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. 37,514 judgments in total from the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

• Muhammad Afzal Virk, S.D.O. Versus Chairman, Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, Gujranwala2003 PLC(CS) 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-19
  WAPDA employeesefficiency and disciplineminor penaltyrecovery of pecuniary lossservice tribunalunauthorized electricity connectionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal concerning disciplinary proceedings. The appellant, serving as an S.D.O. in WAPDA, was penalized with the recovery of Rs.39,250 under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, for unauthorizedly and surreptitiously providing a commercial electricity connection to a consumer whose industrial connection had been cancelled, thereby causing financial loss to WAPDA. The core legal question was whether the imposition of the minor penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss was justified and within the parameters of the applicable rules. The Supreme Court held that the appellant acted in violation of departmental rules with ulterior motives, causing financial loss through his negligence or breach of orders, and that the penalty imposed by the competent authority was legal and valid. The key principle laid down is that a competent authority under the WAPDA E&D Rules can lawfully impose the penalty of recovery from pay for pecuniary loss caused by an employee's negligence or breach of orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss can be imposed upon a WAPDA employee under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 for causing financial loss?
  • Does the sanctioning of an unauthorized electricity connection in violation of departmental rules constitute a breach of orders warranting disciplinary action?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal's appreciation of material and evidence in a disciplinary matter is open to interference when properly reasoned?
  Read full judgment →
• Governor, State Bank of Pakistan Versus Shamsul Islam2003 PLC(CS) 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-30
  remand proceedingsfactual findingsservice tribunalreimbursement of income taxfinality of judgmentcivil petitions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of civil petitions filed by the Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal, upon remand by the Supreme Court, correctly determined that a departmental representative of the Bank had indeed made a statement regarding the reimbursement of income tax to employees. In the previous round of litigation, the Supreme Court had remitted the case to the Tribunal specifically to verify the factual accuracy of this alleged statement. Following an inquiry, the Tribunal affirmed that the statement was made in the presence of counsel and the parties. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petitions, held that the Tribunal had complied with the remand directions and conducted the necessary inquiry. The Court ruled that the Tribunal’s factual findings were conclusive and could not be re-opened in subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, establishing the principle that factual findings made by a lower forum pursuant to a specific remand order are final and not subject to re-litigation in the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Can factual findings made by a tribunal pursuant to a specific remand order be re-opened in appellate proceedings?
  • Is a tribunal's determination regarding a statement made by a departmental representative conclusive after a directed inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain Shah Versus Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore2003 PLC(CS) 904 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service appealdepartmental inquirynatural justicepolice servicedismissal from serviceshow cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the dismissal of a police constable from service by the Superintendent of Police, Rajanpur, following allegations of operating a gambling den. The petitioner challenged his dismissal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, contending that he was condemned unheard, that no regular inquiry was conducted, and that he was denied a fair opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal rejected these contentions after reviewing the record. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner reiterated these arguments. Upon examination, the Court found that the departmental proceedings strictly adhered to the Punjab Police Service (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1975, and that the principles of natural justice were fully observed. The record demonstrated that the petitioner was provided with a show-cause notice, a proper inquiry was held, and he was afforded adequate opportunities for personal hearing before both the appointing authority and the appellate forum. Consequently, the Court held that the dismissal was procedurally sound and dismissed the petition, finding no substantial question of law of general public importance warranting interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to hold a regular inquiry invalidate a dismissal order if the rules of natural justice were otherwise followed?
  • Is a dismissal from service justified when the employee was provided with a show-cause notice and an opportunity for personal hearing?
  • Does the observance of departmental disciplinary rules satisfy the requirements of natural justice in service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Abdul Hameed Nasir Versus National Bank of Pakistan2003 PLC(CS) 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-03-05
  Provident FundPensionary benefitsService lawPolicy circularInterpretation of instrumentsSocial securityNational Bank of PakistanEmployee rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the entitlement of National Bank of Pakistan employees to their full Provident Fund contributions following a 1977 policy circular that restructured pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether employees whose service was already pensionable were required to surrender the bank’s Provident Fund contributions upon the introduction of the new scheme, or if the scheme applied automatically without such forfeiture. The Supreme Court held that the circular discontinued existing schemes for National Bank of Pakistan employees by operation of law. The Court determined that the option clause requiring the surrender of employer contributions applied exclusively to non-pensionable employees. Consequently, the bank’s withholding of its contributions was declared illegal. The Court established the principle that policy instruments must be construed as a whole, prioritizing the underlying intent of providing social security over isolated clauses. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the benefit of this interpretation extends to all similarly situated employees to ensure complete justice, mandating the payment of the full Provident Fund balance, including bank contributions and interest, to all affected employees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the 1977 policy circular regarding pensionary benefits applied automatically to employees of the National Bank of Pakistan whose service was already pensionable?
  • Does the requirement to surrender employer contributions to a Provident Fund apply to employees whose service was already pensionable prior to the introduction of a new pension scheme?
  • Can the benefit of a judicial interpretation regarding service benefits be extended to all similarly situated employees not party to the specific litigation?
  • Does the closure of a Provident Fund entitle employees to the full accumulated amount, including employer contributions and interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspector-General of Police, Police Headquarters Office, Karachi Versus Shafqat Mehmood2003 PLC(CS) 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-27
  service lawdismissal from serviceregular inquiryright of defensemisconductacquittalSindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had reinstated a police officer dismissed from service following allegations of involvement in a criminal case. The respondent, a Sub-Inspector, was dismissed under the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988, based on a fact-finding committee's report after being named in an FIR. However, the respondent was subsequently acquitted by a trial court, and the complainant had filed an affidavit stating the respondent was not identified. The core legal question was whether the dismissal could be sustained when the department failed to conduct a regular inquiry and denied the respondent an opportunity to participate in the fact-finding process. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the dismissal was unlawful because the department failed to conduct a proper regular inquiry as required by the rules. The court affirmed the principle that a public servant must be provided with an opportunity for defense and personal hearing in a regular inquiry before a major penalty can be imposed, especially when criminal charges have failed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public servant be dismissed from service based on a fact-finding committee report without a regular inquiry?
  • Is a regular inquiry mandatory under the Sindh Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1988, before imposing a major penalty?
