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. 14,893 judgments in total from the Peshawar High Court.

• Muhammad Ikram son of Shamsher Khan, rio Sarghodha Shah Masjid Kot2022 PHC 20 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Iftikhar vs Noreen Bibi and others2022 PHC 460 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrahim vs Chairman Board of Trustees Employees Old Age2022 PHC 184 · Peshawar High Court
  old-age benefitsgolden handshakedisputed questions of factalternate adequate remedywrit jurisdictionindustrial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment addresses multiple writ petitions filed by ex-employees and legal heirs of ex-employees of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Development Corporation (FDC), seeking directions for the payment of old-age benefits and arrears from the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) under the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act 1976. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners, who retired under a Golden Handshake Scheme in 1997 following a settlement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, are entitled to EOBI benefits and whether disputed questions of fact regarding length of service and contributions can be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable as they involved disputed questions of fact requiring detailed inquiry into length of service, employment records, and contributions, which cannot be resolved under Article 199 of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court held that adequate alternate remedies are available under Chapter VII of the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act 1976. The Court laid down the principle that High Courts will not entertain writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution where there is a failure to avail of an alternate adequate statutory remedy or where adjudication requires resolving complex disputed questions of fact.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding length of service and employment records be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether employees who retired under a Golden Handshake Scheme are automatically entitled to statutory old-age benefits without establishing proof of contributions and registration under the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act 1976?
  • Does the availability of an alternate statutory remedy under Chapter VII of the Employees Old-Age Benefits Act 1976 bar the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Gul Khalil and another vs Managing Director KTH, Peshawar2022 PHC 250, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1232 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-21
  up-gradationpromotioneligibility for promotionfitness for promotioncivil servantwrit petitionservice tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, working as Telephone Operators (BPS-8) at the Khyber Teaching Hospital (KTH) and maintaining their status as civil servants under the Director General Health Services, filed a writ petition seeking up-gradation of their posts to BPS-11 and directions for promotion to Telephone Supervisors. The core legal questions involved whether up-gradation can be claimed as a matter of right and the respective jurisdictions of the High Court and the Service Tribunal regarding promotion matters concerning eligibility versus fitness. The Peshawar High Court held that up-gradation is an exclusive executive policy matter and cannot be claimed as a vested right or interfered with by courts under constitutional jurisdiction. Regarding promotions, the court held that challenges concerning promotion eligibility fall within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, whereas challenges concerning fitness for promotion after passing the eligibility barrier fall under the High Court's writ jurisdiction, provided the departmental promotion committee has already considered the candidate. Since the petitioners had never been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the writ petition was dismissed as premature.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee claim up-gradation of a post as a matter of right?
  • Whether the High Court can interfere in executive policy decisions regarding the up-gradation of posts?
  • What is the distinction between eligibility for promotion and fitness for promotion regarding the jurisdictions of the Service Tribunal and the High Court?
  • Does a civil servant have locus standi to file a writ petition for promotion before being considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghoor Bacha and others vs Muhammad Anwar and others2022 PHC 626 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ghaffar and others vs Arif Muhammad2022 YLR 2287 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fayaz vs President, Zari Taraqiati Bank, Islamabad and others2022 PHC 566 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-03
  service tribunalmisconductdismissal from servicedisciplinary inquiryburden of proofnatural justiceNIRC
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a bank employee, challenged his dismissal from service and the affirming orders of the National Industrial Relation Commission (NIRC) through a constitutional petition. The core legal questions involved whether an employee's dismissal based on an inquiry lacking confidence-inspiring evidence, variance between the charge sheet and the final penalty regarding the misappropriated amount, and reliance on surmises rather than cogent evidence is sustainable in law, and whether criminal proceedings affect domestic disciplinary inquiries. The Peshawar High Court held that disciplinary proceedings must be based on solid evidence, fair opportunity of defence, and coherence between charges and findings, and that criminal investigations do not bar or override departmental disciplinary proceedings. The court set aside the dismissal order and the NIRC decisions, reinstating the petitioner with liberty for the bank to hold a fresh inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee can be penalized in a disciplinary inquiry based on surmises, guesses, and lack of confidence-inspiring evidence?
