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.

• Faqir Jamil Masoom Versus Allah Bakhsh2016 CLCN 70 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zargula Versus Mst. Meraj Bibi2016 CLCN 63 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-03Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb Sohail Versus Mst. Shagufta Begum2016 CLCN 61 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Habib Versus Tariq Siddique2016 CLCN 57 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Haider Versus Masaud2016 CLCN 53 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Naveed Versus Aman Ullah2016 CLCN 49 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-07-04Read full judgment →
• Roohullah Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2016 CLCN 47 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-08-06Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Versus Mst. Ghulam Fatima2016 CLCN 43 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-15Read full judgment →
• Anwer Shah Quraishi Versus Mst. Hussan Baha2016 CLCN 41 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-15Read full judgment →
• Assistant Audit Officer, Local Audit Party, Peshawar Versus Rab Nawaz2016 CLCN 39 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-21Read full judgment →
• Arbab Hidayat Ullah Khan Versus Arbab Saif Ali Khan2016 CLCN 37 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-08-26Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahman Versus Rifatullah2016 CLCN 35 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-09-19Read full judgment →
• Taus Khan Versus Haji Muhammad Nisar, Advocate2016 CLCN 33 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-09-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousaf Versus Ajab Noor2016 CLCN 31 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-09-25Read full judgment →
• Allah Diwaya Versus Abdur Rehman2016 CLCN 3 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arif Versus Allah Wasaya2016 CLCN 29 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-07-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Abida Kalsoom Versus Chairman WAPDA2016 CLCN 27 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-07Read full judgment →
• Kamaluddin Versus Mst. Sardaran2016 CLCN 23 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-07-18Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rasheed Versus Rafeeq Muhammad2016 CLCN 21 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-06-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum alias Dil Jan Versus Government of Pakistan through Collector Charsadda2016 CLCN 150 · Peshawar High Court · 2016-02-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Khan Versus Mst. Ruqia Bibi2016 CLCN 147 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-07-15Read full judgment →
• Masih-Ud-Din Khan Versus Iftikhar-Ud-Din2016 CLCN 144 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-10-23Read full judgment →
• Fahad Iqbal Versus Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Kohat2016 CLCN 141 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-10-30Read full judgment →
• Al-Moiz Industries Limited Versus Diwan Muhammad Yousuf Farooqi2016 CLCN 14 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-04-30Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zaman Versus Muhammad Iqbal2016 CLCN 138 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mir Zali Khan Versus Chief Executive PESCO Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Peshawar2016 CLCN 134 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-09-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Khan Versus Mst. Jehan Zeba2016 CLCN 130 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-12-18Read full judgment →
• Haji Khizan Khan Versus Abdul Qayyum Khan2016 CLCN 125 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-07-27Read full judgment →
• Murad Khan Versus Ayub Khan2016 CLCN 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-09-08Read full judgment →
• Khan Wali Versus Rozi Khan2016 CLCN 115 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-20Read full judgment →
• Fazal Mabood Versus Sher Zada2016 CLCN 110 · Peshawar High Court · 2014-06-17Read full judgment →
• Najeeb Ullah Versus University of Agriculure Peshawar2016 CLCN 11 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-11-12Read full judgment →
• Rajan Shah Versus Sardar Khan2016 CLCN 105 · Peshawar High Court · 2015-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Versus Muhammad Aslam2016 CLCN 100 · Peshawar High Court · 2013-12-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shah Alam Khan Versus Vice-Chancellor University of Agriculture Peshawar2025 PTD 945 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-01-29Read full judgment →
• M.K. Steel Mills Versus Collector of Customs, MCC Customs House, Peshawar2025 PTD 914 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-05-17Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Inland Revenue Peshawar Zone, Regional Tax Office, Peshawar Versus Miss Shabnam Riaz2025 PTD 883 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue (Mardan Zone), Mardan Versus Basher's CNG Filling Station Nowshera2025 PTD 827 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-10-04Read full judgment →
• Rafi Ullah Versus Liaqat2025 PTD 708 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-13
  tax referencepecuniary jurisdictionretrospective applicationstatutory interpretationappellate forumIncome Tax OrdinanceGeneral Clauses Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter concerns the maintainability of various tax references filed before the Peshawar High Court following amendments to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 by the Finance Act, 2024 and the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024. The core legal question is whether the new pecuniary jurisdiction and appellate forums established by these 2024 amendments apply retrospectively to pending cases or those arising from orders communicated after the amendments. The Court held that the legislature clearly intended retrospective application for orders communicated after the commencement of the 2024 Acts. Consequently, references against orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) communicated after the commencement of the Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 2024 are maintainable before the High Court. However, appeals with an assessment value of twenty million rupees or less pending before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue prior to December 31, 2024, remain with the Tribunal. The Court affirmed that while Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 protects accrued rights, this principle yields where the legislature explicitly or by necessary intendment provides for retrospective operation.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Finance Act, 2024 have retrospective application regarding the forum of appeal for tax references?
  • What is the effect of the non-obstante clause in Section 126A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on the jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Are appeals with an assessment value of twenty million rupees or less pending before the Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue affected by the 2024 amendments?
  • Does Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 apply when the legislature has explicitly provided for retrospective operation of an amending Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Khyber Tea and Food Company Versus Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Appeals), Peshawar2025 PTD 1914 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-01-08Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited Versus Additional Collector Unit-I, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Revenue Authority (Kpra), Peshawar2025 PTD 1838 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-09-23Read full judgment →
• Gadoon Textile Mills Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan2025 PTD 1465 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-07Read full judgment →
• Collector Customs Versus Chiniot Enterprises (Pvt) Limited2025 PTD 1424 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-03Read full judgment →
• Dr. Musa Kalim, Associate Professor Pediatrics Lady Reading Hospital-Mti, Peshawar Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Peshawar2025 PTD 1249 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-20Read full judgment →
• Director General Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Revenue Authority, Peshawar Versus Bee Line, Peshawar2025 PTD 1113 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-06Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Peshawar Versus Syed Aftab-Ul-Hassan2025 PTD 1078 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-08-21Read full judgment →
• Sohail Steel GL Sheet Company Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance and Revenue Division, Islamabad2023 PTD 556 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue Versus Muhammad Tahir and Brothers Oghi Mansehra2022 PTD 283 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-01Read full judgment →
• New Mohmand Steel Mills Versus Government of Pakistan through Federal Secretary Finance and Revenue Division, Islamabad2022 PTD 254 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Inland Revenue, Peshawar Versus Tribal Areas Electricity Supply Company, Ltd. Peshawar2022 PTD 1932 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-05-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Salam Versus State2019 PTD 1595 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-04-12Read full judgment →
• Additional Collector Customs, Peshawar Versus Daulat Khan2011 PTD 1433 · Peshawar High Court · 2011-03-15Read full judgment →
• .B. Plaza Versus Commissioner of Income Tax/Wealth Tax2010 PTD 311 · Peshawar High Court · 2007-04-04Read full judgment →
• 1990 PTD 1781990 PTD 178 · Peshawar High Court · 1989-11-21Read full judgment →
• Siemens A. G. Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi Zone1982 PTD 354 · Peshawar High Court · 1982-09-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi Versus Ahmad Sham & Brothers1981 PTD 62 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
• I. T. A. No. 428/(PB.) of 1978-79, Decided on 31ST May, 1980. Versus I. T. A. No. 428/(PB.) of 1978-79, Decided on 31ST May, 1980.1980 PTD 85 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-05-31Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi Versus Messrs Ahmad Shafi & Bros.1980 PTD 331 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi Versus SH. Ehsan Elahi1980 PTD 261 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of the Income-Tax, Rawalpindi Zone, Rawalpindi Versus Messrs K. K. & Company Ltd., Peshawar1980 PTD 210 · Peshawar High Court · 1980-03-25Read full judgment →
• Dr. Musa Kalim, Associate Professor Pediatrics Lady Reading Hospital-Mti, Peshawar Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Peshawar2025 PLC(CS) 951 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-11-20
  professional taxtaxationultra viresdelegated legislationintelligible differentiamedical professionalstax recovery mechanism
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, including medical professionals and civil servants, challenged the deduction of professional tax from their salaries and contested the validity of Rule 10 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Professions, Trade and Callings Tax Rules, 1991. The core legal questions concerned whether the Finance Act, 1990 lacked a necessary recovery mechanism, rendering the Rules ultra vires, and whether doctors were subject to such taxation. The Court held that the tax is validly imposed under the Finance Act, 1990, and that the delegation of rule-making power to the government for assessment and collection is not excessive. The Court affirmed that doctors are professionals subject to the tax and that the geographical classification of tax rates constitutes intelligible differentia. The judgment established that while taxing statutes require clear charging provisions, machinery provisions for collection can be delegated and interpreted liberally to facilitate tax realization. It further clarified that professional tax is distinct from income tax and is validly imposed on professions requiring specialized training, regardless of the individual's employment status.

