Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Sheikh Raheel vs The State, etc2025 IHC 426 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a constitutional petition filed against the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III/Ex-officio Justice of Peace, Islamabad-West, whereby an application under Section 22-A and B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by respondent No. 4 was allowed. The core legal question concerned the legality of the direction for registration of a criminal case regarding the alleged wrongful detention and abduction of the respondent's sons, despite prior criminal cases pending against them in Lahore. The Islamabad High Court held that the unexplained delay between the initial emergency call regarding the disappearance and the subsequent formal recording of arrest raised reasonable apprehension of unlawful custody and abuse of authority by the proposed accused. The court laid down the principle that the wrongful detention of a citizen by authorities constitutes a gross violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, and an order passed by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace directing legal action in such circumstances warrants no interference.
Questions settled- Whether an order passed by an Ex-officio Justice of Peace under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrants interference when based on a finding of wrongful detention?
- Does unexplained delay between a missing person report and the formal recording of arrest give rise to a reasonable apprehension of unlawful custody?
- Does the wrongful confinement of a citizen in police custody constitute a violation of fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Sharifa E Shereen Sharifi vs Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Interior, Pakistan Secretariat, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 356 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shahid Saleem, Amir Karim Minhas vs The Director Labour and another2025 IHC 464 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment of the Islamabad High Court, authored by Inaam Ameen Minhas, J., addresses two consolidated writ petitions filed by Shahid Saleem and Amir Karim Minhas challenging the dismissal of their gratuity claims under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The core legal question was whether employees holding managerial positions such as Production Incharge and Production Manager fall within the definition of 'person employed' or 'workman' so as to be entitled to claim benefits under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The Court held that the petitioners, performing managerial and supervisory duties involving autonomy and decision-making rather than skilled or unskilled manual or clerical labour, do not fall within the scope of Section 2(g) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 or the definition of 'worker' and 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. Consequently, they are not entitled to seek relief under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 apply to employees holding managerial or administrative positions?
- Whether persons engaged in managerial or supervisory roles fall within the definition of workman under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- Are employees working as Production Incharge or Production Manager entitled to claim gratuity under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Shahid Rehman vs The State2025 IHC 256 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the order passed by the Special Court, Islamabad, dismissing the appellant's application for a reduction of the surety bond amount required for his release on bail. The core legal question revolves around whether excessive surety bond amounts that render bail practically ineffective due to an accused person's limited financial means should be reduced. The court held that bail, once granted, must not be rendered illusory or ineffective by imposing onerous financial conditions beyond the accused's capacity, and consequently allowed the appeal by reducing the surety amount. The key principle laid down is that trial courts must balance the objective of securing the attendance of the accused with ensuring that bail conditions do not impose excessive financial burdens that defeat the relief granted.
Questions settled- Whether bail conditions can be reduced if the accused demonstrates limited financial capacity?
- Does an excessive surety bond amount render the relief of bail ineffective in practice?
- Can an accused deposit surety in cash when unable to arrange conventional sureties?
- Shagufta Shaheen and others vs Federal Board of Revenue Islamabad2025 IHC 568 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition was filed by civil servants seeking directions for promotion to the post of Inspector (Customs) based on their successful completion of a 2003 Departmental Promotion Examination. The petitioners challenged a 2018 circular and a 2021 rejection order, alleging administrative inaction and discriminatory treatment regarding the departmental promotion quota. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate a dispute concerning the promotion and eligibility of civil servants, or if such matters were exclusively reserved for the Federal Service Tribunal. The Court held that issues regarding the promotion, seniority, and eligibility of civil servants constitute terms and conditions of service under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 confers exclusive jurisdiction upon the Federal Service Tribunal to adjudicate such matters. The principle laid down is that the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is ousted in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, which must be addressed before the appropriate Service Tribunal. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a petition concerning the promotion and eligibility of a civil servant?
- Are disputes regarding the promotion of civil servants considered matters relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess exclusive jurisdiction over service matters under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Saniya Khan vs Federation of Pakistan2025 IHC 466 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-02Read full judgment →
- Saeeda Jillani and others vs Malik Sheraz Zafar and another2025 CLC 181 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-08-07Read full judgment →
- Saeed Zahir Zada vs The Federation Of Pakistan And Another2025 IHC 232, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 215 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-08Read full judgment →
- Saeed Akhtar vs OGDCL2025 IHC 170 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-03Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmed vs Murtaza Ali Punjwani and others2025 IHC 468 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-07Read full judgment →
- Sabir Hussain vs Muhammad Ashfaq2025 CLC 439 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-02-06Read full judgment →
- Sabino Sikandar Jalal vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 74 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a civil servant, filed a constitutional petition challenging various administrative orders, including letters and notifications that adversely affected his promotion to BS-21. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction when the petitioner had already successfully challenged the underlying withdrawal of his promotion before the Federal Service Tribunal (FST), which had reinstated his position, and was currently pursuing the implementation of that FST order. The Court held that the petition had become infructuous because the primary grievance regarding the promotion withdrawal had been resolved by the FST. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies, noting that the petitioner was already actively seeking enforcement of the FST's decision through the statutory mechanism provided by the Service Tribunals Act 1973. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass or circumvent an equally efficacious and adequate remedy already being pursued in the appropriate forum.