  • Does the acquittal of a government servant in a criminal case render a prior dismissal based on the same allegations unsustainable if no regular inquiry was conducted?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others Versus Government of Punjab2003 PLC(CS) 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-25
  ad hoc appointmentregularization of servicelegitimate expectancycivil servantservice tribunalpublic employmentprinciple of equality
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved civil petitions filed by ad hoc lecturers challenging their termination by the Government of Punjab after years of service. The core legal question was whether these long-serving ad hoc employees possessed a right to regularization or protection against termination, and whether the government’s failure to regularize them, despite similar policies in other jurisdictions, violated the principle of equality. The Court held that while ad hoc employees have no inherent right to permanent retention, the continuous retention of such employees for a significant period creates a "legitimate expectancy" for regularization. Applying the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution, the Court determined that the petitioners should be treated similarly to federal ad hoc employees. Consequently, the Court directed the government to initiate a regularization process through the Punjab Public Service Commission, granting specific concessions to the petitioners. The Court affirmed that ad hoc appointments are intended as temporary stopgap measures and that their prolonged use without regularization constitutes a misuse of authority, emphasizing that public employment must be managed with transparency and fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Does the continuous retention of an employee on an ad hoc basis for a significant period create a legitimate expectancy of regularization?
  • Can the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution be invoked to demand regularization for provincial employees when similar policies exist for federal employees?
  • Does an ad hoc appointment confer an inherent right to permanent retention in public service?
  • Is the prolonged use of ad hoc appointments without regular selection a valid exercise of governmental authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Administrator, Municipal Corporation Versus Muhammad Arshad2003 PLC(CS) 547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-11-23
  service lawappointment of deceased childmunicipal corporationlocal council servicerepealed statute
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of civil appeals directed against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside the termination of the respondents' services by the Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Multan. The respondents had been appointed against vacancies caused by the demise of their parents under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. The core legal question was whether the provisions of Rule 17-A of the said 1974 Rules were applicable to employees of the Municipal Corporation, and whether the West Pakistan Municipal Committee Service Rules, 1969 governed the matter. The Supreme Court held that the repealed Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960 and the 1969 Rules were superseded, and that by virtue of Rule 22 of the Punjab Local Council Service (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1983, unprovided matters are governed by general rules such as the Punjab Civil Service Rules, thereby attracting Rule 17-A to local council employees. The appeals were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provision of Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 are applicable to the servants of the Municipal Corporation, Multan?
  • Whether the letter/instructions applying the provisions of Rule 17-A of the Rules to the Local Council employees has the effect of amending West Pakistan Municipal Committee Rules, 1969?
  • Whether the learned Judge of the High Court was right in applying the provisions of Rule 17-A of the Rules to the respondents who are governed by the West Pakistan Municipal Committee Service Rules, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh Versus Ilyas Khichi2003 PLC(CS) 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-04-28
  probationertermination of servicenatural justiceshow-cause noticepolice rulescivil servantlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent, a police officer whose services were terminated during his probation period. The core legal question was whether the termination of a probationer under Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules, 1934, based on allegations of misconduct, could be effected without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity to defend. The Supreme Court held that while Rule 12.8 allows for the discharge of probationers, it does not permit removal based on specific allegations of misconduct without adherence to the principles of natural justice, specifically the right to a show-cause notice and an opportunity to defend. The Court affirmed that civil servants, even probationers, are entitled to these protections when removal is based on misconduct rather than a simple discharge. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was time-barred. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision to reinstate the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a probationer be removed from service under Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules 1934 based on allegations of misconduct without a show-cause notice?
  • Does the right to a departmental appeal under the Civil Servants Act 1973 prevail over the provisions of Rule 12.8 of the Police Rules 1934?
  • Are civil servants entitled to an opportunity to defend themselves when their removal is based on specific allegations of misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Hussain Versus Principal, Ayub Medical College2003 PLC(CS) 539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-03
  vested rightpromotionrecruitment rulesretrospective applicationcivil servicequalification standardsPMDC rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which upheld the refusal of the Principal of Ayub Medical College to appoint the petitioner as a Professor of Bio-Chemistry. The petitioner, an Associate Professor, argued that he was entitled to be considered for promotion based on the qualification rules in effect at the time of his initial appointment, contending that subsequent amendments to the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) rules could not be applied retrospectively to his detriment. The core legal question was whether a civil servant possesses a vested right to be considered for promotion under the recruitment rules existing at the time of their initial entry into service. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that no civil servant has a vested right in the terms and conditions for promotion to a higher post. The Court affirmed that the competent authority has the right to enhance, alter, or amend qualification standards to maintain efficiency and that rules applicable at the time of the appointment/promotion must be satisfied, not those from an earlier date.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to be considered for promotion under the rules that existed at the time of their initial appointment?
  • Is the government competent to enhance or amend the prescribed qualifications for a post, even if it affects existing employees?
  • Can a previous illegal or irregular appointment be used as a ground to justify a subsequent appointment in violation of current rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Major (Retd.) Abdul Waheed Khan Versus Federal Service Tribunal2003 PLC(CS) 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-08-17
  service appeallimitation perioddepartmental representationservice tribunalremandreversion order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, a retired Major, challenged his 1992 reversion order, claiming he filed multiple representations, with the final departmental rejection occurring in 1998, followed by an appeal to the Tribunal in 1999. The core legal question was whether the appeal was time-barred, specifically whether the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal begins from the initial representation or a subsequent one. The Supreme Court held that while a civil servant has a right to appeal against a departmental order, repeated representations do not extend the limitation period if an earlier representation was already decided and communicated. However, because the record was unclear regarding whether the 1992 representation was actually decided and communicated, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the case. The key principle established is that while an appeal against an appellate order is maintainable, subsequent representations after a final decision do not extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of repeated departmental representations extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Can an appeal before the Service Tribunal be filed against an appellate order of a departmental authority?