  Questions settled

  • Is the delegation of rule-making power for tax assessment and collection under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act 1990 constitutionally valid?
  • Does the absence of a specific recovery mechanism in a parent taxing statute render the subordinate rules for collection ultra vires?
  • Are medical doctors considered professionals subject to professional tax under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act 1990?
  • Does the geographical classification of tax rates for doctors in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Finance Act 1990 violate the principle of intelligible differentia?
  Read full judgment →
• The Board of Governor through Chairman, Khyber Teaching Hospital (Mti), Peshawar Versus Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions, Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar2025 PLC(CS) 850 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-24
  maintainabilityadministrative tribunalwrit petitionexclusive jurisdictionservice tribunalconstitutional law
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a batch of writ petitions challenging the orders of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of writ petitions before the High Court against the judgments of administrative tribunals established under provincial legislation, in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Relying on the precedent set by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Kaleem Arshad's case, the court held that decisions of both federal and provincial administrative tribunals must be challenged exclusively before the Supreme Court under Article 212, and the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such matters under its constitutional writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty granted to the petitioners to approach the appropriate forum, while one petition was treated as an appeal and transferred to the Tribunal by consent of the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain petitions against the judgments of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Medical Teaching Institutions Appellate Tribunal?
  • Does an appeal against the decision of a provincial administrative tribunal lie directly to the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
  • Whether the applicability of clause (2) of Article 212 to a provincial tribunal affects the availability of an appeal before the Supreme Court under clause (3) of Article 212?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan Versus The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Peshawar2025 PLC(CS) 833 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-12-09
  notional promotionProvincial Selection BoardDepartmental Promotion CommitteemandamusArticle 212civil servantpromotion of juniorsretirement benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  Through this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the respondents to convene a meeting of the Provincial Selection Board (PSB) to consider his case for notional promotion from BPS-19 to BPS-20 with retrospective effect, enabling retirement benefits. While in service, the petitioner was eligible and his promotion case was considered in a PSB meeting on 12.06.2020, but the process stalled due to legal uncertainties regarding changes to the retirement age limit. The petitioner retired on 07.05.2021, and subsequently his juniors were promoted. The respondents contested the petition, asserting that the matter pertained to terms and conditions of civil service barred by Article 212 of the Constitution. The High Court rejected the jurisdictional objection, holding that seeking a mandamus to consider a promotion case does not contravene Article 212. The Court ruled that although promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right, an employee has a legitimate right to be considered once the process commences. Because the delay was solely attributable to the department and juniors were promoted, the petition was allowed, directing the PSB to consider granting notional promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a right to be considered for notional promotion when the promotion process was initiated prior to retirement but delayed due to departmental inaction while juniors were subsequently promoted?
  • Whether a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus to direct an authority to consider a civil servant's case for promotion is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a Departmental Promotion Committee or Provincial Selection Board refuse to decide a promotion case that matured during service solely on the ground of the employee's subsequent retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Arbab Ahmad Abbas Versus President and CEO, the Bank of Punjab, B Block, E-II, Main Boulevard Gulberg-III, Lahore2025 PLC(CS) 1645 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-10-23
  Bank of Punjabmaster and servantstatutory rulesconstitutional petitionwrit maintainabilityperformance improvement plantermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a batch of writ petitions filed by employees of the Bank of Punjab challenging their termination under the bank's Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) due to failure to meet assigned performance targets. The core legal question revolves around whether the service regulations and internal policies of the Bank of Punjab possess statutory status so as to make termination matters amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under the principle of master and servant. Relying on precedents from the Supreme Court, the Peshawar High Court held that the rules and internal instructions of the Bank of Punjab, including the PIP, are non-statutory in nature following legislative amendments omitting the requirement of government approval. Consequently, the court ruled that the employment relationship is governed by the principles of master and servant, rendering the constitutional petitions not maintainable. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service regulations and Performance Improvement Plan of the Bank of Punjab possess statutory status?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan be maintained against the termination of employment by the Bank of Punjab?
  • Does the omission of the requirement for government approval in framing rules strip such internal regulations of their statutory character?
  • Are employment disputes involving the Bank of Punjab governed by the principle of master and servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Versus Government Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary, Forestry Environment and Wildlife Department, Peshawar2025 PLC(CS) 1615 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-09-12
  departmental promotion committeecivil servant promotiondisciplinary proceedingsfitness for promotionwrit jurisdictionservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Forester, challenged the minutes of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meeting that deferred his promotion due to pending disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner sought to declare the deferment illegal, arguing that mere pendency of disciplinary proceedings should not hinder promotion. The respondents contended that the 2009 Provincial Civil Servants Promotion Policy mandates deferment in such cases and noted that the petitioner had been found guilty of misconduct with a major penalty proposed. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to review a DPC's decision regarding fitness for promotion and whether the pendency of disciplinary proceedings justifies the deferment of promotion. The Court held that while it possesses jurisdiction to review such matters, the petition was devoid of merit. The Court distinguished the petitioner's case from precedents, noting that the disciplinary proceedings had progressed to a stage where a major penalty was proposed, thereby justifying the deferment. The Court affirmed that interference in the DPC's assessment of fitness for promotion is not warranted when disciplinary proceedings have reached an advanced, unfavorable stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a petition challenging a Departmental Promotion Committee's decision regarding the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
  • Can the pendency of disciplinary proceedings serve as a valid legal ground for the deferment of a civil servant's promotion?
