15, and 25.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere pendency of an inquiry into financial allegations is sufficient grounds to place a citizen's name on the Exit Control List?
  • Can a petitioner seek the removal of a third party's name from the Exit Control List through a joint constitutional petition?
  • Does the placement of a name on the Exit Control List without a registered criminal case or investigation violate the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 9, and 15 of the Constitution?
  • Is the availability of an alternate remedy under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 an absolute bar to the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. Nusrat Batool, Ex-Principal Scientific Officer, Islamabad vs Director General, Narc, Islamabad and 2 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 164 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ms. Najaf Haider and 51 others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others2012 PLC (C.S.) 1220 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-13
  regularization of servicescontract employeesdaily wagesgovernment policyIntra Court AppealPakistan Housing Authorityservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenged the dismissal of a writ petition concerning the regularization of contract and daily-wage employees at the Pakistan Housing Authority. The appellants, who had served for several years, sought regularization in accordance with Federal Government policies. The core legal question was whether the respondent authority was obligated to implement the Federal Government's policy regarding the regularization of contractual and daily-wage employees, particularly in light of specific Cabinet Sub-Committee directives. The Court held that the Federal Government's policy on regularization must be implemented in letter and spirit. It observed that the appellants had served for significant periods and were at risk of becoming over-age, thereby losing future employment opportunities. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order, accepted the appeal, and directed the respondents to consider the appellants' regularization in accordance with the prevalent Government policy and the minutes of the Cabinet Committee. The principle established is that government entities are bound to implement official policies regarding the regularization of long-serving contractual employees to ensure fairness and prevent the termination of services pending such consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Is a government authority obligated to implement Federal Government policies regarding the regularization of contract and daily-wage employees?
  • Can the services of long-serving contract employees be terminated while their regularization status is being considered under government policy?
  • Does the Federal Government have the authority to issue directives for the regularization of employees in autonomous bodies?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Tahira Asif Mir vs A Muhammad Hanif Chauhan2012 YLR 1478 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-11-29Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Iram Adnan and others vs Federation of Pakistan and others2012 PLJ Islamabad 191, 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1355 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-20
  Writ PetitionCivil Service PromotionCentral Selection Board (CSB)SupersessionDiscretionary MarksNatural JusticeConstitutional GuaranteesJurisdiction of High CourtService TribunalBinding Precedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of multiple writ petitions filed by civil servants challenging their supersession for promotion by the Central Selection Board (CSB). The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of writ petitions against determinations of fitness for promotion, and the legality of the CSB's formula for awarding 15 discretionary marks, particularly in light of previous Supreme Court directives. The High Court held that the writ petitions were maintainable, as no other remedy was available against the determination of fitness. The Court declared the CSB's formula for awarding 15 discretionary marks as illegal, unconstitutional, and against the principles of natural justice and the dictums of the Supreme Court. It was emphasized that allegations of corruption or inefficiency must be confronted with the civil servant. Consequently, all CSB meetings held subsequent to the Supreme Court's pronouncements (25-9-2006 and 14-7-2009) using the impugned formula were declared unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. The Establishment Division was directed to implement the Supreme Court's judgments and restructure the formula for awarding marks, mandating de-novo proceedings for all superseded/deferred civil servants.

  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Iram Adnan & others vs Federation of Pakistan & others2012 PLJ Islamabad 191 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-20
  civil service promotionCentral Selection Boardwrit jurisdictionfitness for promotionnatural justiceservice lawsupersessionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple writ petitions filed by civil servants challenging their supersession by the Central Selection Board (CSB) for promotion to higher grades. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate promotion-related grievances despite the bar under the Service Tribunals Act, and whether the CSB’s discretionary 15-mark formula—based on subjective assessments of reputation and integrity—was legally valid. The Court held that the writ petitions were maintainable because the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over matters of fitness for promotion. Consequently, the Court declared the CSB’s 15-mark discretionary formula illegal, unconstitutional, and non-transparent, noting it violated established Supreme Court precedents requiring objective criteria. The Court emphasized that civil servants cannot be superseded based on subjective, hearsay allegations of corruption without due process or confrontation. The key principle laid down is that executive promotion criteria must be objective and transparent; subjective, whimsical assessments that undermine constitutional guarantees are impermissible. The Court ordered de novo proceedings to reconsider the affected civil servants’ promotions using a restructured, objective formula compliant with apex court directives.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a civil servant's grievance regarding fitness for promotion?