  • Is a service appeal time-barred if the departmental authority has not communicated a decision on the initial representation?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood Versus Auditor-General of Pakistan, Islamabad2003 PLC(CS) 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-11
  service appealwilful absencemedical leaveremoval from servicehabitual absenteeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding the removal of the petitioner, a Senior Auditor, from service due to unauthorized absence from duty. The core legal question revolved around whether absence from duty on medical grounds can justify non-compliance with leave sanction procedures and vitiate departmental proceedings initiated for wilful absence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to properly apply for leave or inform the authorities in the prescribed manner, and that the Service Tribunal was fully justified in examining the petitioner's past service record to establish his habitual absenteeism. The court concluded that leave on medical grounds does not exempt a civil servant from adhering to procedural requirements or justify wilful absence without sanction. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can leave applied on medical grounds under the Revised Leave Rules, 1980 be refused by the competent authority?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal can examine the past service record of a civil servant to determine habitual absenteeism?
  • Does failure to apply for leave properly justify departmental proceedings for wilful absence from duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Managing Director (Power), WAPDA Versus Muhammad Luqman2003 PLC(CS) 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-10
  pro forma promotionseniorityservice tribunaldepartmental representationWAPDAcivil servantlimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that directed the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) to grant the respondent pro forma promotion as a Revenue Officer from the date his junior was promoted, along with the entitlement to BPS-17. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent's appeal to the Tribunal was time-barred, whether he possessed a vested right to promotion, and the interpretation of rules governing his grade entitlement. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, deemed a civil servant by legal fiction under WAPDA service laws, was required to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Tribunal, rendering his appeal timely as it was filed after his representation. The Court affirmed that while there is no absolute vested right to promotion, arbitrary deviations from established rules are justiciable. Furthermore, the Court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation that the relevant rules entitled the respondent to BPS-17 upon promotion, subject to qualifying departmental examinations. The principle established is that WAPDA employees, treated as civil servants, must exhaust departmental representations before appealing to the Service Tribunal, and that promotion rules must be applied consistently to avoid arbitrary denial of seniority-based benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Are WAPDA employees required to exhaust departmental remedies before filing an appeal with the Service Tribunal?
  • Does an employee have a justiciable right to challenge promotion decisions if the competent authority deviates from established rules for arbitrary reasons?
  • Does the Note in Appendix I of the Pakistan Power Wing Commercial and Revenue Officers Rules 1982 mandate the grant of BPS-17 to a promotee upon selection?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique Versus The University of Karachi2003 PLC(CS) 524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-11
  service lawvested rightselection boardappointing authorityleave to appealpublic importancelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which had dismissed the petitioner's claim regarding his non-appointment as Assistant Controller (Examinations) despite being selected by the Selection Board. The core legal question was whether a candidate acquires a vested right to appointment merely upon being selected by a Selection Board, absent approval by the appointing authority and the issuance of an appointment letter. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that mere selection by a Selection Board does not confer a vested right to be appointed to a post if the appointing authority has not approved such selection. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to implead the persons actually appointed, violating principles of natural justice. The Court also held that the petition lacked a question of public importance required for interference under the Constitution and was time-barred. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Does mere selection by a Selection Board confer a vested right to appointment to a post?
  • Can a court grant relief against parties who were appointed to a post when they were not impleaded in the petition?
  • Is a petition involving an individual grievance maintainable under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Shaukat Hayat Versus Water and Power Development Authority2003 PLC(CS) 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-03
  house rent allowancebasic pay scaleservice lawabsorption of employeesdesignation vs pay scaleWAPDA rulespay protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, by leave of court, was filed against the majority judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the entitlement of a WAPDA employee to House Rent Allowance. The appellant, formerly employed by a taken-over power company, was absorbed into WAPDA and placed in Basic Pay Scale (BPS) 7 due to his higher existing salary, despite the post of Meter Reader normally carrying BPS-5. Following an audit objection, his House Rent Allowance was reduced to BPS-5 level based on his designation. The core legal issue was whether House Rent Allowance is payable according to the employee’s basic pay scale or according to the designation or post held. The Supreme Court set aside the majority decision of the Service Tribunal and ruled in favor of the appellant. The Court held that House Rent Allowance is directly referable to the basic pay scale enjoyed by an employee rather than their designation. Consequently, an employee drawing pay in a higher basic pay scale is entitled to allowance calculated on that scale.

  Questions settled

  • Whether House Rent Allowance is calculated based on an employee's basic pay scale or the designation of the post held?
  • Does granting an allowance based on a higher basic pay scale to an absorbed employee constitute unlawful discrimination against colleagues holding the same designation in a lower pay scale?
  • Is an employee absorbed into a statutory authority entitled to allowances corresponding to their higher protected basic pay scale?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Janan Versus General Manager, Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd., Islamabad2003 PLC(CS) 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-11-11
  forced retirementservice rulessuperannuationreinstatementback benefitspretextual retirementservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation, challenged his forced retirement before the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the action under the Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine the legality of the retirement. The Court found that the petitioner's service was governed by the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation Rules, which mandate retirement only upon attaining the age of 60 years. As the petitioner had not reached this age, the retirement was declared illegal. Furthermore, the Court rejected the respondent's plea of financial constraints, noting that the corporation had simultaneously promoted numerous other officers and maintained a healthy financial status, rendering the 'retirement' a mere pretext. The Court held that the Service Tribunal erred by conflating retirement with termination. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the Court ordered that if the appellant had not reached the age of 60, he must be reinstated with full back benefits; otherwise, he is to be treated as retired upon reaching that age with all applicable benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee be retired from service before attaining the age of superannuation prescribed by the relevant service rules?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal err in law by treating a forced retirement as a termination under the Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Is a claim of financial constraints by a state-owned corporation a valid ground for the premature retirement of an employee when evidence suggests otherwise?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamas-Ud-Din Khawaja Versus Government of Pakistan2003 PLC(CS) 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-09
  compulsory retirementdepartmental inquirymajor penaltycriminal chargesacquittalservice tribunalcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an A.S.-I. in the Intelligence Bureau, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal and confirmed his compulsory retirement from service. The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from a criminal case registered against him and his brother, resulting in a show-cause notice and the imposition of a major penalty without conducting a regular inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of compulsory retirement could be validly imposed without holding a regular inquiry, and whether departmental proceedings could solely rely on criminal charges that ultimately ended in acquittal. The Supreme Court held that for imposing a major penalty, a regular inquiry under the rules cannot be dispensed with, and ample convincing and reliable evidence must be placed on record. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and reinstated the appellant. The key principle laid down is that dispensing with a regular inquiry while imposing a major penalty under disciplinary rules is unlawful, particularly when departmental action is entirely founded on criminal charges that result in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a regular inquiry be dispensed with when imposing a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Whether departmental proceedings initiated solely on the basis of criminal charges can be sustained when the accused is acquitted by a competent court of law?