  • Is the deferment of promotion permissible when disciplinary proceedings have progressed to the stage of a proposed major penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Saddam Hussain Versus Vice-Chancellor University of Malakand2025 PLC(CS) 1566 · Peshawar High Court
  mining leasejoint venture proposalexpression of interestunsolicited proposalphosphate miningclean hands doctrinelocus standiconstitutional jurisdictionreference value
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions were instituted before the Peshawar High Court challenging an auction notice, an Expression of Interest (EOI), and the grant of a phosphate mining lease under a joint venture proposal to a private respondent in District Abbottabad. The petitioners asserted that the respondent Department refused or ignored their bids, failed to follow statutory auction requirements under Section 62 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mines and Minerals Act 2017, and improperly granted the joint venture under Section 10 without appropriate wide publication. The High Court dismissed both petitions, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that they had submitted proper, valid applications in the prescribed manner or complied with mandatory financial and procedural requirements under Section 21. Furthermore, the private respondent had offered a higher profit-sharing rate than one petitioner, and statutory publication requirements had been satisfied. The Court reaffirmed that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is discretionary and equitable; a petitioner must approach the court with clean hands, and strangers to the administrative process lacking valid participation have no locus standi to challenge mineral title awards.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner challenge the grant of a mining lease under constitutional jurisdiction without establishing that a valid application was submitted in accordance with statutory requirements?
  • Whether the failure to submit required financial guarantees and documents along with a joint venture proposal renders an applicant a stranger to the mineral title award process?
  • Does the statutory requirement of publication under Section 10 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Mines and Minerals Act 2017 stand satisfied by publishing an expression of interest in major English and Urdu daily newspapers?
  • Can discretionary relief under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be granted to a party that fails to satisfy the equitable requirement of approaching the court with clean hands?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan Versus Vice-Chancellor/Governer Syndicate through Registrar, the University of Agriculture, Peshawar2025 PLC(CS) 1516 · Peshawar High Court
  inheritance mutationsShia law of inheritancechange of sectwill deedconcurrent findingscivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby a civil suit filed by the respondent for declaration and cancellation of inheritance mutations was decreed in her favour. The core legal question concerned the validity of a will executed by the deceased, the proof of conversion of the deceased from one Islamic sect to another, and the proper application of the Shia Law of inheritance. The Peshawar High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding the valid execution of the will, the conversion of the deceased to the Shia sect, and the exclusion of remote collateral heirs by a direct daughter in the first class of heirs were well-founded and supported by evidence. The Court established that a Muslim of sound mind and age of puberty may change their religious sect, and that under Islamic jurisprudence, nearer heirs exclude more remote ones. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Muslim renounce the doctrines of their sect and adopt the tenets of another sect?
  • Does a daughter as a sole legal heir under Shia law exclude remote collateral heirs from inheritance?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact by lower courts can be interfered with in civil revision without showing misreading or non-reading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta-E-Rabbi Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through the Secretary Higher Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar2025 PLC(CS) 1484 · Peshawar High Court
  civil revisiondemarcation reportencroachmentrevenue hierarchyfinality of orderspossession of landland revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which reversed the trial court's dismissal of a suit for possession of land. The core legal question concerns whether a demarcation report, which identified an encroachment of 08 marlas by the petitioner, attained finality when the petitioner failed to challenge the underlying revenue proceedings or the Tehsildar's order before the appropriate revenue hierarchy. The Peshawar High Court held that the demarcation report, having been prepared in the presence of the parties and left unchallenged through the prescribed statutory appeals or revisions under the Land Revenue Act, became final and binding. Consequently, the Court upheld the appellate court's decision, finding no illegality or irregularity in the reversal of the trial court's judgment. The key principle laid down is that where a party fails to contest a revenue officer's demarcation report or the subsequent order through the established revenue hierarchy, those findings attain finality and cannot be collaterally challenged in subsequent civil proceedings, thereby rendering the encroachment findings conclusive.

  Questions settled

  • Does a demarcation report prepared by a revenue official attain finality if it remains unchallenged before the revenue hierarchy?
  • Can a party challenge the findings of a demarcation report in civil court after failing to file objections or appeals under the Land Revenue Act?
  • Is an appellate court's judgment sustainable when it relies on a revenue order that has attained finality due to the failure of the opposing party to contest it?
  Read full judgment →
• Safir Khan Versus Secretary Finance through Ministry of Finance Islamabad2025 PLC(CS) 1245 · Peshawar High Court · 2024-04-24
  constitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionmaintainabilityprivatized bankmaster and servantpension benefitsterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan seeking directions against a privatized banking company, MCB Bank, to implement government instructions from 1977 and pay arrears of yearly pension increases. The core legal question was whether a privatized bank lacking statutory rules of service is amenable to the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Peshawar High Court held that since MCB Bank is a privatized banking company with no controlling shares held by the Federal Government and no statutory rules governing its service terms, it does not fall within the definition of a 'person' or authority under Article 199 and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The court laid down the principle that the relationship between such a bank and its employees/pensioners is governed by the master and servant framework, and constitutional petitions seeking enforcement of private employment or pension rights against such entities are not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a privatized banking company lacking statutory rules of service is amenable to the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does a constitutional petition lie against a private entity for the enforcement of pension benefits and government instructions?
  • What is the legal status of employees and pensioners of a privatized bank that is not governed by statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarat Versus The Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2025 PLC(CS) 1201 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-04-07
  family pensionwidowed daughterpensionary benefitsconstitutional petitionright to livelihoodcivil servants pension rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a widowed daughter of a deceased police constable, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the release of her late father's monthly pension after the demise of her mother, who had been receiving the family pension. The respondents denied the pension on the ground that the petitioner was residing with her children in her deceased husband's house. The core legal question was whether a widowed daughter residing in her deceased husband's house is disqualified from receiving the family pension of her father under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Pension Rules, 2021. The Peshawar High Court held that residing in her late husband's house is not a disqualification under the rules, as widowed or divorced daughters are explicitly included in the definition of family for lifetime or until remarriage. The court laid down the principle that pensionary rights have constitutional significance drawing strength from the right to life and livelihood under Article 9 of the Constitution, and no restrictions can be imposed on such statutory rights without the backing of express legal provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a widowed daughter residing in her deceased husband's house is disqualified from receiving her father's family pension?
  • Does the definition of family under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Pension Rules, 2021 include widowed daughters for the grant of pension?
  • Can administrative authorities introduce restrictions on pensionary rights not backed by any legal provision?
  • Does the right to pension draw its constitutional significance from the right to life and livelihood under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Faheem Ullah Versus Secretary Education, Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar2025 PLC(CS) 1145 · Peshawar High Court · 2025-02-20
  writ petitionpublic appointmenteligibility criteriamerit-based appointmentadministrative accountabilityselection committee
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the appointment of a private respondent to the post of Deputy Director (Academics) (BPS-18). The petitioner alleged that the private respondent was ineligible due to being underage and lacking the requisite educational and experience qualifications stipulated in the advertisement. The core legal question was whether the appointment process was conducted transparently and in accordance with the prescribed eligibility criteria. The Court observed that the private respondent indeed lacked the necessary qualifications and age requirements, and that the Selection Committee and Board of Governors had acted improperly in facilitating this appointment. However, as the private respondent had already been terminated, the Court held that no writ could be issued regarding the appointment itself. The Court dismissed the petition but directed the Board of Governors to conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the appointments made under the subject advertisement to fix responsibility on those involved in the illegal selection process, mandating a report to be submitted within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Can a writ be issued against an appointment that has already been terminated or expired?