Questions settled- Can a High Court exercise writ jurisdiction when an equally efficacious remedy is being pursued before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Does the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies preclude a litigant from seeking relief in constitutional jurisdiction while simultaneously pursuing statutory enforcement of a tribunal order?
- Does a petition become infructuous when the primary grievance regarding service promotion has already been resolved by a competent Service Tribunal?
- Rozi Khan vs The Director, Directorate General Intelligence &2025 IHC 332 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-13Read full judgment →
- Regional Director Anf Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi vs Syed Mohsnain2025 IHC 122 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of the Special Court (CNS), Islamabad, which acquitted the respondent of charges under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of procedural irregularities in the investigation and chemical analysis. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing multiple fatal flaws: the complainant acted as the investigating officer, violating the principle of impartiality; no independent witnesses were associated with the recovery; and there were material contradictions between the physical state of the recovered narcotics (solid slabs) and the Chemical Examiner's report (granular powder). Furthermore, the Chemical Examiner's report failed to provide the mandatory 'full protocols' of the testing procedure. The Court affirmed that even a single reasonable doubt entitles an accused to acquittal as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.
Questions settled- Can a police officer who acts as the complainant in a case also serve as the investigating officer?
- Is a Chemical Examiner's report admissible if it fails to provide the full protocols of the test applied?
- Does a discrepancy between the physical state of recovered narcotics and the description in the chemical report warrant acquittal?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt as a matter of right when a single reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution's case?
- Razia Begum & 3 Others vs Aqeel Ahmad Sheikh & 5 Others2025 IHC 130 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
- Rana Ehtisham Ali vs Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge2025 IHC 498 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-30Read full judgment →
- Rana Ehtisham Ali vs Ex-Officio Justice Of Peace/Additional Sessions Judge2025 IHC 496 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-30Read full judgment →
- Raja Salman Akbar vs Ig Police Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 154 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-19Read full judgment →
- Raja Mumtaz Hussain Arif vs The State and another2025 IHC 190 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Islamabad High Court assailing an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge confirming his pre-arrest bail subject to furnishing a cash/bank guarantee of Rs.3,000,000/-. The core legal question was whether a court can bind an accused to furnish a cash/bank guarantee when the accused had voluntarily submitted an affidavit undertaking to provide the same as a condition for bail, and subsequently challenged that condition. The Islamabad High Court held that since the petitioner voluntarily offered the undertaking through an affidavit without any allegation of duress, coercion, or misrepresentation, and having successfully obtained the benefit of pre-arrest bail on that basis, he could not subsequently resile from it or approbate and reprobate. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine, establishing that an accused who voluntarily undertakes to furnish a specific guarantee to secure pre-arrest bail is bound by such undertaking and cannot later challenge the condition.
Questions settled- Can an accused challenge a condition of pre-arrest bail that was incorporated upon the accused's own voluntary written undertaking?
- Whether an accused who has taken the benefit of a pre-arrest bail order based on a personal undertaking can subsequently resile from that undertaking?
- Does a court commit illegality by confirming pre-arrest bail in accordance with the terms mutually agreed upon and undertaken by the accused and the complainant?
- Rahila Shahid vs Shahid Perwaiz and others2025 IHC 106 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-18Read full judgment →
- Rabeeya Pervez and others vs Usman Zafar and others2025 IHC 474 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from Intra-Court Appeals filed under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, challenging a Single Bench judgment that dismissed a writ of quo warranto against the appointment and promotion of an Assistant Director (HR) in the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) due to the challenger's lack of bona fides, despite finding the requirements of quo warranto satisfied. The core legal questions were whether the administrative HR posts within the PTA constitute "public offices" amenable to quo warranto, and whether the challenger's conduct affected the maintainability of the petition. The High Court held that the posts of Assistant Director and Deputy Director of HR are not public offices because they were created under non-statutory service regulations rather than directly by the parent statute, do not involve sovereign state functions, and represent contract-at-will employment. Furthermore, being designated a "public servant" under Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 does not confer civil status or transform a post into a public office. The Court affirmed that a challenger's bona fides can be questioned, ultimately allowing the appeals of the employee and the PTA.