  • Is the Central Selection Board's discretionary 15-mark formula for promotion legally valid?
  • Can a civil servant be superseded based on subjective assessments of reputation without being confronted with the allegations?
  • Are the decisions of the Supreme Court binding on all other courts in Pakistan regarding the criteria for promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Mr. Fakhar-E-Alam Khan. vs Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 32012 PTD 44, PTCL 2012 CL. 524 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-10-12Read full judgment →
• Mir Ahmad Khan vs Federation of PAKISTANthrough Secretary, Establishment Division Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others2012 PLJ Islamabad 26, 2012 PLC (C.S.) 842 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-09
  sacked employeesreinstatementpromotionlegitimate expectancyad hoc appointmentcivil servicePakistan Bait-ul-Mal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Director (BPS-19) at Pakistan Bait-ul-Mal, filed a constitutional petition challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4 to a BPS-20 position, arguing it violated his right to promotion. The core legal questions concerned whether the BPS-20 post was available for promotion, the eligibility of the respondent for reinstatement under the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010, and the impact of the petitioner's retirement. The Court held that the petition was devoid of merit. It determined that, pursuant to the Pakistan Bait-ul-Mal Services Regulations, the BPS-20 post was reserved for direct recruitment, not promotion, thereby negating the petitioner's claim of a vested right or legitimate expectancy. Furthermore, the Court found that respondent No. 4, despite being an ad hoc employee, met the statutory criteria for reinstatement under the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010, as his employment and termination dates fell within the prescribed periods. The principle laid down is that a civil servant cannot claim a right to promotion for a post designated exclusively for initial recruitment, and ad hoc employees may qualify for reinstatement under specific remedial legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Is a post designated for direct recruitment available for promotion to a civil servant?
  • Does an ad hoc employee qualify for reinstatement under the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010?
  • Does a civil servant possess a vested right to promotion to a post that is filled exclusively through initial recruitment?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Ahmad Khan vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan2012 PLJ Islamabad 26 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Ajmal vs Syed Nazar Hussain Shah Bukhari2012 CLC 1088 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs the Brands vs Rent Controller, Islamabad and 2 others2012 CLC 825 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs The Brands through Muhammad Arshad vs Rent Controller, Islamabad and 2 others2012 CLC 825, 2012 PLJ Islamabad 97, 2012 CLD 957 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shandar Petroleum/CNG through Managing Partner and 462012 CLD 1714 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Ordnance Factories (Pof) Wah, Cantt. vs CollectorPLJ 2012 Tax Cases (Isl.) 29, 2012 P.C.T.L.R. 1111, 2012 PTD 1016 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-14
  Sales Tax ReferenceSales TaxElectricity GenerationSelf-ConsumptionLimitation PeriodOrder-in-OriginalAppellate TribunalAdditional TaxPenaltyStatutory Compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This Sales Tax Reference concerned Messrs Pakistan Ordnance Factories (POF) Wah Cantt., challenging an Order-in-Original and an Appellate Tribunal judgment regarding the levy of sales tax on electricity generation and self-consumption, along with additional tax and penalties. The core legal questions included whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in confirming the Order-in-Original and the levy of sales tax on self-generated electricity. The Islamabad High Court held that the Order-in-Original was passed with an inordinate delay of 313 days beyond the statutory period prescribed under Section 36(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, including any extended period. The Court emphasized that statutory time limits for quasi-judicial proceedings are mandatory, and executive functionaries must adhere to them. Consequently, the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in confirming the time-barred Order-in-Original, rendering it invalid. The Court declined to address other factual questions due to the fundamental procedural flaw.

  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ocean Pakistan Limited, Islamabad through Chief Executive Officer2012 PTD 1209 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-04-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs M.A. Aleem Khan & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Pakistan2012 CLC 236 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-11-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs King Clothing vs Muhabat Khan and others2012 CLC 939 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Indus Rags through Proprietor and 3 others vs Government of Pakistan through Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others2012 PTD 1293 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-04-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dancom Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive Officer vs Pakistan Telecommunication Authority through Chairman and another2012 CLD 394 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-06-24
  show cause noticewrit jurisdictionmaintainabilitytelecommunication licensereporting requirementsjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a private telecommunication company challenging a show-cause notice issued by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority. The Authority had directed the petitioner to submit International Incoming Traffic Data for specific months in 2010, citing potential license suspension or termination for non-compliance. The petitioner argued that the requested information had already been provided. Conversely, the respondent Authority contended that the information remained outstanding, the petitioner had approached the court with unclean hands, and the petition was premature as no final adverse order had been passed. The core legal question was whether a mere show-cause notice is amenable to challenge under the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on established legal precedent, the Court affirmed that a show-cause notice, being an interlocutory step rather than a final adverse order, cannot be challenged through a writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with costs, reinforcing the principle that judicial intervention is generally inappropriate at the stage of a show-cause notice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a show-cause notice issued by a regulatory authority amenable to challenge under writ jurisdiction?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against a show-cause notice before any final adverse order is passed?