  • Does the court have the authority to order an inquiry into the conduct of a selection committee for public appointments?
  • Is an appointment made in violation of the prescribed age and experience criteria in an advertisement legally sustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Nayab Khan Versus Chief Executive Office PESCO, Peshawar2023 PLC(CS) 944 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-20
  writ jurisdictionmaintainabilitymaster and servant principleservice matterPESCOstatutory rulescorporate entity
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Line Superintendent at Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO), filed a writ petition challenging an order withdrawing his transfer. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to adjudicate service-related grievances of PESCO employees. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable. It reasoned that PESCO, established following the bifurcation of WAPDA, is a corporate entity registered under the Companies Ordinance 1984, and does not possess statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of its employees' service. Consequently, the relationship between the company and its employees is strictly governed by the principle of Master and Servant. The Court affirmed that in the absence of statutory rules, the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked for service matters of such corporate employees. The principle laid down is that employees of companies lacking statutory service rules must seek redress for grievances through a competent civil court rather than through a writ petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a writ petition maintainable against a company that lacks statutory rules governing the terms and conditions of its employees' service?
  • Does the relationship between PESCO and its employees fall under the principle of Master and Servant?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to resolve service disputes of employees of companies registered under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Bismillah Din Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar2023 PLC(CS) 910 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-12
  writ petitionETEA testrecruitmentnecessary partymerit listIslamic educationfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the results of an ETEA recruitment test for the post of Primary School Teacher. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to marks for an MCQ answer that the testing agency marked incorrect, despite the answer being supported by authoritative Islamic historical texts. Upon consulting scholarly works, the Court determined the petitioner’s answer was historically and religiously correct. However, the Court declined to grant the requested relief of rectifying the merit list. The holding was based on the procedural principle that the petitioner failed to implead the other candidates whose selection would be adversely affected by any revision of the merit list. Consequently, the Court refused to grant relief that would perpetuate injustice against non-party candidates. The judgment emphasized the state's obligation to ensure accurate religious education in school curricula to avoid public misconceptions and reaffirmed that necessary parties must be joined in litigation to avoid prejudice to third-party rights.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant relief in a service matter if the petitioner fails to implead the other affected candidates?
  • Does the failure to implead necessary parties in a writ petition preclude the granting of relief?
  • Is the state obligated to ensure the accuracy of religious education in school curricula under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Irfan Ullah Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Higher Education, Islamabad2023 PLC(CS) 866 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-10
  writ jurisdictionstatutory bodynatural justiceservice terminationconfirmed employeeright to be heardamenability to writ
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the termination of the petitioner from his position at the National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences. The core legal question was whether the University is a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether the termination of a confirmed employee without a formal inquiry, despite allegations of misconduct, was lawful. The Court held that the University, established by an Ordinance with rules framed by its Board of Governors and approved by its Board of Trustees, possesses statutory status, making it amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court further held that while an employer may terminate a probationer for unsatisfactory work, a confirmed employee cannot be terminated based on allegations of misconduct or unsatisfactory performance without adhering to the principles of natural justice and providing an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Court set aside the termination order, reinstated the petitioner, and allowed the university to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Is the National University of Computer and Emerging Sciences a statutory body amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the termination of a confirmed employee based on allegations of unsatisfactory performance require a formal departmental inquiry?
  • Can a writ petition be maintained against a university established by an Ordinance where its rules are framed under statutory powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Adam Khan Versus Bank of Punjab2023 PLC(CS) 85 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-02-28
  termination of servicestatutory rulesmaster and servantright of associationnatural justicewrit petitionterritorial jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the petitioner's termination from his post as a Grade-II Officer in the Bank of Punjab. The respondent-Bank terminated the petitioner's services following a show-cause notice, alleging misconduct for forming and promoting an unregistered officers' association. The respondent-Bank raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition, arguing that its service rules were non-statutory, the relationship was governed by the master-and-servant doctrine, and the court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court held that since the requirement of previous government approval for framing rules under Section 25 of the Bank of Punjab Act 1989 was deleted by Ordinance LVII of 2002, the rules partake the character of subordinate legislation. Furthermore, as the Government of Punjab holds 51% shares, the Bank falls within the definition of a "person" under Article 199. On merits, the Court ruled that forming an association is a fundamental right under Article 17 of the Constitution, the allegations did not constitute misconduct, and the termination without a proper inquiry violated the principles of natural justice. The petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rules framed under Section 25 of the Bank of Punjab Act 1989 possess a statutory character after the deletion of the requirement for previous government approval by Ordinance LVII of 2002?
  • Does the Bank of Punjab qualify as a 'person' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 for the purposes of writ jurisdiction?
  • Can an employee's services be terminated on the ground of forming an officers' association, in light of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 17 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a termination order passed without holding a proper inquiry and without affording an opportunity of personal hearing sustainable under the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan Versus Secretary, Establishment (Establishment Division), Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad2023 PLC(CS) 802 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-11-03
  service matterupgradationlachesback benefitssuperannuationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired employee of Pakistan Railways, filed a constitutional petition seeking a writ to upgrade his post of Stenographer to BS-16 with effect from 23.12.2011, along with subsequent promotion to BS-18 and associated back benefits. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to a second upgradation to BS-16 despite having already been upgraded to that scale in 2007 and subsequently promoted to BS-17 in 2018. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had already been granted the benefit of upgradation to BS-16 in 2007 and had been receiving pay and allowances accordingly. The Court further noted that the petitioner had retired from service in 2018, and the instant petition, filed in 2021, was barred by the doctrine of laches. The Court established the principle that an employee who has already received the benefit of an upgradation and subsequent promotion is not entitled to claim a second upgradation for the same post, particularly when the claim is stale and hit by laches.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee entitled to a second upgradation to the same pay scale if they have already received the benefit of that upgradation previously?
  • Does a delay of several years in filing a petition after retirement constitute laches sufficient to dismiss a claim for service benefits?
  • Can a retired government servant claim further promotion and upgradation after reaching the age of superannuation?
  Read full judgment →
• Asmatullah Khan Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education Khyber Pakhtunkhwa at Peshawar2023 PLC(CS) 743 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-14
  locus poenitentiaeextraordinary leaveservice lawconstitutional petitionvested rightswithdrawal of orderadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the withdrawal of a sanctioned extraordinary leave order granted to the petitioner, a teacher, for higher studies abroad. The core legal question was whether the respondent authority could rescind a lawful leave order after the petitioner had acted upon it by proceeding abroad. The Court held that the leave order was lawful, not obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, and had been acted upon by the petitioner. Consequently, the principle of locus poenitentiae applied, preventing the authority from unilaterally withdrawing the benefit. The Court established that while an authority generally possesses the power to rescind its orders under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act 1897, this power ceases once a decisive step has been taken and vested rights have been created in favor of an individual, provided the initial order was not illegal or obtained through fraud. Accordingly, the Court declared the impugned withdrawal order illegal, set it aside, and directed the department to grant the petitioner service extension parity with his colleagues.

  Questions settled

  • Can an authority rescind a lawful order after the beneficiary has acted upon it and created vested rights?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to the withdrawal of a sanctioned leave order?