  • Does the failure to conduct a full-fledged inquiry vitiate the imposition of compulsory retirement on a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• President, United Bank Ltd. Versus Iftikhar Hussain Khan2003 PLC(CS) 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-12-13
  bank employee dismissalmisconductservice appealproportionality of punishmentback benefitsservice rulesreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that reinstated a bank manager dismissed for alleged misappropriation of funds. The core legal question concerned whether the respondent’s dismissal was legally justified and if the Tribunal erred in granting full exoneration and back benefits. The Supreme Court observed that while the respondent had refunded the funds, he had violated the United Bank Limited (Staff) Service Rules, 1981, by delaying the refund and failing to adhere to financial discipline. The Court held that total exoneration was uncalled for given these procedural violations. However, it determined that the extreme penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the proven misconduct. Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the dismissal order. The respondent was reinstated, but denied back benefits, with the intervening period treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Additionally, the Court imposed a penalty of postponement of promotion for three years. This judgment establishes that disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the nature of the misconduct, even where specific charges of misappropriation are not fully substantiated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a bank employee be dismissed solely for procedural violations of service rules if the charge of misappropriation is not proven?
  • Is the penalty of dismissal proportionate when an employee has refunded the misappropriated amount but violated bank service rules?
  • Can an appellate court modify a disciplinary penalty imposed by a bank's competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Aamir Ikram Versus District Health Officer, Vehari2003 PLC(CS) 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-12-04
  service tribunaltermination of servicesback benefitslimitationdelay in filing petitionsubstantial justiceparity of treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which had accepted the petitioners' appeals against the termination of their services but treated the intervening period as extraordinary leave. The core legal question concerns whether the delay of 146 days in filing the petitions should bar the petitioners from obtaining the same relief—specifically back benefits—that was already granted by the Supreme Court to their co-employees in identical circumstances arising from the same impugned judgment. The Supreme Court held that the delay in filing the petitions should not impede the dispensation of complete and substantial justice, noting that the department ought to have extended the same benefits to the present petitioners voluntarily. The Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed the petitioners all back benefits. The key principle laid down is that procedural delays should be condoned to ensure substantial justice and parity of treatment among similarly situated employees when identical relief has already been granted to co-employees by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in filing petitions can be condoned when co-employees sailing in the same boat have already been granted relief by the court?
  • Should an employer department extend the benefit of a judgment to all similarly situated employees without forcing them into litigation?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant back benefits to petitioners despite a delay of 146 days in filing the leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA Versus Sharafat Hussain2003 PLC(CS) 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-01-14
  compulsory retirementaudi alteram partemmala fideservice lawWAPDAright of hearingservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the compulsory retirement of several employees. The core legal question was whether WAPDA could compulsorily retire employees under Section 17(1-A)(a) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, without providing them an opportunity of hearing, particularly when previous departmental inquiries into the same charges had failed to prove misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly interfered with the retirement orders. The Court affirmed that while the Authority possesses summary powers under the Act, these powers are not unfettered, unbridled, or arbitrary. The principle laid down is that where an action of premature retirement is exercised in a colourable manner with mala fide intention, or where adverse action is contemplated, the affected employee is entitled to a right of hearing under the principle of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the reinstatement of the employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Water and Power Development Authority compulsorily retire an employee under Section 17(1-A)(a) of the WAPDA Act 1958 without providing a right of hearing?
  • Does the power to retire an employee under Section 17(1-A)(a) of the WAPDA Act 1958 grant the Authority unfettered or arbitrary discretion?
  • Is a compulsory retirement order passed under Section 17(1-A)(a) of the WAPDA Act 1958 subject to judicial review if it is tainted with mala fide intentions?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar-Ul-Husnain Versus Oil and Gas Development Corporation2003 PLC(CS) 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-01-15
  service tribunalpromotionexecutive grouppay scalesdiscriminationoil and gas development corporationassistant officers
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arose from a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning employees of the Oil and Gas Development Corporation who joined as Assistant Officers (Non-Technical) and were initially placed in Executive Group I (EG-I) upon the introduction of pay groups replacing basic pay scales, while Assistant Officers (Technical) were placed in EG-II. The core legal question was whether Assistant Officers (Non-Technical) were entitled to be promoted directly from EG-I to EG-III to maintain parity with technical officers, or whether they had to progress sequentially through EG-II. The Supreme Court held that Assistant Officers from both categories fell within the same class and could not be subjected to discriminatory treatment in promotions, setting aside the Tribunal's view and ruling that the appellants were entitled to promotion to EG-III directly from their original grade, preventing discriminatory pay and promotion disparities. The key principle laid down is that administrative delegation cannot override core policy decisions protecting employee terms and conditions, and similarly situated employees must not face discriminatory treatment in career progression.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Assistant Officers (Non-Technical) placed in Executive Group-I are entitled to direct promotion to Executive Group-III to maintain uniformity with Technical Officers?
  • Can a delegatee authority lay down a promotion policy that nullifies the foundational policy decisions taken by the Board of Directors?
  • Does shifting from Executive Group-I to Executive Group-II for a non-technical officer amount to a promotion when technical officers started in Executive Group-II?
  • Whether discriminatory treatment in the matter of promotion among similarly situated employees violates service jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Versus Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, Islamabad2003 PLC(CS) 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-28
  service lawdiscriminatory dismissalnatural justiceinquiry reportdepartmental inquirybank employeereinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the dismissal of Mobile Credit Officers by the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan (ADBP) for alleged irregularities in processing agricultural loans. The core legal questions were whether the failure to supply the inquiry report and issue a second show-cause notice invalidated the dismissal, and whether the bank acted discriminatorily by punishing subordinate staff while exonerating or ignoring the conduct of the Branch Managers who held the ultimate authority to sanction the loans. The Supreme Court held that while the non-supply of the inquiry report and lack of a second show-cause notice did not invalidate the proceedings—as the applicable rules did not mandate these steps and no prejudice was demonstrated—the dismissal was nonetheless unsustainable. The Court ruled that the bank engaged in discriminatory treatment by holding subordinates solely responsible for procedural irregularities while ignoring the primary responsibility of the sanctioning managers. Consequently, the Court set aside the Service Tribunal's judgment, ordering the reinstatement of the appellants without back benefits, establishing that departmental action cannot be used to shift collective responsibility onto subordinates while shielding superiors.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-supply of an inquiry report and the absence of a second show-cause notice invalidate dismissal proceedings where the relevant rules do not explicitly require them?