  • Does the failure to provide required traffic data under the Access Promotion Rules 2004 justify the issuance of a show-cause notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dancom Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd through Chief Executive Officer vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology and another2012 PLD Islamabad 11 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-06-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Business Impex through Proprietor vs Deputy Director, Customs2012 PTD 71 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-03-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Azad Hafeez Ltd. through Toor Jan, F.B.R., Islamabad vs Chairman, F.B.R. Islamabad and 5 others2012 MLD 1684 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-06-22
  constitutional petitionterritorial jurisdictiontransit tradecustoms authoritiesmaintainabilityfactual controversysmuggling
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by Messrs Azad Hafeez Limited seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to release imported consignments of Polyester Printed Fabric under the Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement (APTTA), 2010, or alternatively to charge taxable import duties. The core legal questions involved the territorial jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court over consignments retained at Karachi Port, the maintainability of a constitutional petition during pending departmental appeals before the Collector Customs (Appeals) Karachi, and whether disputed factual controversies regarding alleged misuse of corporate documents and smuggling could be resolved under constitutional jurisdiction. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action accrued in Karachi, that the petition was not maintainable due to pending alternate statutory appeals, and that intricate factual disputes cannot be adjudicated through a writ petition. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not exercise extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction when the matter involves disputed facts and alternative proceedings are already pending before the appropriate forum outside the court's territorial limits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Islamabad High Court has territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate a matter where the consignments are retained and the cause of action accrued at Karachi Port?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution be maintained when an appeal regarding the same controversy is already pending before the Collector Customs (Appeals)?
  • Whether disputed factual controversies, such as the fictitious use of corporate documents and allegations of smuggling, can be determined in the exercise of extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Maskeen Sultan vs CDA through Chairman2012 YLR 2889 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-05-04Read full judgment →
• Maryam Izhar and another vs International Islamic University and others2012 MLD 719 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-08Read full judgment →
• Malik Safdar Ali Khan vs The State and anothers2012 YLR 930 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-02
  post-arrest bailSection 489-F PPCdishonoured chequenon-prohibitory clausecriminal breach of trustrecovery proceedingsbail as a rule
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from a post-arrest bail application filed by the petitioner in a case registered under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad, involving the alleged dishonouring of two cheques totalling Rs. 1,000,000 in a real estate transaction. The core legal questions before the High Court were whether an accused charged under Section 489-F is entitled to bail as a matter of rule when the offence falls outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether criminal proceedings may be used as a recovery mechanism. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and granted bail subject to furnishing bail bonds with two sureties. The Court held that for offences carrying alternative punishments of imprisonment or fine and falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497, bail is the rule and refusal is an exception, especially where no exceptional circumstances or previous criminal record exist, emphasizing that criminal proceedings cannot be weaponized as coercive tools for monetary recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused charged under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 entitled to bail as a rule where the offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can criminal proceedings under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be used as a mechanism for the recovery of money or to exert pressure on an accused?
  • Does the availability of an alternative punishment of fine under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 warrant exercising discretion in favour of granting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Amjad Pervaiz vs The State and anothers2012 YLR 1907 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-02-14
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaymurdercommon intentionabsence of co-accusedcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Malik Amjad Pervaiz in connection with an F.I.R. registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at Police Station Bhara Kahu, Islamabad, involving a murder incident during which the petitioner allegedly fired at the deceased. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delayed conclusion of trial, notwithstanding the absence of co-accused persons. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioner could not be penalized or made to suffer for the absence of a co-accused or delays not attributable to him, especially when his counsel remained in attendance. The court laid down the key principle that an accused person cannot be denied statutory bail on account of trial delays caused by the absence of co-accused parties when the petitioner himself was ready and diligent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person can be denied post-arrest bail on the statutory ground of delayed trial when the delay is caused by the absence of a co-accused?