  • Does a pending criminal investigation or proceeding before an agency like NAB have a binding effect on domestic disciplinary proceedings?
  • Whether variance between the amount specified in the charge sheet and the amount allegedly misappropriated vitiates the dismissal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farhan Tariq vs The State etc2022 PHC 78 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Fareed vs Banaras Khan etc2022 PHC 550 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam vs The State2022 PHC 408 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub and 14 others vs Salim and 6 others2022 CLC 1740 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akbar vs State2022 PHC 386, 2024 YLR 61 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Chaudhry and another vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PHC 384 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Abbas khan vs Govt of KPK and others2022 PHC 32, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 85 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-08
  constitutional jurisdictionwrongful terminationreinstatementservice rulesnon-statutory bodyjudicial reviewarbitrary action
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition concerns the wrongful termination of a lecturer at Edwardes College, Peshawar. The petitioner sought reinstatement and back benefits, relying on a Fact Finding Inquiry and a decision by the Board of Governors (BoG) that declared him innocent of the allegations leading to his dismissal. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed constitutional jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters of Edwardes College, given the respondents' contention that the institution's service rules were non-statutory. The Court held that Edwardes College, being a nationalized and autonomous institute, falls under the purview of the BoG, and its actions are subject to judicial review. Crucially, the Court affirmed that even where service rules are non-statutory, the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction cannot be abridged when an impugned action is patently illegal, perverse, or arbitrary. Finding the petitioner's termination unjustified and contrary to the BoG's endorsement of his exoneration, the Court allowed the petition, ordering the petitioner's reinstatement in accordance with the college's service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have constitutional jurisdiction to interfere in service matters of an institution governed by non-statutory rules when the impugned action is patently illegal or arbitrary?
  • Is an employee entitled to reinstatement when the competent authority, after a fact-finding inquiry, has cleared them of all allegations?
  • Does the Edwardes College, Peshawar, fall under the administrative control of a Board of Governors such that its actions are subject to judicial review?
  Read full judgment →
• Mufti Kifayat Ullah vs The State and another2022 PHC 294 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-28Read full judgment →
• Mudassar Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Through Chief2022 PHC 650 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst.Umer Khitaba vs Raham Nawaz Khan and others2022 PHC 82 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tanzila Bibi vs Muhammad Asif And Another2022 PHC 656 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaheen Zari vs The State and another2022 YLR 1901 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-11
  right of private defencemurdernocturnal intrusiongolden scalesSection 342 CrPChouse trespassacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeal arising out of the appellant's conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing her to life imprisonment. The prosecution alleged that the appellant committed the murder of the deceased inside her residential room during nocturnal hours. The appellant consistently raised the plea of the right of private defence, stating that the deceased, an armed intruder, had surreptitiously entered her room at night while she was alone with her minor children. The core legal questions pertained to whether the appellant acted within her lawful right of private defence of person under Section 100 PPC and whether her actions could be measured in golden scales in a state of panic. The High Court held that the surreptitious entry of an armed stranger into the bedroom of a lone woman with children created a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm, rendering her responsive fire justifiable. Reaffirming that defensive actions taken in panic cannot be weighed in golden scales, the Court acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an armed nocturnal intrusion into a lone person's bedroom justifies the exercise of the right of private defence extending to causing the death of the intruder under Section 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the defensive actions of an accused acting under a sudden and grave apprehension of danger be measured in golden scales?
  • Whether a plausible defence plea raised by an accused reactively places the burden on the prosecution to disprove the existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Shaheen Bibi vs Jehanzaib etc2022 PHC 292, 2022 MLD 1929 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saima Bibi vs Khalid Ejaz2022 PHC 482 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rozina vs Federation2022 PHC 290 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Roqia alias Sumbal vs Rahman ud din2022 PHC 118 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Robina vs The State2022 YLR 454 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-04
  narcoticssafe custodybenefit of doubtrecovery witnesschain of custodycriminal appealacquittal
  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 the alleged possession of 7.2 kilograms of charas. The core legal questions concern whether the prosecution successfully established the recovery of the contraband beyond reasonable doubt and whether the chain of custody for the recovered samples was maintained. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions, including an unexplained delay in the registration of the FIR, the failure to associate independent witnesses, and the absence of proof regarding the safe custody and transmission of the samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory. Relying on established precedents, the Court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the safe custody of the case property, rendering the recovery doubtful. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, holding that any reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the safe custody and transmission of narcotic samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory entitle the accused to an acquittal?