  • Can a financial institution legally dismiss subordinate staff for loan irregularities while exonerating the superior officers responsible for sanctioning those same loans?
  • Does the responsibility for procedural compliance in loan processing rest primarily with the sanctioning authority or the subordinate officer who processes the application?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Versus Inayat Rasool2003 PLC(CS) 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-27Read full judgment →
• Samiullah Khan Marwat Versus Government of Pakistan2003 PLC(CS) 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-02
  service appealmisconductinefficiencypolice supervisionillegal detentiondepartmental inquirymaster servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed by the petitioner, a former police officer holding dual charge as Senior Superintendent of Police and Deputy Inspector-General, CIA, Karachi, seeking leave to appeal against the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment upholding his dismissal from service. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be lawfully dismissed for inefficiency and misconduct based on the illegal acts, arbitrary arrests, and detentions committed by his subordinates under his supervision. The Supreme Court held that although the use of an extraneous inquiry report by the authorities was improper, the findings of the regular departmental inquiry independently established that the petitioner exhibited gross inefficiency, loose control, and tacit approval of his subordinates' unlawful victimization of citizens, amounting to misconduct. The Court laid down the principle that a senior supervisory police officer who knowingly permits subordinates to misuse the machinery of criminal law and violate fundamental rights cannot evade responsibility, and such willful failure to check illegalities constitutes actionable misconduct under the service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a senior supervisory police officer can be held liable for the illegal arrests and detentions carried out by his subordinates?
  • Does the failure of a supervisory officer to initiate departmental proceedings against subordinates committing illegalities amount to misconduct?
  • Can an order of dismissal from service be sustained when an extraneous inquiry report is improperly considered alongside a valid departmental inquiry?
  • What constitutes misconduct under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 in relation to the supervision of a police force?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Aman Shah Versus Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad2003 PLC(CS) 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-21
  Civil ServiceMove-overPerformance EvaluationService TribunalAdministrative LawPromotion CriteriaService Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment denying the petitioner a move-over from B-17 to B-18. The core legal question was whether a civil servant possessing only one "good" performance report and four "average" reports satisfies the eligibility criteria for move-over, specifically whether "average" reports should be equated to "generally good" status. The petitioner relied on precedents interpreting older rules to argue that average reports without adverse entries sufficed. The Supreme Court held that the petition must be dismissed. The Court clarified that the governing rule was amended by the Office Memorandum dated 7-2-1991, which explicitly mandates "at least two good reports" for move-over eligibility. The Court distinguished the cited precedents, noting they interpreted a previous, now-deleted rule containing the phrase "generally good," which is absent in the current, explicit regulatory framework. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the petitioner failed to meet the mandatory requirement of two good reports, upholding the denial of the move-over.

  Questions settled

  • Does an average performance report without adverse entries qualify as generally good for the purpose of move-over under current civil service rules?
  • What is the minimum number of good performance reports required for a civil servant to qualify for a move-over from B-17 to B-18 under the Office Memorandum dated 7-2-1991?
  • Can precedents interpreting a repealed rule be applied to cases governed by a subsequent, explicitly worded administrative rule?
  Read full judgment →
• Director-General, Ordnance Services, General Headquarters, Rawalpindi Versus Muhammad Abdul Latif2003 PLC(CS) 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-11-14
  advance incrementslocus poenitentiaeservice tribunalcivil servantterms and conditions of serviceaccrued legal right
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the respondent's appeal for the restoration of five advance increments was accepted. The respondent was appointed as a Civil Medical Practitioner in BPS-17 in 1982, with an initial mention of five advance increments in his appointment letter. Subsequently, these increments were stopped based on objections regarding government policy and the revision of National Pay Scales. The Supreme Court examined whether a legal right had accrued in favour of the respondent and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae applied. The Court held that since the increments were never actually paid and the condition in the appointment letter was never implemented, no legal right had accrued to the respondent, rendering the principle of locus poenitentiae inapplicable. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the preparation of pay bills by an employee amounts to the creation of a legal right regarding unbolted increments?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply when an order granting a benefit has never been acted upon or taken legal effect?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can interfere with the withdrawal of advance increments that were granted contrary to revised national pay scale policies?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Asadullah Shaikh Versus Government of Pakistan2003 PLC(CS) 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-11-22
  civil servantdismissal from servicemisconductcorruptionshow-cause noticedisciplinary proceedingsformal inquiryGovernment Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a civil servant, from service. The petitioner, while serving as Managing Director of the National Investment Trust, faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct and corruption, including unauthorized equity investments and living beyond his means. The Authorized Officer, invoking Rule 5(1)(iii) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, dispensed with a formal inquiry and proceeded via a show-cause notice. The petitioner contended that a regular inquiry was mandatory for corruption charges and that the failure to issue a second show-cause notice vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the decision to dispense with a formal inquiry under Rule 5(1)(iii) depends on the nature of the charges and the evidence available. Since the charges were documented and the petitioner was fully apprised of the case and the proposed penalty, the procedure was legally sufficient. The Court further affirmed that a second show-cause notice was not required in these circumstances and noted the petitioner's persistent failure to appear for hearings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a formal inquiry mandatory in all disciplinary proceedings involving charges of corruption against a civil servant?