Questions settled- Whether a subordinate administrative post created under non-statutory service regulations of a statutory body qualifies as a public office for the purpose of a writ of quo warranto?
- Does the status of an employee as a public servant under Section 21 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 confer civil status or make their post a public office?
- Can a court dismiss or refuse to entertain a writ of quo warranto on the ground that the petitioner or whistleblower lacks bona fides?
- What is the test to determine whether a statutory corporation or body is performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Qudsia Liaquat vs The State2025 IHC 108 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This jail appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for abduction and murder under Sections 365 and 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence presented—specifically 'last seen' testimony, alleged recoveries, and call data records—was sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges. Regarding abduction, evidence showed the deceased voluntarily left in his own vehicle, negating the element of compulsion or deceit. Regarding murder, the court found the recoveries unreliable due to non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as no independent witnesses were associated. Furthermore, the 'last seen' evidence was deemed insufficient to establish the accused's presence at the time of death, and the call data records were not properly authenticated. The court reaffirmed the cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of any doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to the setting aside of the conviction and the appellant's acquittal.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for abduction under Section 365 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained where the victim voluntarily drove their own vehicle?
- Does non-compliance with Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the association of independent witnesses during recovery proceedings create doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Can a witness whose statement was not recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be examined under Section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is circumstantial evidence sufficient to sustain a conviction for murder when the prosecution fails to establish the accused's presence at the time of death?
- Professor Dr. Hamid Mehmood vs Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical2025 IHC 152 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a constitutional petition challenging the notification terminating the services of the petitioner, a Professor in BPS-21 at Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University, Islamabad. The core legal questions concern whether the termination of a probationer during the probationary period without a show-cause notice or personal hearing violates fundamental rights, and whether the Syndicate of the University acted within its competent jurisdiction. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that an employee serving on probation has no vested right to continue in service or claim protection under the maxim audi alteram partem for a pre-termination show-cause notice when services are terminated for unsatisfactory performance. The Court established that under the statutory framework and the specific terms of the appointment letter, the Syndicate is the competent authority to terminate a BPS-21 employee during probation without assigning reasons, and such simpliciter termination is unexceptionable.
Questions settled- Whether a probationer has a vested right to continue in service or claim protection under the principle of audi alteram partem before termination?
- Does the termination of an employee during the probationary period require a show-cause notice or formal inquiry?
- Is the Syndicate of Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto Medical University the competent authority to terminate an employee in BPS-21?
- Can an appointment during probation be terminated without assigning reasons as per the terms of the appointment letter?
- Pinggao-Akay-Transmark Joint Venture vs Public Procurement Regulatory2025 IHC 312 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Petrosin Cng (Private) Limited vs Oil And Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra), etc2025 IHC 290 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pervaiz Khan vs The State and another2025 IHC 76 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner, Pervaiz Khan, in relation to FIR No. 299/2024 registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a court can proceed with and grant a pre-arrest bail application in the absence of the accused, despite the petitioner's counsel citing medical reasons for the petitioner's non-attendance. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the physical presence of the accused is a mandatory prerequisite for the adjudication and grant of pre-arrest bail. Relying on the statutory mandate of Section 498-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the Court affirmed that the presence of the accused is required throughout the proceedings of a pre-arrest bail petition. The judgment establishes the principle that when a statute prescribes a specific manner for the performance of an action, it must be adhered to strictly; consequently, the failure of the accused to appear rendered the petition unsustainable, leading to the recall of the previously granted ad-interim bail.
Questions settled- Is the physical presence of the accused a mandatory prerequisite for the adjudication of a pre-arrest bail application?
- Can a court grant or continue pre-arrest bail if the accused fails to appear at the hearing?
- Does the granting of ad-interim bail on the first hearing absolve the accused from the requirement of appearing on subsequent dates?