  • Is the testimony of police officials alone sufficient to prove the recovery of narcotics when independent witnesses are not associated?
  • Does an unexplained delay in the registration of an FIR create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nizakat Bibi vs Muabad Khan & others2022 PHC 430 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Ishaq and others vs Khizar Hayat and others2022 PHC 666 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarat wife of Bakht Rawan (late) vs Aziz Ahmad & Others2022 PHC 518 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-31Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khanam Bibi vs Mst. Fozia Bibi and 5 others2022 PLJ Peshawar 9 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamhoriat vs Sami Ul Haq2022 PHC 154 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hussan Ara widow of Imtiaz Hussain Zahid (late) vs Mst. Surayya2022 PHC 456 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Hayat Begum vs Rehman Malik and others2022 PHC 256, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 189 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farzana Iftikhar vs Federal Secretary Overseas Pakistanis2022 CLC 237 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-09-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. FalakShehnaz& another vs Mst. Farah Deeba& others2022 PHC 668, 2025 PLD Peshawar 1 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bakht Begum vs Afrin Khan2022 PHC 252, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 170 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-30Read full judgment →
• Mst Aliya Khisro vs Govt of Kp2022 PHC 180, 2022 CLC 1896 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawab Khan vs Bahader Sher2022 PHC 574 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-26Read full judgment →
• Mr. Saleem Ahmad vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary & Secondary Education and others2022 PHC 260 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mr. Khan Zeb vs The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government and Rural Development, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others2022 PHC 532, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1160 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-19
  pensionary benefitstemporary establishmentcontingent employeeregularizationClass-IV quotaconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the release of pensionary benefits and the appointment of his son against the quota reserved for children of retired Class-IV employees, following his retirement after serving as a peon/chowkidar and Naib Qasid on a contingent/temporary basis. The core legal question was whether a contingent or temporary employee whose services were never regularized or confirmed is entitled to pensionary benefits under Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations or Rule 2.3 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that temporary service in a temporary establishment does not ipso facto entitle an employee to pensionary benefits unless they are otherwise entitled and subsequently regularized or confirmed, as established by the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that the right to pension must be earned through qualifying regular service, and temporary or contingent service without subsequent regularization or confirmation does not qualify for pensionary benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether temporary and officiating service in a temporary establishment entitles a government servant to pensionary benefits under Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations without subsequent regularization or confirmation?
  • Is a contingent paid employee who was never regularized entitled to pension under Rule 2.3 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963?
  • Can the children of a retired contingent or temporary employee claim appointment against the 25% quota reserved for children of retired Class-IV civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Mr. Gohar Ali vs The State2022 PHC 604 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-02
  superdariforeign currencyillegal exchangecriminal revisionmoney launderinginterim custodyregulatory compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenges an order of the Additional Sessions Judge/MCTC, Mardan, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the return of seized foreign currency (Saudi Riyals 2,22,500). The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who claimed ownership of the currency as sale consideration for property, was entitled to its interim custody (superdari) despite failing to provide proof of legitimate acquisition or authorization to deal in foreign currency. The Court held that the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim of ownership, as inquiries revealed no record of the alleged property sale. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner lacked the requisite authorization from the State Bank of Pakistan to conduct foreign currency business. Consequently, the Court upheld the dismissal of the application, maintaining that in the absence of proof of legitimate source or legal authorization, the seized currency could not be released. The key principle laid down is that the right to trade under Article 18 of the Constitution is subject to legal qualifications, and persons dealing in foreign currency must strictly adhere to the regulatory mechanisms prescribed by the State Bank of Pakistan.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person entitled to the return of seized foreign currency on superdari without proving the legitimacy of the source of funds?
  • Does the right to freedom of trade under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 permit the unauthorized dealing of foreign currency?
  • Is a person required to obtain authorization from the State Bank of Pakistan to conduct a business involving foreign currency notes?