  • Under what circumstances can an Authorized Officer dispense with a formal inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Is a second show-cause notice legally required before imposing a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, when the initial show-cause notice was comprehensive?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Rashid Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2003 PLC(CS) 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-24
  misconductdepartmental proceedingshonourable acquittalcivil serviceefficiency and disciplineback benefitsreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which had modified a penalty of removal from service to reduction in rank for a civil servant. The appellant, an officer in the Audit and Accounts Group, faced departmental proceedings based on allegations of misconduct published in a newspaper, specifically involving the abduction of a woman and impersonation. These allegations also led to criminal charges under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. The core legal question was whether the departmental penalty could be sustained when the underlying criminal charges, based on the same facts, resulted in an acquittal and the evidence supporting the departmental charges was unsubstantiated. The Supreme Court held that the departmental proceedings were initiated on unverified press reports, and the key witnesses were never examined. Given the appellant's honourable acquittal in the criminal trial and the lack of evidence in the departmental inquiry, the Court set aside the penalty. The principle laid down is that departmental proceedings cannot be sustained solely on unverified press reports when the underlying factual allegations have been disproven in a competent court of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can departmental proceedings for misconduct be sustained when the underlying criminal charges based on the same facts have resulted in an acquittal?
  • Is a penalty imposed in departmental proceedings valid if it relies solely on unverified press reports without independent evidence?
  • Does an honourable acquittal in a criminal court necessitate the setting aside of a departmental penalty based on the same allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmad Mahmood Versus Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad2003 PLC(CS) 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-31
  service tribunalcivil servantjurisdictionvoid orderwithout jurisdictioncivil court decreeunconditional withdrawal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an employee of the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad, challenged his dismissal through a civil suit in 1995 as employees were not civil servants at the time. A civil court decreed the suit in his favour on 30-6-1997. Meanwhile, section 2A was inserted into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on 10-6-1997, giving board employees the status of civil servants. The Board filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal against the civil court decree, but subsequently withdrew it unconditionally. The Tribunal, however, made observations declaring judgments regarding service matters passed after 10-6-1997 to be void. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a civil court's judgment or declare its decree void. The Court clarified that the civil court decree passed on 30-6-1997 was without jurisdiction rather than void ab initio, and since the Board's appeal against it was unconditionally withdrawn, the decree held the field and became final. The appeal was accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the judgment and decree of a Civil Court?
  • What is the distinction between an order that is void and an order passed without jurisdiction?
  • What is the legal effect of an unconditional withdrawal of an appeal?
  • Does Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 become redundant after six months of the promulgation of the Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafique Versus Director-General, Pakistan Rangers (Sindh)2003 PLC(CS) 1418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-06-02
  Pakistan Rangersprobation perioddeemed confirmationreversionservice tribunalSub-Inspector
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his reversion from the rank of Sub-Inspector to Havildar Clerk in the Pakistan Rangers. The core legal question concerns the interpretation of the rules governing probation and whether a probationer is deemed confirmed if no adverse order is passed by the expiry of the maximum probation period. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that under Explanation-II to Rule 13(4) of the Pakistan Rangers Recruitment Rules, 1968, if no order regarding extension, reversion, or dispensing with service is made by the day on which the maximum period of probation expires, the probationer stands deemed confirmed by operation of law. The key principle laid down is that statutory deemed-confirmation provisions upon the expiry of maximum probation periods are mandatory and take effect if the competent authority fails to act within the stipulated timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a probationer is deemed confirmed if no order is made by the day on which the maximum period of probation expires under the Pakistan Rangers Recruitment Rules, 1968?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to pass an order regarding a probationer before the expiry of the maximum period of probation?
  • Can an order of reversion be passed after the expiry of the maximum period of probation when the rules provide for deemed confirmation?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naveed Iqbal Versus Water and Power Development Authority2003 PLC(CS) 1239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-06-12
  compulsory retirementback-benefitsreinstatementservice tribunaldepartmental inquiryleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had ordered his reinstatement following compulsory retirement but denied him back-benefits. The petitioner sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, arguing that the denial of back-benefits was legally unjustified as his retirement lacked legal basis. The Supreme Court examined the Tribunal's decision, which had specifically addressed the issue of back-benefits and opted to leave the determination of such benefits to the discretion of the concerned authority upon the conclusion of any departmental inquiry. The Court held that the Tribunal properly exercised its discretion in this matter. Finding that no question of law of public importance was involved that would warrant interference by the Supreme Court, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed. The judgment affirms the principle that the grant of back-benefits upon reinstatement is a matter of discretion, and the Supreme Court will not interfere with such discretion absent a significant legal question.

  Questions settled

  • Does the denial of back-benefits upon reinstatement constitute a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a Service Tribunal leave the decision regarding the grant of back-benefits to the discretion of the concerned departmental authority?
  Read full judgment →
• President, National Bank of Pakistan, I. I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi Versus Muhammad Ali Sabri2003 PLC(CS) 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-28
  service tribunaltermination of serviceback benefitsdiscriminationleave to appealnational bank of pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the National Bank of Pakistan against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 20-4-2001, which allowed the respondent employee's appeal, set aside his termination order dated 31-10-1995, and reinstated him with service benefits excluding back benefits. The core legal question pertained to the validity of the Tribunal's decision to entertain the respondent's appeal after prolonged proceedings in various forums and whether the respondent's termination was sustainable in light of prior jurisprudence and principles of equal treatment. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal committed no error in setting aside the termination, noting that the respondent was similarly placed to other employees whose services were regularized and whose termination orders were set aside by the Tribunal, and that no question of law of public importance was involved. The Court laid down the principle that termination orders of employees subjected to discriminatory treatment vis-a-vis co-employees are liable to be set aside, and declined to interfere under Article 212(3) of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere under Article 212(3) of the Constitution with a service tribunal judgment where no question of law of public importance is involved?
  • Does the principle of non-discrimination apply to employees seeking reinstatement whose co-employees have already been granted relief by the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naeem Versus U.B.L.2003 PLC(CS) 1061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-11-26
  retrenchmentservice benefitslimitationdismissal in liminepast and closed transactionconsent judgmentservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed appeals filed by former employees of United Bank Limited challenging their retrenchment. The petitioners, who had not challenged their termination at the time of the retrenchment scheme in 1997, sought relief years later, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Akram Zahoor v. Federation of Pakistan. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal could dismiss time-barred appeals in limine and whether the petitioners were entitled to terminal benefits based on the Akram Zahoor precedent. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal acted correctly in dismissing the appeals in limine as they were significantly time-barred and concerned past and closed transactions. The Court further clarified that the Akram Zahoor judgment was a consent-based decision and did not constitute a binding precedent for non-parties. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought, as their claims were both procedurally barred and substantively unsupported by the cited case law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Federal Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal in limine if it is time-barred?