- Peb Steel Alliance Limited vs Earthquake Reconstruction & Rehabilitation2025 IHC 10, 2025 CLC 605, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 109 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-03Read full judgment →
- Parveen Akhtar vs Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 68 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-18Read full judgment →
- Parvaiz Saleh vs The Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretary2025 IHC 280 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-15Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Television Corporation Limited vs The Appellate Tribunal Inland2025 IHC 394 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Telecom Mobile Limited (Ufone) etc vs The Learned Full Bench, NIRC, Islamabad etc2025 IHC 278 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-15Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Limited through its Authorized Officer vs National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad & others2025 IHC 262, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 230 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the decision of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) to treat the employer-provided list of workmen as the final voters' list for a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) referendum. The core legal question was whether the Registrar could finalize the voters' list under Section 19(5) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 without verifying the lists of members submitted by contesting trade unions against the employer's list. The Court held that the NIRC’s approach was legally flawed. The statutory scheme mandates that only members of contesting trade unions are eligible to vote in a CBA referendum. Consequently, the Registrar must verify the trade unions' membership lists against the employer’s list of workmen to ensure compliance with the eligibility criteria, including employment duration and union membership. The Court distinguished the present case from precedents under the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, noting that the 2012 Act establishes a distinct, more rigorous process. The impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh, compliant election process.
Questions settled- Can the Registrar of Trade Unions finalize a voters' list for a CBA referendum based solely on the employer's list of workmen without verifying it against the members' lists of contesting trade unions?
- Are workmen who are not members of a contesting trade union eligible to vote in a referendum for the determination of a Collective Bargaining Agent?
- Does the statutory scheme of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 regarding CBA elections differ from the scheme prescribed under the repealed Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Pakistan Mobile Communications Limited (PMCL) vs The Commissioner2025 IHC 384 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-11Read full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited vs Rahila Iftikhar w/o2025 IHC 558 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an employee by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited, which had been set aside by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC). The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings and subsequent dismissal were conducted in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice. The Court held that the dismissal was unlawful, noting that the inquiry was based on unsubstantiated allegations without credible evidence or witness testimony. The Court emphasized that discretionary powers, even when vested in an employer, cannot be exercised arbitrarily or whimsically and must be supported by concrete evidence. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that where the law prescribes a specific manner for performing an act, it must be strictly followed. Because the Petitioner failed to provide a fair hearing, failed to confront the employee with evidence, and ignored the lack of proof, the Court upheld the NIRC’s decision, directing the reinstatement of the employee with full consequential financial and service benefits, affirming that disciplinary autonomy does not permit the abuse of authority.
Questions settled- Can an employer exercise discretionary disciplinary powers in the absence of concrete evidence?
- Does the failure to confront an employee with specific evidence during an inquiry violate the principles of natural justice?
- What is the legal consequence of failing to cross-examine a witness whose testimony supports the opposing party's case?
- Must disciplinary proceedings strictly follow the procedural requirements mandated by the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 YLR 521 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority and another, Federation of Pakistan vs Shoukat Ali and another2025 IHC 362 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pak Telecom Mobile Limited vs Federal Board Of Revenue, Etc2025 IHC 110 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-27Read full judgment →
- Omv Maurice Energy Limited vs Pakistan, through Secretary Finance and others2025 IHC 182 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Omer Khalid Anwar, Jibran Ali, Muhammad Musarat ul Haq vs Fop through the Secretary Establishment, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad, & Others, Director Excise and Taxation Department & 2 others, Federation of Pakistan & Others2025 IHC 566 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-08Read full judgment →
- Norang Khan, etc vs The Federation Of Pakistan, etc2025 IHC 272 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-23Read full judgment →
- Noor Ellahi vs The United Insurance Company of Pakistan and another2025 IHC 430 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
- Noor Elahi vs Zulfiqar Hussain2025 IHC 42 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-06Read full judgment →
- Naveed Ahmed vs The State2025 IHC 238 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment disposes of a criminal appeal and a jail appeal filed against the trial court's judgment whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 9(1)(6)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine for the possession of 1455 grams of heroin. The core legal questions involved the credibility of official witnesses without independent corroboration, the sufficiency of a one-gram representative sample for chemical analysis, the mandatory versus directory nature of the timeframe for dispatching samples, and the establishment of safe custody and transmission of the contraband. The Islamabad High Court held that testimonies of police officials are as good as those of private witnesses, a one-gram sample is legally sufficient if accepted by the laboratory, and the timeline rules for sending samples are directory rather than mandatory. The court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and maintained the conviction and sentence.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of police officials can be relied upon without independent corroboration in narcotics cases?
- Is a one-gram representative sample sufficient for chemical analysis under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997?
- Whether the time limit prescribed under Rule 4 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 for sending samples to the laboratory is mandatory or directory?
- Does the failure to associate private witnesses at the time of arrest render the prosecution's case doubtful?