  Read full judgment →
• Momin Khan Alias Mominay vs The State2022 MLD 1992 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-08
  criminal appealnarcotics possessionbenefit of doubtchain of custodyFSL reportcontradictions in evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act for possession of 4000 grams of chars. The core legal questions involve evaluating whether material contradictions in prosecution evidence and a broken chain of custody regarding FSL samples vitiate the conviction, and whether the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. The Peshawar High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that significant discrepancies regarding the timing of police departure and drafting of documents, mismatched monograms on case property, and an unestablished chain of custody for the samples render the prosecution case doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between prosecution witnesses regarding the time of departure from the spot and drafting of the murasilla create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution's case?
  • Does a discrepancy in the monogram affixed on case property compared to the seizing officer's initials cast doubt on the recovery?
  • Whether an unestablished chain of custody for sending representative samples to the Forensic Science Laboratory renders the FSL report unreliable?
  • Is an accused entitled to acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to serious lapses and discrepancies?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Amir Safdar vs The Bank Alfalah Ltd. Park in Hotel, Choaba2022 PCTLR 434 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mir. Ahmad Khan vs Said Ghulam and 6 others2022 YLR 363 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-07-16Read full judgment →
• Mir Akbar son of Mir Baz, r/o Doobian Nowshera Kalan, District Nowshera vs2022 PHC 6 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mian Iqbal Hussain vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa thorugh Chief2022 PHC 502 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Vision 2000 + Pharmaceuticals through Managing Partner, Peshawar and 10 others vs Habib Bank Limited2022 CLD 80 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Poly Foam (Private) Limited vs Government of Pakistan through Federal Secretary Finance and Revenue Division, Islamabad and 10 others2022 PCTLR 448 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Phandu Filling Station through CEO vs Government of Pakistan2022 CLD 1566 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pfizer Pakistan Limited and 2 others vs Pharma Plus International2022 CLC 1298 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-05-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lucky Cement Limited through Authorized Representative vs Govt.2022 PCTLR 491 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Meherban Khan vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief2022 PLC (C.S.) 695 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-01
  constitutional petitionpensionary benefitscivil service pensionlegitimate expectancyupgradation of postretirement benefitssuperannuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 seeking directions against the respondents to release and pay the petitioner's pensionary benefits and emoluments in BPS-16. The petitioner was promoted/upgraded to BPS-16 and served as Assistant Taxation Officer until superannuation, but the audit department refused to sanction his pension in BPS-16 on allegations of procedural irregularity in his upgradation. The core legal question was whether a civil servant who has performed duties in a higher scale till retirement can be denied pensionary benefits in that scale. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that pension is an earned right and not a bounty or ex-gratia payment. The Court ruled that having performed duties satisfactorily in BPS-16 until superannuation, the petitioner was entitled to pension in that scale under the doctrine of legitimate expectancy. The key principle established is that pension flows directly from applicable statutory rules upon satisfactory service, constitutes property under Articles 23 and 24(1) of the Constitution, and cannot be arbitrarily withheld or reduced post-retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant who performed duties in a higher pay scale until retirement entitled to pensionary benefits in that higher scale?
  • Can pensionary benefits earned through satisfactory service be arbitrarily withheld or delayed post-retirement?
  • Does the right to receive pension by a retired civil servant constitute property protected under Articles 23 and 24(1) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali vs The State2022 PHC 62, 2022 PCRLJ 1788 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-01
  quashment of FIRwrit jurisdictionpolice investigationJustice of Peaceconstitutional petitiondisputed questions of factpremature petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition sought the quashment of an FIR registered under sections 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an order by a Justice of Peace under section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner contended that the FIR was registered without notice or an opportunity of hearing. The Court held that the petition was premature, as the investigation was in its initial stages and the Investigating Officer had yet to form an opinion on the allegations. The Court emphasized that it cannot act as an investigating agency, nor can it resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the truthfulness of FIR allegations or malafide intent within its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The ratio established is that the High Court should not interfere with the ordinary course of police investigation or trial proceedings unless there is a clear jurisdictional defect or grave violation of law, as the statutory framework provides adequate remedies for an accused during investigation and trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash an FIR in its writ jurisdiction while the police investigation is still in its initial stages?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the truthfulness of allegations in an FIR during writ proceedings?