  • Does a consent judgment of the Supreme Court constitute a binding precedent for non-parties?
  • Are retrenched employees entitled to pensionary benefits if they were terminated rather than retired?
  • Can a party claim relief based on a previous Supreme Court judgment if they did not challenge their termination at the relevant time?
  Read full judgment →
• General Manager/Circle Executive Muslim Commercial2002 PLC(CS) 982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-29
  civil reviewfraudulent procurementservice benefitslimitation periodcondonation of delaygainful employmentreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition was filed under Order XXXIII read with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules and Orders seeking the recall of a judgment dated 22-4-1999 on the alleged ground that it was secured by the respondent through fraud by concealing his migration to Germany, alongside an application to condone a 102-day delay in filing. The core legal questions involved whether the respondent's alleged migration and omission to disclose it constituted fraud sufficient to vitiate the judgment and toll the period of limitation, and whether an employee deprived of service benefits is disentitled to them merely for leaving the country without proof of gainful employment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that oral assertions alone without concrete proof of gainful employment abroad do not establish fraud or disentitle a reinstated employee to service benefits, and in the absence of sufficient cause or proven fraud, the review petition was time-barred. The key principle laid down is that the denial of service benefits to an illegally terminated employee requires positive proof of gainful employment elsewhere during the relevant period, and mere departure from the country does not amount to fraud or loss of such entitlement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere migration of an employee abroad constitute fraud sufficient to review and recall a judgment granting service benefits?
  • Is a reinstated employee disentitled to service benefits during the period of absence from employment without proof of gainful employment elsewhere?
  • Can an unexplained delay of 102 days in filing a review petition be condoned on the generalized allegation of fraud without establishing the same on record?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Versus Captain M.S.K. Lodhi2002 PLC(CS) 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-28
  service appeallimitation periodcondonation of delayreinstatementlump sum compensationMartial Law Regulationclean hands doctrinewaiver of rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had granted relief to the respondent, a former employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, regarding a claim for compensation following his removal under Martial Law Regulation 52. The core legal questions concerned whether the Tribunal could condone a nine-year delay in filing the appeal, whether the respondent was entitled to lump sum compensation after opting for reinstatement but failing to join duty, and the validity of the Wafaqi Mohtasib's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s appeal before the Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred, and pursuing remedies in the wrong forum did not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation. Furthermore, the Court determined that by opting for reinstatement and submitting a joining report, the respondent had waived his right to claim compensation. His subsequent failure to join duty, despite multiple extensions, and his lack of clean hands regarding his employment status elsewhere, disentitled him to the relief granted by the Tribunal. The Court set aside the impugned judgment, affirming that the Corporation correctly disallowed the compensation claim.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service appeal be entertained by a Tribunal after a delay of nine years?
  • Does pursuing a remedy in a wrong forum constitute sufficient cause to condone a delay in filing an appeal?
  • Does an employee waive the right to claim compensation upon opting for reinstatement and submitting a joining report?
  • Is an employee entitled to compensation if they fail to join service after being granted extensions for secondment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan, Stenographer, Finance Division, Islamabad Versus Secretary, Privatization Commission, Islamabad2002 PLC(CS) 958 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-10
  willful absencedisciplinary proceedingscompulsory retirementstoppage of incrementsmove-overFederal Service Tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a government servant, challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding a disciplinary action for willful absence from duty. The petitioner had been absent on multiple occasions and failed to provide adequate justification or medical certification when requested. Following disciplinary proceedings, he was initially compulsorily retired, but the Departmental Appellate Authority, on compassionate grounds, converted this penalty to the stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought leave to appeal, raising issues regarding the penalty and the subsequent denial of 'move-over' benefits. The Supreme Court held that no question of law of public importance, as required under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was involved. The Court found the petitioner's case meritless, noting that the departmental authority had already adopted a lenient stance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, clarifying that grievances regarding 'move-over' benefits must be agitated separately before the departmental authorities and the Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a service matter involving disciplinary action for willful absence necessarily raise a question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a government servant challenge the denial of 'move-over' benefits in a petition primarily concerning the imposition of a disciplinary penalty?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal in service matters where the departmental authority has already taken a lenient view of the misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Nawaz Versus President, National Bank of Pakistan2002 PLC(CS) 956 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-10
  condonation of delaylimitationregistered coverpresumption of servicecertified copyservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Quetta, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was barred by limitation by 23 days, and the petitioner sought condonation of delay claiming he did not receive a certified copy of the judgment from the Tribunal according to the Rules until he applied for it himself. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner had established sufficient cause for condonation of delay regarding the receipt of the judgment copy. The Court held that under Rule 21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, the Tribunal sends a certified copy under registered cover, and pursuant to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, there is a legal presumption that service was duly effected upon the petitioner. The Court ruled that the burden shifted to the petitioner to rebut this presumption, which he failed to do. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does a legal presumption of valid service arise under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897 when a court or tribunal dispatches a judgment copy under registered cover?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to demonstrate non-receipt of a judgment copy when an endorsement indicates it was dispatched via registered mail?
  • Can delay in filing an appeal be condoned merely on a bare assertion of non-receipt of a judgment copy sent by a tribunal pursuant to procedural rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Nazir Ahmad Shah Versus Government of Pakistan2002 PLC(CS) 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-08
  service appealcondonation of delaycivil servant statusretrospective operationSection 2-AService Tribunals Actlimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former employee of the FATA Development Corporation, sought leave to appeal against the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of his service appeal. The petitioner had been removed from service for the alleged defalcation of cement bags. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal on two grounds: first, that the petitioner was not a civil servant at the time the impugned orders were passed, as Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which granted such status, was not retrospective; and second, that the appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court, referencing established precedents regarding the fluid state of the law concerning the retrospective application of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, held that the Tribunal should have adopted a lenient approach toward the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and remanded the matter for a fresh, lenient reconsideration of the delay condonation application, with instructions to decide the appeal on its merits to avoid further remands.