  • Does the absence of a co-accused preclude the court from granting bail to an otherwise diligent accused who has suffered prolonged incarceration?
  • Is an accused person responsible for trial delays arising from exemption applications filed on behalf of co-accused individuals?
  Read full judgment →
• Major (Rtd.) Muhammad Farooq vs Chairman, National Accountability2012 PLJ Islamabad 215 · Islamabad High Court
  Intra Court Appealpay protectionautonomous bodiesproper channelservice continuityNational Accountability BureauPakistan Engineering Council
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber, which dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant seeking pay protection and counting of his previous length of service rendered in the Pakistan Engineering Council upon joining the National Accountability Bureau. The core legal question centered on whether an employee moving from one autonomous body to another is entitled to pay protection and service continuity without applying through the proper channel and where the Civil Servants Act does not apply. The court held that since the appellant failed to apply for the new assignment through the proper channel and the governing service rules and applicable Office Memorandum explicitly require such compliance alongside the adoption of basic pay scales, the appellant is not entitled to pay protection or counting of previous service. The court established that employees transferring between autonomous bodies outside the purview of the Civil Servants Act cannot claim pay protection benefits without strictly fulfilling the prerequisites of applying through proper channels and establishing entitlement under applicable departmental policies.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee transferring from one autonomous body to another entitled to pay protection without applying through the proper channel?
  • Whether the Civil Servants Act applies to employees governed by the National Accountability Ordinance for the purpose of claiming pay protection?
  • Does an employee who has drawn all service emoluments and gratuity from a previous autonomous employer have a right to count previous length of service in a new autonomous organization?
  • Are employees of autonomous bodies eligible for pay protection under the Office Memorandum dated 08.6.2010 if they fail to meet the mandatory requirement of applying through proper channel?
  Read full judgment →
• Major (Retired) Muhammad Farooq vs Chairman, National2012 PLJ Islamabad 215, 2012 PLC (C.S.) 934 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-06
  Intra Court Appealpay protectionautonomous bodyproper channelNational Accountability BureauPakistan Engineering Councilservice rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal challenges the order of the learned Single Judge in Chamber dismissing the appellant's writ petition. The appellant, a retired Pakistan Army officer, joined the Pakistan Engineering Council (a statutory body) and subsequently moved to the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) on open merit without a break in service, seeking protection of his previous pay and counting of his past service. The core legal questions involved whether an employee moving from one autonomous body to another is entitled to pay protection and service length counting, and whether the conditions of the applicable Office Memorandum and the requirement of applying through the proper channel were met. The Islamabad High Court held that since the appellant failed to apply for the new post through the proper channel and did not fulfill the mandatory conditions of the relevant Office Memorandum, he was not entitled to pay protection or counting of past service. The court laid down the principle that the benefit of pay protection for employees of autonomous bodies upon subsequent appointment is conditional upon strict compliance with rules, including applying through the proper channel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee moving from one autonomous body to another is entitled to pay protection without applying through the proper channel?
  • Does the Civil Servants Act, 1973 apply to employees of the National Accountability Bureau?
  • Are employees of autonomous bodies entitled to the counting of previous service upon appointment in another organization without fulfilling prescribed conditions?
  Read full judgment →
• Lalzada alias Lal Khan vs The State and anothersPLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 516, 2012 YLR 930, 2012 YLR 864 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-07
  post-arrest bailcar liftinginadmissible evidencepointation memohabitual offenderfurther inquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Islamabad High Court through a post-arrest bail petition filed by Lalzada alias Lal Khan in a case registered under Section 381-A read with Section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, later substituted by Sections 458, 413, 401, and 75 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns the admissibility of evidence relied upon by the lower courts—specifically a pointation memo and confessional statements—and whether mere registration of multiple cases and status as a habitual offender justify withholding bail when no admissible incriminating material connects the accused to the crime. The court held that reliance on inadmissible evidence, such as confessional statements made to police and defective pointation memos, brings the case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that prior criminal record alone cannot deny bail. The Islamabad High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether reliance on a defective pointation memo and inadmissible police confessional statements warrants further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be refused to an accused solely on the ground that multiple other criminal cases are registered against him?
  • Is a pointation memo without a proper date and containing factual discrepancies sufficient to connect an accused to an alleged car theft?