  • Is the High Court empowered to interfere with or control the process of police investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an accused seek acquittal at the trial stage if the materials on file do not connect them with the commission of the offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Aamir & Others vs Abdur Rasheed Khan & Others2022 PHC 530 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mariam Ahmad vs Raj Muhammad2022 PHC 18, 2022 YLR 1945 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-24Read full judgment →
• Manzoor etc vs The State etc2022 PHC 508, 2022 PCTLR 1149 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs The State and another2022 PHC 346 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-23Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Khan vs State2022 PHC 366 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-14Read full judgment →
• Malik Riaz Ullah vs Mst. Bilawar Jan and Others2022 MLD 2011 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-01-25Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Nawaz vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa & others2022 PHC 84 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-22Read full judgment →
• Malik Mamdu vs Allah Nawaz and others2022 PHC 414 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-13Read full judgment →
• Malik Lighting vs United Bank Limited2022 PCTLR 431 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Khursheed vs Mst. Tahseen Bibi2022 PHC 554 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Razzaq and others vs Khurram Khan Panni and others2022 PCTLR 1195 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-25Read full judgment →
• Malak Muhammad Naeem vs SHO PS Banr and others2022 PHC 506 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-07Read full judgment →
• Lutf-ur-Rehman & another vs The State etc2022 PHC 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-09Read full judgment →
• Lucky Cement Limited through Authorized Representative vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Economic Affairs, Revenue Division, Islamabad and 3 others2022 PTD 729, PTCL 2022 CL. 776 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-26Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Zarin & others vs Mst. Noor-ul-Haram & others2022 PHC 270 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-04Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali vs Mst. Zulfat & others2022 PHC 632 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Lajbar Khan & others vs Kamin Khan & others2022 PHC 276 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-16Read full judgment →
• Lady Lamp College of Nursing & Health Sciences & others vs Registrar KMU2022 PHC 608 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• KuraKuram Hotel Pvt Ltd vs Government of KP2022 PHC 616 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Kishwar Khan & others vs Jan Afroza & others2022 PHC 278 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-26Read full judgment →
• Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Revenue Authority Kpra through its Director Gernal, Peshawar vs M_s Legacy Pharmaceutical (Pvt.) Limited, 111-a, Industrial Estate, Jamrud Road, Peshawa2022 PHC 520 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Development Corporation, through its2022 PHC 146 · Peshawar High Court
  EOBI ActEighteenth Constitutional Amendmentdevolution of powersprovincial domainresidual subjectsconstitutional petitionstatutory complaintcoercive measures
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected writ petitions challenging the operational validity of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution Act, 1976 in the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa following the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment, as well as challenging certain financial demands and coercive recovery measures. The core legal questions involved whether the federal EOBI Act lost its legal validity post-devolution and whether the High Court should interfere with disputed contribution calculations. The court held that despite the omission of the concurrent legislative list, pre-existing federal laws continue to remain in force under Article 270-AA of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 until explicitly repealed, amended, or altered by the provincial legislature, and that failure to complete devolution by the specified cut-off date does not invalidate these laws by virtue of Article 254 of the Constitution. The court concluded that the EOBI Act remains fully operational in the province, but directed that the petitioners' objections be treated as statutory complaints under the Act for proper adjudication, while setting aside coercive attachment measures pending that determination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Employees Old Age Benefits Institution Act, 1976 became invalid in the provinces after the passage of the Eighteenth Constitutional Amendment?
  • Does the failure to complete the legislative devolution process by the cut-off date specified in Article 270-AA render pre-existing federal laws ineffective?
  • Can the constitutional court adjudicate upon disputed calculations of employer contributions and arrears under the EOBI Act bypassing statutory forums?