- National Police Foundation vs Capital Development Authority and others2025 IHC 530 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-17Read full judgment →
- National Highways Authority vs Petrosin Services Harro River (Pvt) Ltd2025 IHC 550 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-30Read full judgment →
- National Highway Authority vs M/s Kingcrete Builders & Another2025 IHC 148 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-18Read full judgment →
- National Highway Authority vs M/s Hussain Cotex Limited & Another2025 IHC 88, 2025 CLD 598 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
- National Commission for Human Rights of Pakistan vs United Bank Limited2025 IHC 66 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra-Court Appeal challenged a judgment that set aside an order issued by the National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR). The core legal question was whether the NCHR possesses the statutory jurisdiction to adjudicate or issue directives regarding pension disputes involving private sector employees of a commercial bank. The Court held that the NCHR is a statutory body established to investigate human rights violations, particularly those involving public servants. It determined that pension disputes, being contractual and statutory in nature, fall outside the NCHR's mandate and must be adjudicated by specialized forums or courts. The Court affirmed that while the right to a dignified life is a fundamental right, the NCHR cannot overreach its authority to resolve private employment disputes. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the NCHR's directive to enhance the pension amount was beyond its statutory jurisdiction and legally unsustainable, while preserving the employee's right to seek redress in an appropriate legal forum.
Questions settled- Does the National Commission for Human Rights have the jurisdiction to adjudicate pension disputes involving private sector employees?
- Is the National Commission for Human Rights empowered to issue directives regarding the enhancement of pension amounts?
- Can the National Commission for Human Rights intervene in matters governed by private sector labour laws and employment contracts?
- Najeeb Ullah Durrani and another vs Securities and Exchange Commission2025 IHC 314, 2025 PLJ Islamabad 241 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Naheed Shoukat Malik (late) through her legal heirs vs Malik Mohsin Raza2025 IHC 266 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Naeem Ismail vs Raja Waleed Ur Rehman, etc2025 IHC 340 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
- Nadir Mukhtiar vs The Directorate of Immigration and Passports, Islamabad, through its Director General & others2025 IHC 32 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nadeem Ahmed vs The State and others2025 IHC 328 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order passed by the Trial Court acquitting respondents under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case registered under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether a business partnership dispute involving the non-payment of funds constitutes criminal breach of trust or is merely a civil matter. The High Court held that the dispute was essentially civil in nature, arising from a breach of agreement rather than criminal conduct. The Court determined that the fundamental ingredients of Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically entrustment and misappropriation, were absent. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a Trial Court possesses the authority to acquit an accused at any stage if the charge is groundless, and this power may be exercised suo motu without a formal application. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the acquittal as the prosecution had no realistic prospect of conviction.
Questions settled- Does a business partnership dispute involving non-payment of money constitute criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Can a Trial Court exercise powers under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 suo motu without a formal application?
- Is a dispute arising from a breach of a business agreement essentially a civil matter rather than a criminal one?
- What are the essential ingredients required to establish the offense of criminal breach of trust?
- Nabeela Shaukat vs Federation of Pakistan and others2025 IHC 322 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-25Read full judgment →
- M/s. Steel Complex (Pvt.) Limited vs Islamabad Electric Supply & Company2025 IHC 500 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Saif Nadeem Electro (Private) Limited and another vs Federal Board of2025 IHC 316 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Raz Textiles through its Authorized Attorney vs The Federation of2025 IHC 1 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s R.P. Corporation (Pvt.) Limited, Syed Zaheer Hussain Naqvi vs Syed2025 IHC 34 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Pak Telecom Mobile Limited, Islamabad vs Commissioner Inland2025 IHC 28 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
- M/s Karamullah Construction Company, Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr.2025 IHC 392 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Jubilee Life Insurance Company Limited vs Office of the President of2025 IHC 360 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Global Pharmaceutical and others vs Assistant Commissioner Rural2025 IHC 452 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Islamabad High Court addresses a set of writ petitions filed by M/s Global Pharmaceutical against orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, ICT, Islamabad, which allowed complaints for unpaid wages filed by former employees who held managerial or supervisory designations (Assistant Manager, Senior Sales Promotion Officer, and Admin Officer). The core legal question was whether employees holding such managerial, supervisory, or administrative positions fall within the definition of 'workman' or persons covered under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, thereby vesting jurisdiction in the Authority. The court held that the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 applies only to persons engaged in skilled or unskilled, manual or clerical labour, and when read with the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, excludes individuals employed mainly in a managerial, administrative, or supervisory capacity. The court concluded that respondents No.3 did not qualify as workmen, and the Authority therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain their complaints. Consequently, the writ petitions were allowed and the impugned orders were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether an employee holding a managerial or administrative position falls within the definition of workman under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have jurisdiction to entertain complaints filed by employees who are not engaged in manual or clerical labour?