  • Is an order obtained without fraud or misrepresentation by a competent authority subject to unilateral rescission after it has taken legal effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Shah Jahan Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2023 PLC(CS) 236 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-10-13
  dismissal from servicecivil servantcriminal acquittaldepartmental inquirylachesjurisdictional barService Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, former police constables, filed constitutional petitions challenging their dismissal from service. They argued that their dismissals were illegal and violative of natural justice, especially since they were subsequently acquitted of the criminal charges that formed the basis of their departmental proceedings. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions. The Court held that departmental and criminal proceedings are entirely distinct; acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically absolve a civil servant of departmental liability. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitions were heavily barred by laches, as the petitioners delayed challenging their dismissals for several years without satisfactory explanation. Crucially, the Court ruled that under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 199 is barred in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of a civil servant in a criminal case automatically bar or invalidate departmental disciplinary proceedings based on the same facts?
  • Can the High Court entertain a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution regarding the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant in light of Article 212?
  • Does the principle of laches apply to a constitutional petition challenging a dismissal order when there is an unexplained delay of several years?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haleema Bibi Versus The Additional Chief Secretary FATA, FATA Secretariat, Warsak Road, Peshawar2023 PLC(CS) 1448 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-08
  primary school teacherappointment criteriastatutory interpretationvires of lawdomicileCNICUnion Councilmerit-based appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of writ petitions challenges the vires of Section 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors and Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011, which mandates that primary school teacher vacancies be filled by candidates from the Union Council of their permanent residence as recorded in their Computerized National Identity Card (CNIC) and domicile. The petitioners argued that this provision violates fundamental rights under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, by prioritizing local residency over merit. The Court held that Section 3 is a valid legislative enactment, as the legislature acted within its competency and the provision does not abridge fundamental rights. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court affirmed that appointments must strictly adhere to the statutory requirement of permanent residence as evidenced by CNICs and domiciles. Furthermore, the Court held that candidates must meet eligibility criteria by the application cut-off date and cannot rely on post-application changes. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, affirming the validity of the Act and the necessity of strict compliance with residency-based appointment criteria.

  Questions settled

  • Is Section 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (Appointment, Deputation, Posting and Transfer of Teachers, Lecturers, Instructors and Doctors) Regulatory Act, 2011, unconstitutional for violating fundamental rights?
  • Must a candidate for a primary school teacher post meet eligibility criteria, including residency requirements, by the application cut-off date?
  • Can a court strike down a legislative enactment solely on the grounds of legislative incompetence or violation of fundamental rights?
  • Does the appointment of primary school teachers based on Union Council residency as per CNIC and domicile violate the principle of merit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Muhammad Khan Versus The Shaheed Benazir Bhutto University Sheringal Dir Upper2023 PLC(CS) 1415 · Peshawar High Court · 2023-02-21
  probationer terminationunauthorized absenceregular inquirytermination simpliciterlachesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged his termination order and the dismissal of his departmental appeal by invoking the writ jurisdiction of the court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner, a regularized employee serving on probation, had been terminated from service following unauthorized absence from duty due to his involvement and subsequent abscondence in a criminal case, in which he was later acquitted. The core legal question was whether a probationer employee could be terminated without a regular inquiry or show-cause notice for unauthorized absence, and whether the petition was barred by laches. The court held that the services of a probationer can be terminated simpliciter without a regular inquiry when the absence from duty is admitted and no disputed questions of fact require investigation. The court established that where an employee admits to unauthorized absence, a regular departmental inquiry is not mandatory, and termination simpliciter during probation does not necessitate elaborate proceedings unless tainted by punitive allegations. The petition was consequently dismissed on merits and for laches.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a probationer employee can be terminated from service without a regular inquiry or notice in the case of a termination simpliciter?
  • Is a regular departmental inquiry required when the absence from duty is admitted by the employee?
  • Whether a constitutional petition filed after a prolonged delay is hit by laches and disentitled to equitable relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz Muhammad Versus Asad Ullah Khan2022 PLC(CS) 461 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-09-29
  illegal appointmentadditional chargemisuse of authorityrecruitment procedurerevisional jurisdictionconcurrent findingslocus poenitentiaecivil court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts whereby their appointments as Class-IV / Lab Attendant in the Education Department were declared illegal, without lawful authority, and set aside. The core legal questions concerned whether an officer holding a temporary additional charge of a district has the authority to make fresh appointments, whether appointments made without advertising vacancies or engaging the employment exchange are sustainable, and whether concurrent findings of fact can be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction. The Peshawar High Court held that an official with a mere additional look-after charge lacks the legal authority to make appointments, and that appointments made in blatant disregard of recruitment rules and without public advertisement are void ab initio and cannot be regularized. The court laid down the principle that where a law requires an act to be done in a particular manner, it must be performed strictly in that manner, and that illegal appointments made without jurisdiction do not attain validity merely by passage of time under the principle of locus poenitentiae.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an officer holding a temporary additional look-after charge of a district is legally competent to make fresh public appointments?
  • Can appointments made without advertising vacancies or routing them through the employment exchange be sustained or regularized?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts can be interfered with under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of any jurisdictional error?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae protect public appointees whose initial appointments were made without lawful authority and in violation of mandatory recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Raza Ali Khattak Versus Vice-Chancellor Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan2022 PLC(CS) 1540 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-02-24
  contractual employmentregularization of serviceconstitutional petitionuniversity employeesservice matterstermination of servicevested right
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, contractual employees of Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan, filed this constitutional petition challenging an office order relieving them of their duties and seeking regularization of their services. The core legal question was whether the petitioners possessed a vested right to regularization and if their termination upon the expiry of their contract period was unlawful. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners were contractual employees appointed for a limited duration, and their services were terminated upon the expiry of their contracts by efflux of time. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that contractual employees have no vested right to regularization, which remains a discretionary power of the employer. Furthermore, the Court noted that no specific statutory provision existed within the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012, or its amendments, entitling the petitioners to regularization. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the University acted within its legal authority to dispense with the services of contractual employees whose terms had expired, and the petitioners were relegated to seeking alternative remedies before the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Do contractual employees of a university have a vested right to seek regularization of their services?
  • Can a university terminate the services of contractual employees upon the expiry of their contract period by efflux of time?
  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012, provide a statutory right for the regularization of contractual employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashfaq Anwar Versus Secretary, Housing Peshawar2022 PLC(CS) 120 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-04-13
  housing schemeallotment of flatslegitimate expectationnatural justicestatutory authoritydiscretionary powerwrit jurisdictionpublic functionaries
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged the refusal of the Provincial Housing Authority (PHA) to allot apartments to the petitioners, who were successful in a lucky draw but subsequently declared ineligible. The core legal question was whether the PHA could unilaterally declare the petitioners ineligible based on an alleged policy directive from the Chief Minister, despite the initial advertisement inviting applications from federal government employees. The Court held that the impugned letters declaring the petitioners ineligible were illegal and without lawful authority. The Court emphasized that public functionaries must act within the parameters of the law and established schemes, not at their whims. It held that the Chief Minister's office is not synonymous with the provincial government, and instructions from that office cannot override statutory requirements. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Special Committee, established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Housing Authority Act, 2005, holds the exclusive mandate to control housing schemes. The Court set aside the impugned letters and directed the PHA to place the petitioners' cases before the Special Committee for a fresh decision, ensuring the petitioners are granted an opportunity of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory body unilaterally change eligibility criteria for a housing scheme after inviting applications through a public advertisement?