  Read full judgment →
• Lalzada alias Lal Khan vs State and anotherPLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 516 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-07
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryinadmissible evidencepointation memohabitual offendervehicle theft
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Lalzada alias Lal Khan, in a case involving vehicle theft. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to bail despite the prosecution's reliance on a pointation memo and the petitioner's history of other criminal cases. The Court observed that the lower court relied on inadmissible evidence, specifically a pointation memo that lacked a date and contained factual discrepancies regarding the location of the occurrence. Furthermore, the Court noted that the prosecution admitted there was no admissible material connecting the petitioner to the alleged offence. The Court held that the petitioner's case fell within the ambit of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The key principle laid down is that mere registration of multiple cases against an accused does not constitute sufficient grounds for the refusal of bail when the prosecution fails to provide admissible evidence connecting the accused to the specific offence, thereby warranting further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can a pointation memo that lacks a date and contains factual discrepancies be relied upon to deny bail?
  • Does the mere registration of multiple criminal cases against an accused constitute sufficient grounds to refuse bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution admits there is no admissible evidence connecting them to the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurram Irshad Khan vs Station House Officer, Kohsar PolicePLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 344, 2012 PLD Islamabad 58 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-03
  criminal trespassregistration of FIRcognizable offencejustice of peaceSection 22-A Cr.P.C.house trespass
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the dismissal of an application under Section 22-A(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought the registration of a criminal case against the respondent for alleged criminal trespass. The petitioner, a manager at the National Insurance Company, alleged that the respondent, an ex-tenant, attempted to enter the premises with police assistance to retrieve belongings, which the petitioner characterized as criminal trespass under Sections 448/451, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the alleged conduct constituted a cognizable offence requiring the registration of an FIR. The Court held that the facts, as reported by the security guard, did not disclose the commission of any offence, as there was no evidence of intent to intimidate, insult, or annoy, and the parties left when asked. The Court affirmed that while police must register an FIR for cognizable offences, they are not obligated to do so where the allegations do not constitute an offence. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the entry of a person onto property to retrieve belongings under a claim of right constitute criminal trespass under Section 441, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a police officer obligated to register an FIR if the reported facts do not disclose a cognizable offence?
  • Can a petition under Section 22-A(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be maintained if the underlying allegations fail to establish the essential ingredients of the alleged offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurram Irshad Khan vs S.H.O., Kohsar etc.PLJ 2012 Cr.C. (Islamabad) 344 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-03
  criminal trespassregistration of FIRcognizable offenceSection 22-A Cr.P.C.house trespasspolice duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenged an order dismissing an application under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which sought the registration of a criminal case against an ex-tenant for alleged criminal trespass. The core legal question was whether the respondent’s entry into the petitioner's premises, accompanied by police, constituted a cognizable offence under Sections 448/451 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, thereby compelling the police to register an FIR. The Court held that the petition lacked merit. It reasoned that criminal trespass under Section 441 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 requires specific intent to commit an offence, intimidate, insult, or annoy. As the respondent departed immediately upon being challenged by security, no such intent or offence was established. The Court affirmed that while police must register an FIR for cognizable offences, they are not obligated to do so when the reported facts fail to disclose the commission of any such offence. Consequently, the dismissal of the application for FIR registration was upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does an entry into premises without the intent to commit an offence, intimidate, insult, or annoy constitute criminal trespass under Section 441 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is a police officer legally obligated to register an FIR if the reported facts do not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • Can a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be maintained against an order dismissing an application for FIR registration under Section 22-A(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Khan vs The State through S.H.O., Tarnol2012 MLD 828 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-12
  post-arrest bailexplosive substancesfurther inquiryArms OrdinanceExplosive Actcriminal conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail petition filed by Khalid Khan facing charges under Section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Act in F.I.R. No. 420 registered at Police Station Tarnol, Islamabad. The core legal question concerns whether the alleged recovery of chemical cylinders from the petitioner's vehicle, given inconclusive laboratory and expert reports regarding their usability in explosive devices, warrants the grant of bail. The Islamabad High Court accepted the bail application, holding that the uncertainty surrounding the nature of the recovered substance and the lack of definitive adverse forensic findings brought the case within the scope of 'further inquiry' under the law. The key principle laid down is that where the prosecution's expert reports fail to conclusively identify a recovered substance as an explosive material, the benefit of such ambiguity tilts in favor of the accused at the bail stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a conclusive expert report identifying a recovered substance as explosive material bring the case within the scope of further inquiry for bail?