- How is the scope of 'person employed' under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 interpreted in conjunction with the definition of workman under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
- M/s Frontier Foundry Steel (Pvt.) Ltd vs National Electric Power Regulatory2025 MLD 26 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-07-23Read full judgment →
- M/s Dawat-E-Islami Trust vs The Land Acquisition Collector Islamabad2025 IHC 134 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Dandot Cement Company Limited vs Securities and Exchange2025 IHC 412 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s CH. A. Latif & Sons [Private] Limited and others vs National Highway2025 IHC 368 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Al-Ubaid Associates vs The Federation Of Pakistan, Through Secretary,2025 IHC 96 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s Ados Pakistan Limited, Islamabad vs The Commissioner Inland2025 IHC 30 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-04Read full judgment →
- Mustajab vs The State2025 IHC 98 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(2) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for the alleged possession of 3100 Ecstasy pills. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully proved the recovery and possession of the narcotics beyond reasonable doubt. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing multiple fatal infirmities. Specifically, the Court noted that the complainant and the investigating officer were the same person, creating a risk of bias. Furthermore, the Court identified significant gaps in the chain of custody regarding the transmission of samples to the forensic laboratory and the subsequent handling of case property. Additionally, material contradictions existed between the recovery memos and the forensic reports regarding the quantity of pills recovered. Emphasizing the principle that any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, ruling that the prosecution's failure to maintain a secure chain of custody and the presence of material contradictions rendered the conviction unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does the identity of the complainant and the investigating officer as the same person create a risk of bias in a criminal trial?
- Can material contradictions between recovery memos and forensic reports regarding the quantity of narcotics recovered lead to the acquittal of an accused?
- Is the failure to prove the chain of custody of narcotics from the time of recovery to the forensic analysis a ground for acquittal?
- Munibah Qureshi vs National University of Science & Technology (NUST)2025 IHC 406 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Multi Professional Co-Operative Housing Society vs M/s Ageco Private2025 IHC 390 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Zareef Ahmed vs Muhammad Rizwan Tahir Satti etc2025 IHC 444 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenged an appellate court judgment that acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 408 and 411 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, overturning their conviction by the trial court. The core legal question was whether the appellate court’s judgment was legally sustainable, given allegations of misreading and non-reading of evidence. The High Court held that the appellate judgment was flawed because it failed to evaluate the entire prosecution evidence, focusing only on a limited portion while ignoring numerous witnesses and documents. The court emphasized that an appellate judgment must contain specific points for determination, reasoned decisions, and a comprehensive survey of the factual and evidentiary aspects of the case. By failing to provide such reasoning and ignoring substantial evidence, the appellate court committed a legal error. Consequently, the High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the matter for a fresh decision by the appellate court, ensuring the appeal is heard in accordance with the law and established judicial principles regarding the proper disposal of criminal appeals.
Questions settled- Is an appellate court judgment legally sustainable if it fails to discuss the majority of the prosecution evidence?
- Does an appellate court have a legal obligation to frame points for determination and provide reasons for its decision in a criminal appeal?
- What is the appropriate remedy when an appellate court judgment is found to be the result of misreading and non-reading of evidence?
- Muhammad Younas Bajwa and another vs Chief Commissioner, ICT, Islamabad2025 IHC 432 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Waqas vs Chairman NADRA, etc2025 IHC 488 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Petitioner, a Data Entry Operator and later Junior Executive at the National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA), challenged orders removing him from service for alleged illegal processing of registration tokens without observing standard operating procedures. He filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking reinstatement with back benefits. The Islamabad High Court examined the preliminary question of maintainability, specifically whether NADRA's service regulations are statutory in nature. Relying on settled precedents of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Court held that the NADRA Employees Service Regulations are non-statutory, having been framed by the Authority under Section 45 of the NADRA Ordinance rather than by the Federal Government. Consequently, the relationship between NADRA and its employees is governed by the principle of master and servant, rendering a constitutional petition under Article 199 incompetent for the enforcement of terms and conditions of service. The Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the termination or removal of an employee of the National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA)?
- Are the service regulations of the National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) statutory or non-statutory in nature?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to the employment relationship between the National Database & Registration Authority (NADRA) and its employees?