  • Does the office of the Chief Minister have the legal authority to issue binding directives to a statutory body like the Provincial Housing Authority outside of the prescribed statutory framework?
  • Is a decision by a public authority to cancel an allotment valid if it violates the principles of natural justice by denying the affected party an opportunity of being heard?
  • Does the Provincial Housing Authority have the power to act outside the decisions of the Special Committee established under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Housing Authority Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Bibi Versus DEO (F) Buner2021 PLC(CS) 582 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-25
  public appointmentadvertisement of vacanciesmerit listcivil service recruitmentwrit jurisdictionprocedural formalities
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents to issue an appointment order for the post of Lab Assistant, claiming she had secured the highest merit position in a test conducted by the National Testing Service (NTS). The respondents contended that the post was never advertised and that the petitioner's application was based on a misunderstanding or error regarding the vacancy's availability. The core legal question was whether a candidate can claim a right to appointment based on a merit list when the underlying post was never advertised to the public. The Court held that the petition was meritless, emphasizing that public sector appointments require strict adherence to procedural formalities, specifically the mandatory requirement of advertising vacancies in newspapers to ensure transparency and equal opportunity. Citing established precedents, the Court ruled that appointments made without public advertisement are void ab initio. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that no appointment can be legally made without a proper public proclamation inviting applications from the general public.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate claim a right to appointment based on a merit list if the post was never advertised?
  • Is the advertisement of vacancies in newspapers a mandatory requirement for public sector appointments under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1989?
  • Are appointments made without public advertisement considered void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wali Khan Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2021 PLC(CS) 473 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-03
  Patwari recruitmentvested rightservice rules amendmentconstitutional jurisdictionseniority listrecruitment policyadministrative efficiency
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who had passed the Patwar examination and were listed in the seniority register under the Land Record Manual, challenged a 2016 notification and a 2019 recruitment advertisement. The impugned notification introduced a requirement for a test and interview for the appointment of Patwaries, replacing the previous system of appointment based solely on seniority. The petitioners contended that the amendment violated their vested rights and contradicted a previous Full Bench judgment of the High Court. The Court held that the government possesses the prerogative to amend service rules and recruitment policies to ensure administrative efficiency. It clarified that the previous judgment relied upon by the petitioners was based on the rules prevalent at that time, which had since been validly amended. Furthermore, the Court ruled that mere inclusion in a list of qualified candidates does not confer a vested right to appointment. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the recruitment process must comply with the currently applicable service rules and policies, which now mandate a test and interview.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inclusion of a candidate's name in the Patwar seniority list confer a vested right to appointment?
  • Can the government amend service rules to introduce a test and interview requirement for the recruitment of Patwaries?
  • Does a previous court judgment mandating seniority-based appointments preclude the government from subsequently amending the relevant service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Najm-UN-Nisa Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2021 PLC(CS) 434 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-19
  Primary School TeacherUnion Council residencydomicile certificatemarried woman domicileCNICconstitutional petitionappointment eligibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the rejection of petitioners' applications for Primary School Teacher (PST) posts. The core legal question was whether married women could claim permanent residence in a Union Council (UC) different from that stated in their Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) for employment eligibility. The Court held that for the purpose of government employment, the permanent residence of a married woman is deemed to be that of her husband, and the CNIC serves as evidence of this residence. Consequently, the Court ruled that the respondents correctly excluded the petitioners from the merit list because their CNICs indicated permanent residence in UCs other than those where they applied. The Court established that while Article 15 of the Constitution guarantees the right to reside and settle anywhere, administrative criteria requiring residency verification via CNIC for specific localized posts are valid and binding. The petitions were dismissed as the petitioners failed to meet the requisite residency criteria.

  Questions settled

  • Is the permanent residence of a married woman for government employment purposes deemed to be that of her husband?
  • Does the entry in a Computerized National Identity Card regarding permanent residence constitute evidence of a candidate's eligibility for localized government posts?
  • Can a candidate for a Primary School Teacher post claim eligibility in a Union Council different from the one stated in their Computerized National Identity Card?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abid Versus Gomal University, D.I. Khan2021 PLC(CS) 1295 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-03-25
  regularization of servicecontractual employeesvested rightconstitutional jurisdictionmaster and servantGomal Universitywrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves a batch of writ petitions filed by contractual employees of Gomal University, D.I. Khan, seeking regularization of their services with back benefits. The core legal question was whether contract and fixed-pay employees possess a vested or statutory right to regular appointment. The Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that contract employees have no fundamental, statutory, or vested right to seek regularization of their services in the absence of a governing provision in the relevant university statute. The court emphasized that the petitioners entered into service on fixed-term contracts explicitly barring any claim to regularization and that contractual terms are governed by the agreement of the parties and the discretion of the master. The key principle laid down is that contractual and fixed-pay employees serve at the pleasure of the employer and cannot invoke constitutional jurisdiction to claim regularization as of right unless supported by explicit statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contractual employees have a vested right to seek regularization of their service?
  • Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012 provide any right of regularization to contract employees?
  • Can fixed-pay employees claim continuation in service or regularization by filing a constitutional petition?
  • Do appointment orders restricting employment to a fixed period without regularization create enforceable rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Kalim Khan Versus SMBR, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PLC(CS) 844 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-03
  constitutional petitionlachesservice matterappointmentsenioritydelaywrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, by the petitioner seeking appointment as a Patwari (BPS-5). The petitioner alleged that despite his seniority in the patwar list, respondents Nos. 6 to 10, who were junior to him, were appointed to the position, while his own name was subsequently removed from the list in 2009 due to being overage. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to relief despite significant delays in challenging his non-appointment and the subsequent deletion of his name from the candidate list. The Court held that the petition was barred by laches. It observed that the petitioner failed to challenge the appointment orders of the respondents or the deletion of his own name from the list for several years, demonstrating contumacious lethargy and negligence. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked after an unreasonable delay without a plausible explanation, and courts are justified in non-suiting petitioners who are guilty of inaction, laxity, or gross negligence in prosecuting their claims.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be dismissed on the ground of laches if the petitioner fails to provide a plausible explanation for the delay?
  • Does the failure to challenge an administrative order of appointment or removal from a candidate list for several years constitute contumacious lethargy?
  • Is a petitioner entitled to relief in a service matter if they have remained inactive and negligent in prosecuting their cause?
  Read full judgment →
• Muzammil Shah Versus The Chairman Board of Technical Education, Peshawar2020 PLC(CS) 785 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-10-14
  probationary periodwillful absencedoctrine of lachesaudi alteram partemtermination of servicewrit jurisdictionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's services as a Junior Clerk by the Board of Technical Education, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which occurred in 2009. The petitioner, who was on probation, had been removed from service due to willful absence from duty. The core legal questions were whether the termination order was void, whether the petitioner was entitled to a hearing despite his admitted absence, and whether the petition was barred by the doctrine of laches. The Peshawar High Court held that the termination was lawful under Regulation 5(a) of the North West Frontier Province Board of Technical Education Regulations, 1994, as the petitioner was on probation. The Court determined that the right to a hearing is not absolute and is inapplicable where the employee is willfully absent and the hearing would be a mere formality. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of laches, noting the eight-year delay in filing the challenge. The judgment affirms that administrative actions taken against probationers for willful absence are valid and that stale claims are not maintainable under Article 199.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of audi alteram partem apply to the termination of a probationer who is willfully absent from duty?