  • Whether an accused found transporting unverified chemical cylinders is entitled to post-arrest bail when laboratory analysis remains inconclusive?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamran Manzoor and 5 others vs Secretary Cabinet2012 PLC (C.S.) 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-04-20
  constitutional petitionregularization of servicecontract employeesservice regulationspublic sector employmentage limit relaxation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioners seeking to declare an advertisement dated 3-1-2010 illegal and to direct the respondents to regularize their services as Assistant Directors in the Frequency Allocation Board from the initial date of their appointments. The petitioners were initially appointed on contract following an advertisement in 2006 before the promulgation of the Frequency Allocation Board Employees Service Regulations, 2007. After the 2007 Regulations were notified, the Cabinet Secretary turned down their regularization request, leading to the re-advertisement of the posts. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, having served satisfactorily for years and crossed the upper age limit, were entitled to regularization of their services without going through a fresh competitive process. The court held that while the services of the petitioners cannot be regularized without undergoing the prescribed procedure, the respondents must consider their cases for regularization in accordance with the prescribed procedure without requiring fresh applications, drawing upon established jurisprudence for sympathetic consideration of long-serving employees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees can be regularized without undergoing the prescribed procedure under service regulations?
  • Does an initial appointment advertisement promising regularization create an enforceable right to permanent absorption?
  • How should the department handle regularization cases of long-serving employees who have crossed the upper age limit for fresh recruitment?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed-Ur-Rehman vs The State and another2011 P Cr. L J 1868 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-06-21
  post-arrest bailelectronic crimesfurther inquiryfraud and misrepresentationcyber crimestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for post-arrest bail filed by the accused, Javed-ur-Rehman, who was charged under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, 2007 and the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, following allegations of defrauding the complainant through a fake lottery scheme involving electronic communications. The core legal question was whether the allegations, even if accepted as true, constituted offences under the cited electronic crimes legislation, thereby justifying the petitioner's continued detention. The court held that the allegations, which involved simple fraud and misrepresentation, did not satisfy the essential ingredients of the electronic crimes statutes, as there was no evidence of illegal access to documents or destruction of information systems. Consequently, the court found the petitioner's case to be one of further inquiry and granted the bail petition. The key principle laid down is that where the facts alleged in an F.I.R. do not prima facie constitute the specific offences under the invoked special electronic crimes laws, the case qualifies for further inquiry, entitling the accused to the concession of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere use of email to commit fraud constitute an offence under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Ordinance, 2007?
  • When does a criminal case qualify as one of 'further inquiry' for the purpose of granting bail?
  • Can bail be granted when the allegations in an F.I.R. do not prima facie fall within the ambit of the special laws invoked?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamil Akhtar Ghauri, Doctor Homoeopathic and others vs Federation2012 PLJ Islamabad 203 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-03-29Read full judgment →
• Izhar-Ul-Haq vs S.M.E. Bank Limited through President and another .2012 PLC (C.S.) 517 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-10-28
  Voluntary Separation SchemeConstitutional petitionAmalgamationDiscriminatory treatmentStatutory rulesService benefitsNatural justiceWrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the withholding of Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) benefits by the SME Bank from a former employee of the Regional Development Finance Corporation (RDFC). The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, given the respondent's claim that its service rules were non-statutory, and whether the petitioner was entitled to VSS benefits despite pending disciplinary inquiries. The Court held that the petition was maintainable because, pursuant to Section 7 of the Regional Development Finance Corporation and Small Business Finance Corporation (Amalgamation and Conversion) Ordinance, 2001, the petitioner retained the protection of the statutory rules governing his original employment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the withholding of benefits was discriminatory and violated natural justice, as similarly situated employees had received their benefits or were reinstated, and the alleged financial losses had already been recovered. The judgment establishes that employees transferred via statutory amalgamation retain their original service protections and that arbitrary denial of benefits to one employee while others similarly situated receive them constitutes discriminatory treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to adjudicate service matters of employees transferred from a statutory corporation to a new entity?
  • Do employees transferred via statutory amalgamation retain the protection of their original statutory service rules?
  • Is the withholding of Voluntary Separation Scheme benefits from an employee while similarly situated employees receive them considered discriminatory treatment?
  Read full judgment →
• IslamabadjMessrs Shandar Petroleum/CNG and 46 others vs Federation2012 YLR 1529 · Islamabad High Court · 2011-12-23Read full judgment →