- Muhammad Uzair Anwar and others vs FoP through Secretary Ministry of Interior GoP & others2025 IHC 574 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-08-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Uzair Anwar & 2 others vs FoP through Secretary Ministry of Interior GoP & others2025 IHC 574 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-08-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Usman vs The Federation Of Pakistan, Etc2025 IHC 136 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Usman vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2025 IHC 454 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-24Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tariq vs Additional Sessions Judge-Iii Islamabad (East), etc2025 IHC 470 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sharif vs Muhammad Ejaz Rana and another2025 IHC 370 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Shamraiz vs Police Training School Through Its Commandant, etc2025 IHC 146 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Saleem vs Principal Secretary To The Prime Minister Of Pakistan, Prime Minister Secretariat, Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 486 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a retired civil servant, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking pro forma promotion to Basic Pay Scale 21 with all consequential benefits and reference of his case to the committee under Fundamental Rule 17. The petitioner alleged discriminatory treatment, claiming that another officer similarly situated was granted relaxation and promoted despite having less than one year of service remaining before retirement. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition under Article 212(2) of the Constitution, arguing that matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Islamabad High Court held that the petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution as it related to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, and that promotion is not a vested right. The court further held that eligibility matters fall exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal and that the petitioner's case was factually distinguishable from the cited precedent. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as non-maintainable and devoid of merit.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a writ petition filed by a civil servant regarding promotion and terms and conditions of service in view of the bar contained under Article 212?
- Is promotion to a higher post or grade considered a vested right of a civil servant?
- Whether the question of eligibility and quantification for promotion falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Whether a claim of discrimination regarding promotion can override the constitutional ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Muhammad Riaz vs Learned District & Sessions Judge, (East) Islamabad, etc2025 IHC 542 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Riaz Kayyani vs Inspector General of Police, Islamabad and Others2025 IHC 306 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rahzeb Abbasi vs Raj Muhammad Abbasi & Another2025 IHC 150 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs Bashir Ahmed and another2025 IHC 532 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Niaz alias Aalian, The State vs The State, Muhammad Niaz2025 IHC 402 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Sections 302(b) and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, along with a connected murder reference. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on the sole eyewitness account, medical evidence, and delayed recoveries of incriminating material. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution's case suffered from major flaws, including an uncorroborated and delayed ocular account, lack of forensic linkage, and suspicious recoveries. The court established that where the substantive ocular evidence is unreliable and uncorroborated, supporting evidence such as recoveries cannot cure the deficiency. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt, and the murder reference was answered in the negative.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction for murder can be sustained solely on the uncorroborated and delayed testimony of a single eyewitness in a blind crime?
- Does the recovery of an alleged crime weapon and vehicle suffice to convict an accused when the substantive ocular evidence has been disbelieved?
- Is the prosecution bound to establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial and forensic evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to secure a capital conviction?
- What is the legal effect of material contradictions and delayed recording of statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon the credibility of an eyewitness?
- Muhammad Nazir and others vs Additional District Jduge-West, Islamabad2025 IHC 572 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz Khokhar etc vs Government Of Pakistan, Ministry Of Interior, Through Secretary, Islamabad etc2025 IHC 114 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Jahangir vs The State, etc2025 IHC 160 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Petitioner sought post-arrest bail in FIR No.84/2024 for offences under Sections 381-A, 411, and 401 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the offences did not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether prior registration of other cases makes an accused a habitual offender without conviction. The Islamabad High Court held that grant of bail in offences not falling within the prohibitory limb is a rule and refusal an exception, that mere registration of other cases does not prove habitual criminality without conviction, and that pre-trial incarceration should not be used as a punishment. The court admitted the petitioner to post-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, laying down that benefit of doubt can be extended even at the bail stage upon a tentative assessment.
Questions settled- Whether bail should be granted as a rule when offences do not fall within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the mere registration of other criminal cases suffice to designate an accused as a habitual offender without proof of conviction?
- Can the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused person at the bail stage upon a tentative assessment of the record?
- Is pre-trial incarceration permissible as a form of punishment before the conclusion of the trial?
- Muhammad Irfan Shah, The State vs Muhammad Irfan Shah, The State.2025 IHC 236 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal jail appeal and connected murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the qatl-e-amad of the deceased by a firearm injury. The core legal questions involved the appreciation of eyewitness testimony given by related witnesses, the evidentiary weight and admissibility of an oral dying declaration made to the father of the deceased, the corroborative value of forensic and medical evidence, and the establishment of motive. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond a shadow of doubt through trustworthy eyewitness testimony, a credible dying declaration corroborated by medical and forensic evidence including weapon matching and blood-stained earth reports, and that minor discrepancies do not vitiate the prosecution case. The court dismissed the appeal and answered the murder reference in the affirmative, confirming the death sentence.
Questions settled- Whether an oral dying declaration made to a private person is admissible and holds significant weight when made immediately after the incident?
- Does the mere relationship of an eyewitness with the deceased render their testimony untrustworthy or make them an interested witness?
- Can the absence or failure of prosecution to prove motive alone serve as a ground to withhold the penalty of death when the case is otherwise proved beyond doubt?