  • What is the effect of Article 254 of the Constitution when an act required to be done within a specific period is not completed within that time?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Iqbal vs Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 PHC 240, 2022 PLD Peshawar 206 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-10Read full judgment →
• Khanzada Muhammad Rafique Khan vs Hussain-ur-Rehman and others2022 PHC 156 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-09Read full judgment →
• Khanvaiz Khan & another vs The State & another2022 PHC 490 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-11Read full judgment →
• Khanimullah & others vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Home Secretary & others2022 PHC 174, 2022 CLC 1879 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-04Read full judgment →
• Kalimullah vs Amir Fiaz and 02 others2022 PHC 224, 2022 PLJ Peshawar 159 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-03-07Read full judgment →
• Kalim Arshad Khan vs Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through Registrar2022 PLC (C.S.) 398 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-18
  seniority fixationservice appealjudicial servicemerit listselection processcivil servantback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal concerns the fixation of seniority for an Additional District and Sessions Judge who was appointed in 2005, following a court order, despite having participated in the same selection process as colleagues appointed in 2001. The appellant challenged the Administration Committee's refusal to grant him seniority alongside his batch-mates. The core legal question was whether the appellant’s seniority should be determined by his merit position in the original selection process or by his actual date of appointment. The Court held that the appellant is entitled to seniority with his batch-mates, noting that he had topped the merit list and his delayed appointment resulted from administrative circumstances rather than his own fault. The Court emphasized that for civil servants selected through the same process, seniority must be determined based on the merit assigned by the Selection Committee, regardless of the date of appointment. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, directing that the appellant be assigned seniority effective from the date his batch-mates were appointed, affirming that merit, not the fortuitous date of appointment, governs seniority in such instances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant appointed later due to administrative delay is entitled to seniority with their original batch-mates from the same selection process?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to a seniority dispute where the previous judgment did not attain finality or was reopened by higher court directions?
  • Is a service appeal maintainable against a final order of the Administration Committee regarding seniority fixation?
  Read full judgment →
• Kabir Hussain vs Arshad Saeed & others2022 PHC 646 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-12-05Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs The State & another2022 PHC 342 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-19Read full judgment →
• Johar Ali vs The State and another2022 PCRLJ 1177 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-09
  criminal appealmurderbenefit of doubtchance witnesseye-witness testimonymotiveabscondenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly given the reliance on a sole eye-witness. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case. The Court found the complainant to be a "chance witness" whose presence at the crime scene was not satisfactorily established, noting significant contradictions in his testimony and the absence of corroborative evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to substantiate the alleged motive, which, once pleaded, must be proven. The Court reiterated that conviction cannot rest on abscondence alone and that medical evidence did not support the complainant's version of events. Emphasizing the golden principle of criminal jurisprudence that the benefit of doubt must be extended to the accused, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, ruling that the prosecution's evidence was insufficient to sustain a capital charge.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of the accused's abscondence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a chance witness in a criminal trial when their testimony remains uncorroborated?
  • What are the legal consequences for the prosecution when it sets up a motive but fails to prove it?
  • Is the testimony of a witness sufficient for conviction if their presence at the crime scene is doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb Khan vs Government of Pakistan thorugh Secretary Information2022 PHC 496 · Peshawar High Court
  pensionary benefitstransferred employeestelecommunication reorganizationconstitutional jurisdictionmaster and servantterms and conditions of serviceresignation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by a former employee of the Telegraph and Telephone Department challenging the refusal of the respondents to pay pension and other service benefits attached to his regular service up to the date his resignation became effective after being transferred to Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited. The core legal question was whether the statutory terms and conditions, including pensionary benefits, of departmental employees transferred to the corporation and subsequently to the company are protected and whether an employee who tendered resignation under a fresh contract remains entitled to past pensionary benefits. The Peshawar High Court held that the terms and conditions of such transferred employees are fully protected by statute and cannot be varied to their disadvantage, and that the right to pension accrued from past service cannot be denied on the pretext of subsequent resignation. The court allowed the petition, declared the refusal illegal, and directed the respondents to release the petitioner's pension and benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the terms and conditions of previous service of departmental employees transferred to the telecommunication corporation and company are protected under the relevant statutory provisions?
  • Whether an employee who resigned from regular service to accept a new package in the company is entitled to pensionary and other benefits attached to their prior service?
  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to adjudicate matters concerning statutory terms and conditions of telecommunication employees?