  • Can a writ petition filed after an eight-year delay be dismissed on the grounds of laches?
  • Is a termination order passed under the North West Frontier Province Board of Technical Education Regulations, 1994 considered void if a hearing was not provided?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Housing and Works Versus Fazal Wahab2020 PLC(CS) 708 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-01-20
  allotment cancellationsublettingburden of proofadverse inferencejurisdiction of civil courtejectmentaccommodation allocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises out of a judgment by the Additional District Judge partially accepting an appeal regarding the cancellation of a government quarter allotment. The plaintiff, Fazal Wahab, challenged the cancellation of his quarter's allotment and subsequent ejectment on the ground of alleged subletting, seeking a declaration, restoration of possession, and recovery of personal belongings and damages. The core legal questions centered on whether the authorities successfully proved the allegation of subletting and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit despite departmental rules. The Peshawar High Court held that the defendants failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding subletting under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and drew an adverse inference under Article 129(g) for withholding material witness testimony. The court affirmed that civil courts retain ultimate jurisdiction to scrutinize administrative or special tribunal actions where proceedings are tainted by illegality or failure to provide a proper inquiry. Consequently, the revision petition by the government was dismissed, and the plaintiff's revision was partially allowed regarding the recovery of his seized boxes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the burden of proof to establish subletting of a government quarter lies upon the department alleging it?
  • Can an adverse inference be drawn under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, when a party fails to produce key inquiry witnesses?
  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the cancellation of a quarter allotment where no express statutory bar excludes its jurisdiction?
  • Whether an administrative authority can cancel an accommodation allotment without associating the allottee in an inquiry or providing adequate opportunity of hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Khan Versus Government of Pakistan2020 PLC(CS) 668 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-24
  equal pay for equal workmanagement trainee officersnational bank of pakistanjudgment in remrecurring cause of actionlachesservice tribunalfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves three consolidated writ petitions filed by employees of the National Bank of Pakistan seeking equal pay and perks equivalent to Management Trainee Officers (MTOs) based on a previous Supreme Court judgment. The core legal question was whether non-MTO employees performing the same duties as MTOs are entitled to equal remuneration under the principle of non-discrimination, and whether the previous Supreme Court judgment operated as a judgment in rem or in personam, barring claims due to laches. The Peshawar High Court held that the creation of an artificial distinction in salary among employees of the same grade performing identical duties is illegal and discriminatory. The court ruled that the previous judgment applies as a judgment in rem under Section 41 of the Evidence Act, conferring a right to equal treatment for all similarly situated employees. The court established that a statutory body cannot create unjustified classifications in pay structures, and the bar of laches does not apply to recurring causes of action involving fundamental rights to equality.

  Questions settled

  • Whether non-Management Trainee Officers performing identical duties as Management Trainee Officers are entitled to equal pay and perks?
  • Whether a judgment of the Supreme Court regarding discriminatory pay scales operates as a judgment in rem or in personam?
  • Does the bar of laches apply to writ petitions seeking relief based on a recurring cause of action for equal remuneration?
  • Can a statutory body like the National Bank of Pakistan create artificial classifications in salary packages among employees holding the same grade and qualification?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor-Ul-Wahab Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Interior Government of Pakistan2020 PLC(CS) 639 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-25
  deputationistpermanent absorptionrepatriationvested rightconstitutional petitionaggrieved personterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a constable serving on deputation in the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking permanent absorption in the borrowing department and alleging discrimination because other colleagues had been permanently absorbed. The Peshawar High Court examined whether a deputationist possesses a vested legal right to remain in a borrowing department or to demand permanent absorption. The Court held that deputation is merely an administrative arrangement between lending and borrowing authorities made in the public interest. A deputationist has no vested legal right to serve the entire period of deputation, to remain in the borrowing department indefinitely, or to challenge a repatriation order. Furthermore, because the matter relates to the terms and conditions of service and does not infringe any vested legal right, the petitioner cannot be considered an 'aggrieved person' under Article 199. Consequently, the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked, and the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested legal right to remain in the borrowing department indefinitely or to complete a stipulated period of deputation?
  • Can a deputationist challenge an order of repatriation to their parent department?
  • Is a deputationist entitled to demand permanent absorption in the borrowing department as a matter of right?
  • Can a civil servant invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to seek absorption in a borrowing department?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawad Ahmad Mir Versus Prof. Dr. Imtiaz Ali Khan2020 PLC(CS) 623 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-20
  constitutional petitionwrit of mandamusquo warrantolocus standiaggrieved personstopgap arrangementVice-Chancelloruniversities act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a notification whereby respondent No.1 was authorized to look after the affairs of the office of Vice-Chancellor of Women University, Swabi, as a stopgap arrangement following the expiry of the previous incumbent's tenure. The core legal question was whether the notification lacked lawful authority under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Universities Act, 2012, given the absence of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor, and whether the petitioner had the requisite locus standi to maintain the constitutional petition. The Peshawar High Court held that the petition was not maintainable either as a writ of mandamus or in the nature of quo warranto, as the stopgap arrangement was made in the public interest to prevent administrative paralysis and safeguard students' futures where no regular Pro-Vice-Chancellor existed. The court laid down the principles governing locus standi, the strict requirements for establishing an aggrieved person status under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and the discretionary nature of quo warranto, emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction will not be exercised to disrupt functional administrative arrangements operating in good faith.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 can be maintained as a writ of mandamus without establishing a legal right and the status of an aggrieved person?
  • Can a stopgap arrangement made by the government to look after the office of a Vice-Chancellor in the absence of a Pro-Vice-Chancellor be declared without lawful authority?
  • What are the prerequisites for invoking the jurisdiction of quo warranto against a holder of a public office?
  • Whether discretionary constitutional jurisdiction should be exercised to cancel an administrative arrangement that serves the public interest and prevents the collapse of a university's affairs?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Khan Versus Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Safran2020 PLC(CS) 599 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-09-19
  regularization of servicecontract employeesproject employeesFATA mergerconstitutional petitiondiscriminatory treatmentlong service careerpensionary benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed as Male Mobilizers on contract basis in 2007 under the Population Welfare Programme in the erstwhile FATA, filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking regularization of their services and parity with other regularized employees, alleging discriminatory treatment. The core legal question was whether long-serving contract or project employees, whose project continues indefinitely and whose posts are permanent in nature, are entitled to regularization of service despite previous adverse judgments concerning different statutory frameworks. The Peshawar High Court allowed the petition, holding that the petitioners, having served unblemished for twelve years in a continuously running project, had earned a legitimate expectation and entitlement to regularization. The court laid down the principle that the long length of continuous service in a permanent need position overrides temporary project labels, and keeping employees in a hanging position for extensive periods without job security is unconstitutional and deprecated under Pakistani jurisprudence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees serving for a long duration in a continuous project are entitled to regularization of their services?
  • Does the merger of FATA into Khyber Pakhtunkhwa create an obligation to regularize project employees serving under administrative control?
  • Can long-term contract employees be denied regularization when their services are required by the department on a permanent basis?