- What is the evidentiary value of forensic reports matching crime empties with the weapon of offence recovered at the pointation of the accused?
- Muhammad Iqbal vs Federation Of Pakistan, Etc2025 IHC 92 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Iqbal Jahan vs The State, etc2025 IHC 224 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the accused, Muhammad Iqbal Jahan, in relation to FIR No. 853/24, involving offences under Sections 324, 337-D, and 337-F(iii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail despite being specifically nominated in the FIR for causing firearm injuries to two individuals on vital parts of their bodies. The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for pre-arrest bail. The court noted that the specific role attributed to the petitioner was corroborated by medical evidence and statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that the recovery of the crime weapon remained outstanding. The court reaffirmed the principle that pre-arrest bail is an equitable remedy intended to protect the innocent from abuse of process, not a right in run-of-the-mill cases where prima facie evidence connects the accused to the crime and no clear malafide is demonstrated.
Questions settled- Is pre-arrest bail available to an accused against whom there is prima facie evidence of causing firearm injuries on vital parts of the body?
- Does the lack of recovery of a crime weapon constitute a valid ground for refusing pre-arrest bail?
- Is a deeper appreciation of evidence permitted at the bail stage of criminal proceedings?
- What is the primary requirement for the grant of pre-arrest bail in cases where the accused is nominated in the FIR?
- Muhammad Iqbal Alias Syed Ali vs The State2025 IHC 86 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for drug trafficking. The core legal question was whether the prosecution’s case could be sustained despite significant contradictions between the recovery memo and the FIR regarding the location and manner of the narcotics recovery. The Trial Court had acquitted a co-accused due to these discrepancies but convicted the appellant. The Islamabad High Court held that the material contradictions—specifically whether the heroin was recovered from the person of the co-accused or solely from the vehicle—cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the recovery proceedings and the investigation. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment reaffirms the principle that any material loophole or inconsistency in the prosecution's evidence entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt, as a matter of right, necessitating acquittal when the prosecution’s version is rendered unreliable.
Questions settled- Does a material contradiction between the recovery memo and the FIR regarding the location of contraband recovery entitle an accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Is the failure to associate public witnesses in recovery proceedings a ground for doubting the prosecution's case under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
- Must a notice be served to a vehicle's owner under Section 32 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 before the forfeiture of the vehicle?
- Muhammad Imran Khan vs The State2025 IHC 520 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Trial Court convicting the appellant under Section 9(1)(3)(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for possessing 1800 grams of charas, sentencing him to nine years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution proved the recovery, safe custody, and chemical analysis of the narcotics beyond a reasonable doubt, and whether a delay in sending samples to the forensic laboratory vitiates the trial. The Islamabad High Court held that the prosecution witnesses remained consistent, safe custody and forensic verification were established, the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the CNSA applied, and procedural timelines regarding sample dispatch are directory rather than mandatory. The court affirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal, establishing that minor procedural lapses or delays do not override credible and consistent evidence of narcotics recovery.
Questions settled- Does a delay in forwarding sample parcels to the forensic laboratory beyond the prescribed period vitiate the trial in narcotics cases?
- Whether the provisions of Rule 4 of the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001 are mandatory or directory in nature?
- Can an accused successfully rebut the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 solely through a bare denial without leading defense evidence?
- Do minor discrepancies regarding the exact place of recovery create a reasonable doubt sufficient to warrant acquittal in a narcotics case?
- Muhammad Ilyas vs Inspector General of Police, etc2025 IHC 38 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ilyas Abbasi vs M/s Hakas Pvt. Ltd. and others2025 IHC 408 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hanif Ismail vs Ministry Of Interior Through Its Secretary &2025 IHC 480 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Hamza vs Federation Of Pakistan & 02 Others2025 IHC 140 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Farooq vs National Industrial Relations Commission and others2025 IHC 424 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission concerning the dismissal of a Canteen Stores Department (CSD) employee. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction to review the dismissal of an employee whose service terms are governed by non-statutory rules. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that the CSD is neither a statutory body nor a department of the Federal Government, and its internal instructions do not carry the force of law. Consequently, the employment relationship is purely contractual, governed by the principle of master and servant. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be invoked in service matters where the governing rules are non-statutory, as such disputes are subject to the master and servant doctrine and do not provide a basis for public law remedies.
Questions settled- Can constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 be invoked for service matters governed by non-statutory rules?
- Is the Canteen Stores Department considered a statutory body or a department of the Federal Government?
- Does the master and servant doctrine apply to employees of the Canteen Stores Department?