  • Whether the pensionary rights of transferred employees can be altered or modified to their detriment without their consent?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehangir Khan vs State and others2022 MLD 429 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-12
  free fightcriminal appealappreciation of evidencealteration of convictionqatl-i-amdbenefit of doubtprosecution version
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and revision petition arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Bannu, which convicted the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given conflicting versions of the incident and evidence of injuries on the accused. The Court found that the prosecution's version was riddled with inconsistencies regarding the presence of witnesses and the circumstances of the arrest. Conversely, the accused's plea of a free fight was supported by medical evidence of his injuries and torn clothing, which the police had ignored. The Court held that the incident was a result of a free fight rather than a targeted murder, rendering the conviction under Section 302(b) unsustainable. Consequently, the Court altered the conviction to Section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, reducing the sentence to ten years rigorous imprisonment, while maintaining the compensation order under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be altered to Section 302(c) when the incident is found to be a free fight?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries on the person of the accused cast doubt on the prosecution's version of the incident?
  • Can the statement of an accused under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be accepted when the prosecution evidence is disbelieved?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehandad Khan vs Mst. Rokhana2022 PHC 586 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-12Read full judgment →
• Jawad Khan and others vs National Database And Registration Authority2022 PLC (C.S.) 94 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-12-01
  public employmentconstitutional petitionlegitimate expectationpromissory estoppelmaintainability of writlachesdiscrimination in service
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three constitutional petitions filed against the National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA), wherein the petitioners challenged their appointment as Data Entry Operators instead of the advertised posts of Call Centre/Customer Service Executive for which they had successfully qualified tests and interviews. The core legal questions involved whether public sector corporations can subject candidates to unfair employment practices, whether constitutional petitions regarding initial recruitment are maintainable against NADRA, and whether the defense of laches bars relief when similarly placed individuals have already been granted relief by the court. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners were subjected to arbitrary treatment and exploitation, violating their fundamental rights under Articles 3 and 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The court ruled that NADRA is amenable to writ jurisdiction regarding initial recruitment disputes, that the principle of laches does not bar relief when extending the benefit of a prior judicial determination to similarly situated persons, and that the petitioners are entitled to the same relief granted to their colleague. The key principles laid down include the application of equitable doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation against unfair public body actions, and the mandate that similarly placed citizens must not be discriminated against in public employment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional petitions are maintainable against NADRA in matters relating to initial recruitment?
  • Does the principle of laches act as an absolute bar to relief when similarly placed petitioners have already been granted relief by the court?
  • Can public sector corporations subject job applicants to lower positions after they have successfully qualified for advertised posts through tests and interviews?
  • Are the equitable doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation applicable to correct unfair and arbitrary actions of a public body?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Khan vs The State2022 PHC 114 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-15Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal and 5 others vs Government Of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Local Government, Peshawar and 4 others2022 CLC 502 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-10-19
  temporary injunctiontenancy expirationrevisional jurisdictiondilapidated propertyprima facie casebalance of convenienceirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns five civil revision petitions filed against concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioners' applications for temporary injunctions regarding the possession of shops in Old Lari Adda, Kohat City. The petitioners, former tenants whose lease agreements expired in 2015, sought to restrain the respondents from dispossessing them, alleging mala fide notices for eviction. The core legal question was whether the petitioners established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss sufficient to warrant a temporary injunction. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, noting that the tenancy had expired and the petitioners did not contest the respondents' claim that the shops were in a dilapidated, dangerous condition requiring reconstruction. The Court emphasized that allegations of mala fide require evidence, which had not been produced despite the suits pending for over two years. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that in the absence of a valid tenancy and given the dilapidated state of the property, the petitioners were not entitled to injunctive relief.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expiration of a tenancy agreement preclude a tenant from claiming a right to continued possession against the landlord?