  • Whether the length of continuous service can form the basis for regularization in the absence of specific statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Fawad Bukhari Versus Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Abbotabad2020 PLC(CS) 581 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-10-10
  regularization of servicecontingent paid staffartificial breakstemporary employmentconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two connected writ petitions filed by employees of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Abbottabad, seeking regularization of their services. The petitioners were appointed between 2011 and 2014 as contingent paid staff against various posts for fixed terms of 89 days, which terms were repeatedly extended with artificial breaks. The core legal question was whether employees kept on temporary, contract, or contingent paid status for long periods through artificial breaks are entitled to regularization. The Peshawar High Court, relying on authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court of Pakistan including the case of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad v. Tanveer Sajid (2018 SCMR 1405), held that continuous employment over several years indicates that the underlying posts are permanent in nature and that artificial breaks cannot be used to defeat legitimate claims for regularization. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners from the date of their initial appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees appointed on a temporary or contingent paid basis for long periods through artificial breaks are entitled to regularization?
  • Does the practice of keeping employees on temporary status for extended periods constitute an unequal bargaining position condemned by superior courts?
  • Are employees working continuously against posts for several years deemed to be occupying permanent positions?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhan Zaib Versus Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa2020 PLC(CS) 1574 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-02-03
  deputationrepatriationborrowing departmentparent departmentcivil servicevested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed by a Taxation Officer challenging his repatriation to his parent department, the Galiyat Development Authority. The petitioner had been appointed in the Authority, confirmed, and subsequently sent on deputation to the Local Government Department, where he served in various postings. The petitioner contended that because his services were surrendered to the Provincial Government, he ceased to be an employee of the Authority and should be deemed a permanent employee of the Local Council Board. The High Court examined the record and found that the petitioner was explicitly posted on a deputation basis and was never absorbed by the borrowing department. The Court held that a deputationist has no vested right to remain in the borrowing department or to serve out a specific period of deputation, and can be repatriated by the competent authority at any time. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested legal right to serve the entire period of deputation in the borrowing department?
  • Can a unilateral surrender of services by a parent department be construed as an automatic absorption of the employee into the borrowing department?
  • Whether a borrowing department is legally obligated to retain a deputationist when it no longer requires their services?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Rehman Versus The National Bank of Pakistan2020 PLC(CS) 1529 · Peshawar High Court · 2020-03-04
  regularization of servicescontract employeesNational Bank of Pakistanright to livelihoodfundamental rightsdiscriminatory treatmentforced labour
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple writ petitions filed by employees of the National Bank of Pakistan seeking regularization of their services. The petitioners, engaged on contract or through outsourcing companies, performed continuous, permanent-nature work for the bank but were denied permanent status. The core legal question was whether the bank could avoid regularizing these employees by labeling them as contract workers. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to regularization, finding that the bank’s practice of using contract labels for manual, permanent work was a device to evade legal obligations and constituted forced labour. The Court emphasized that the right to livelihood is an integral component of the right to life under the Constitution. Consequently, the Court allowed the petitions, directing the bank to regularize the petitioners' services from the date of filing their respective writ petitions, while granting pensionary and long-term benefits from the date of their initial appointments. The judgment reaffirms that public functionaries must act fairly and avoid discriminatory practices in employment matters.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public sector organization deny regularization to employees performing permanent-nature work by labeling them as contract or outsourced workers?
  • Does the right to life under the Constitution of Pakistan include the right to livelihood?
  • Is it discriminatory for a public institution to regularize some similarly placed employees while denying the same to others?
  Read full judgment →
• Fayaz Ahmad Versus Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission2019 PLC(CS) 969 · Peshawar High Court · 2019-02-21
  Public Service Commissionwrit jurisdictionselection processmerit listjudicial reviewexamination discrepanciesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a candidate challenging the selection process of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Service Commission for the posts of Subject Specialist and Lecturer. The petitioner, having failed to qualify for interviews due to securing marks below the established merit threshold, alleged that certain multiple-choice questions (MCQs) in the written tests were flawed, lacking correct options. He sought judicial intervention to compel the Commission to award marks for these allegedly incorrect questions, include him in the merit list, and allow him to appear for interviews. The Court examined the matter and found that the Commission had already scrutinized the disputed questions and found no discrepancies. The Court held that it cannot assume the role of an examiner or oversee the technical aspects of the Commission's examination process, which falls exclusively within the Commission's mandate. Furthermore, the Court noted that granting the petitioner's request would jeopardize the entire selection process and open a Pandora's box. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that the judiciary will not interfere with the specialized functions of the Public Service Commission in conducting examinations.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction, interfere with the technical evaluation and question-setting process of the Public Service Commission?
  • Does the judiciary have the authority to assume the role of an examiner to scrutinize MCQs in a competitive examination?
  • Can a candidate demand the inclusion of their name in a merit list based on claims of flawed MCQs after the selection process has concluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ahmad Khan Versus Reayat Khan Khattak2019 PLC(CS) 901 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-11-19
  defamationdamagescivil servantprior sanctionpublic actsvindication of characterGovernment Servants Conduct RulesRegular First Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  Regular First Appeals were filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge-X, Peshawar, which decreed a defamation suit awarding Rs. 20 million with 14% annual compensation in favour of respondent No. 1, a serving civil servant (Senior Member Board of Revenue). The core legal issue was whether a government servant could institute a suit for damages for the vindication of his public acts and character without prior sanction from the government under Rule 31 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1987. The High Court observed that the use of the word 'shall' alongside 'previous sanction' renders the requirement strictly mandatory in both civil and criminal litigation concerning defamatory attacks on public acts or character. Finding that respondent No. 1 had admittedly failed to obtain the requisite departmental permission prior to instituting the damages suit, the High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, and dismissed the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Is prior sanction from the government mandatory before a civil servant can file a suit for damages to vindicate his public acts or character?
  • Does the lack of prior departmental sanction under Rule 31 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1987 render a defamation suit by a civil servant non-maintainable?
  • Whether the mandatory requirement of prior sanction under civil servant conduct rules applies to civil litigation for defamation as well as criminal litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghani-Ur-Rehman Versus Khushhal Khan Khattak University, Karak2019 PLC(CS) 842 · Peshawar High Court · 2018-12-11
  regularisation of servicecontract employeefixed payconstitutional petitionuniversity statuteslecturer appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, seeking regularisation of the petitioner's services as a lecturer in Computer Science at the Khushhal Khan Khattak University, Karak, from the date of his initial appointment in 2013, along with back benefits and seniority. The core legal question was whether an employee continuously serving on a fixed-pay or contract basis for several years is entitled to regularisation, and whether subsequent university statutes or failure in an entrance test can defeat such a claim. The Peshawar High Court held that the petitioner, having served continuously for four to five years without interruption under the rules applicable at the time of his appointment, had earned an entitlement to regularisation. The court ruled that subsequent statutes of the university lack retrospective effect and that long-term continuous service cannot be nullified by artificial breaks or subsequent testing requirements. The writ petition was accordingly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee serving on a contract or fixed-pay basis for a long period is entitled to regularisation of service?
  • Do university statutes framed subsequent to an initial appointment have retrospective effect to govern past service conditions?
  • Can past continuous service of an employee be dispensed with solely on the ground of failing a subsequent recruitment test?
  Read full judgment →