  • Can a temporary injunction be granted where the allegations of mala fide require evidence that has not yet been produced?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts in its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Is a tenant entitled to an injunction against eviction when the property is in a dilapidated condition requiring reconstruction?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Imran vs Muhammad Arif2022 PHC 228, 2022 PLJ 155 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-23Read full judgment →
• Javed Awan vs State2022 PHC 592, 2024 YLR 235 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-07Read full judgment →
• Izhar Ullah vs The State & another2022 PHC 596, 2023 MLD 777 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-19Read full judgment →
• Issa Khan vs The State etc2022 PHC 234 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-06-22Read full judgment →
• Israr Ali & 03 others vs Govt: of KPK & others2022 PHC 172 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-04-13Read full judgment →
• Israr Ahmad vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary2022 PHC 636 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Irfan Ullah vs The State etc2022 PHC 150 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-10
  dying declarationcircumstantial evidencemurder referenceqatl-e-amdcriminal appealevidentiary valueconviction reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of a police official, receiving a death sentence, alongside conviction under Section 15-AA of the Arms Act. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the dying declaration of the deceased and circumstantial evidence, including call data records and forensic reports. Upon appeal, the High Court reassessed the evidence, noting that while the dying declaration was corroborated by medical and forensic evidence, the prosecution's narrative regarding the incident's location and circumstances contained significant inconsistencies, particularly regarding a physical struggle in a maize field not disclosed by the complainant. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the prerequisites for a conviction under Section 302(a) PPC. Consequently, the Court set aside the death sentence, converting the conviction to Section 302(c) PPC, and sentenced the appellant to 15 years of rigorous imprisonment. The Court affirmed that while a dying declaration is admissible, it requires careful scrutiny and corroboration, and inconsistencies regarding the mode of incident warrant a reduction in sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a dying declaration can form the sole basis for a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Can a court convert a conviction from Section 302(a) to Section 302(c) PPC when the prosecution's narrative regarding the mode of the incident is inconsistent?
  • Does the suppression of real facts by both parties during an incident allow for the inference of a right of private defence?
  • Is a forensic report confirming the match between crime empties and a recovered weapon sufficient to sustain a conviction on its own?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ullah vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Higher Education, Islamabad and othersccc · Peshawar High Court
  writ jurisdictionstatutory bodynatural justiceservice terminationreinstatementdepartmental proceedingsemployment law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the termination of the petitioner from his position as Manager (Admin & Finance) at the National University of Computer & Emerging Sciences. The core legal questions were whether the University is a statutory body amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the termination of a confirmed employee without a hearing was lawful. The Court held that the University, established by the National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences Ordinance, 2000, is a statutory body, and its rules possess statutory status. Consequently, the Court found the termination order, which stigmatized the petitioner with 'unsatisfactory performance,' illegal as it violated principles of natural justice by condemning the petitioner unheard. The key principle laid down is that where an employee is terminated based on allegations of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance, even if the employment terms allow for termination on notice, the employer must conduct proper departmental proceedings and provide the employee an opportunity to defend themselves. The termination was set aside, and the petitioner was reinstated.

  Questions settled

  • Is the National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Do service rules framed by the Board of Governors and approved by the Board of Trustees of a statutory university possess statutory status?
  • Can a confirmed employee be terminated for unsatisfactory performance without providing an opportunity to be heard?
  • Does the termination of an employee on grounds of unsatisfactory performance constitute a stigma requiring departmental proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ullah vs Fayaz & others2022 PHC 562, 2025 MLD 918 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-05Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank Limited through Officer Incharge vs Messrs2022 CLD 522 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-01-12Read full judgment →
• Inayat-ur-Rehman son of Sher Bahadur, r/o Musam Kuroona, District2022 PHC 26, 2022 P Cr. L J 1408 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-02-03
  jail criminal appealsolitary eyewitnessqatl-e-amdsudden quarrelpremeditationcircumstantial evidenceforensic evidencesentence modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This jail criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution relied on the ocular account of the deceased's widow, supported by medical evidence and forensic reports confirming the recovery of the crime weapon. The core legal question concerned the sufficiency of the solitary eyewitness testimony and the classification of the offense. The Court held that the testimony of a solitary eyewitness is sufficient for conviction if it is trustworthy, confidence-inspiring, and corroborated by circumstantial evidence, regardless of the witness's relationship to the deceased. The Court found the prosecution's evidence credible and sufficient to establish guilt. However, noting the absence of premeditation and the occurrence of the incident during a sudden quarrel, the Court determined the offense fell within the ambit of section 302(c) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, rather than section 302(b). Consequently, the Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence from life imprisonment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment, maintaining the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness?
  • Does the relationship between a witness and the deceased automatically render the witness interested and unreliable?
  • How should an offense committed without premeditation in the heat of a sudden quarrel be classified under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the testimony of a solitary eyewitness sufficient to prove a criminal charge if corroborated by circumstantial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Inam Shah vs Saddiq Jan2022 PHC 536 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-18Read full judgment →