  Questions settled

  • Should the Federal Service Tribunal take a lenient view when considering applications for condonation of delay regarding appeals filed after the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, have retrospective effect for employees dismissed prior to its enactment?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus Inspector General, Frontier Corps, N W.F.P., Peshawar2002 PLC(CS) 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-08
  Frontier Corpsdisciplinary forceservice disciplinedismissal from servicedepartmental inquirylawful ordersFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the removal of the petitioner, a Junior Clerk in the Frontier Corps, from service. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's boycott of a mandatory departmental examination, his instigation of other staff to boycott, and his refusal to participate in the subsequent disciplinary inquiry constituted sufficient grounds for dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s conduct was a clear violation of lawful orders and unbecoming of a member of a disciplinary force. The Court affirmed the removal, establishing that members of a disciplinary force are strictly obligated to obey the lawful orders of their command. Furthermore, the Court held that a subordinate cannot dictate the composition of an inquiry committee or demand the selection of specific examiners. As the petitioner intentionally violated discipline and sought to undermine the authority of his command, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, ultimately dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a member of a disciplinary force dictate the composition of an inquiry committee?
  • Does the boycott of a mandatory departmental examination by a member of a disciplinary force constitute valid grounds for removal from service?
  • Is a subordinate entitled to demand the selection of specific examiners for a departmental examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Badshah Hassan Versus Interior Ministry2002 PLC(CS) 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-10
  compulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingsmisconducthabitual absenceservice tribunalleave to appealfinding of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, a government servant, following disciplinary proceedings for unsatisfactory performance and willful absence. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary action was conducted in accordance with mandatory legal formalities and whether the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the petitioner's misconduct warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted properly, with all mandatory legal formalities under the relevant rules being satisfied and the petitioner afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court found the petitioner's habitual absenteeism and lack of interest in official duties clearly established by the record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the action taken by the competent authority was neither whimsical nor arbitrary. The key principle laid down is that where no substantial question of law of public importance is raised, findings of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal based on evidence and record are not subject to interference by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal where no substantial question of law of public importance is raised?
  • Is a disciplinary order of compulsory retirement valid if the mandatory formalities under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 were followed and the employee was afforded an opportunity of hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh Versus Malik Ghulam Hussain2002 PLC(CS) 928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-08-08
  service lawpremature retirementdate of birth correctionpro forma promotionadministrative errorcivil servant benefitsService Tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Sindh against a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had ruled in favor of a respondent civil servant. The respondent, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, was prematurely retired based on an erroneous date of birth recorded in police records, despite his service book reflecting a later date of birth. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal could grant relief to a civil servant regarding retirement benefits and pro forma promotion when the premature retirement resulted from an administrative error by the department. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, which directed the issuance of a revised retirement notification, the recalculation of pensionary benefits, and the consideration of the respondent for pro forma promotion. The Court held that the department could not benefit from its own unjustified acts of omission and commission. The principle laid down is that a government department cannot rely on its own administrative mistakes to deprive a civil servant of their legal dues and rightful service benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department rely on its own administrative error to deny a civil servant their legal retirement benefits?
  • Does a Service Tribunal have the authority to direct the correction of a retirement date and the subsequent recalculation of pensionary benefits?
  • Can a Service Tribunal order the consideration of a retired civil servant for pro forma promotion based on a corrected date of retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan Versus Ali Muhammad Bangash2002 PLC(CS) 923 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-01-07
  service lawtermination of servicereinstatementperformance evaluationimplied conditions of employmentFederal Service TribunalArea Manager
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which reinstated an Area Manager of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan after his services were terminated for unsatisfactory performance. The core legal question was whether the termination was lawful given that the respondent's performance was evaluated based on a single year rather than the required three-year period, and whether the employer failed to fulfill implied obligations regarding the respondent's reinstatement. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the employer had failed to provide the respondent with his requested staff and had neglected to publicly notify the public of his reinstatement, which effectively hindered his ability to perform his duties. The Court held that the termination was unjustified because the evaluation criteria violated the employer's own policy requiring a three-year performance assessment. The key principle established is that when an employee is reinstated following a public termination, there is an implied duty on the employer to issue a public notification of reinstatement to restore the employee's professional standing and ability to conduct business effectively.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employer required to issue a public notification of reinstatement when the initial termination was publicly advertised?
  • Can an employee's performance be evaluated on a single year's data when internal policy mandates a three-year assessment period?
  • Does an employer have an implied duty to facilitate an employee's performance after reinstatement by restoring necessary support staff?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh Versus Peter John Khokhar2002 PLC(CS) 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-07-31
  service lawpolice constablereinstatementback benefitsconcession by counseldepartmental dischargecriminal acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Province of Sindh against a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of a police constable into service. The respondent had been discharged from service under Police Rule 12.21 following his involvement in a criminal case. During the departmental appeal process, the respondent was acquitted of the criminal charges. Before the Service Tribunal, the respondent sought reinstatement, offering to waive back benefits. The Assistant Advocate-General, representing the Government, consented to this arrangement, and the Tribunal allowed the appeal based on this concession. The petitioner-Government subsequently challenged this, arguing the Tribunal failed to apply its independent mind to the law and facts, and that the appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the concession made by the Assistant Advocate-General on behalf of the Government regarding the respondent's reinstatement without back benefits was binding upon the petitioner. The Court declined to interfere with the Tribunal's judgment, thereby affirming the reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Is a concession made by an Assistant Advocate-General on behalf of the Government regarding the reinstatement of a civil servant binding on the Government?
  • Does the acquittal of a police official in a criminal case entitle them to reinstatement if they were previously discharged based on the same incident?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal judgment where the Government's counsel consented to the relief granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA2002 PLC(CS) 917 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-07
  service appealdisciplinary proceedingsleave to appealdismissal in liminestatutory delegationmajor penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 14-4-2001 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal in limine. The petitioner, a permanent employee of WAPDA, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 regarding allegations of less billing during his posting as an Executive Engineer, culminating in the imposition of a major penalty of reduction of pay three steps down. The core legal questions involve the competence of respondent No.3 to initiate disciplinary action and award penalties without proper statutory delegation of powers under the Pakistan WAPDA Act 1958, the legality of dismissing a complex service appeal in limine, and whether dispensing with a regular inquiry was justified. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider these contentions, holding that the questions raised merit detailed examination.

  Questions settled

  • Was respondent No.3 competent to take disciplinary action against a permanent employee of respondent No.1 without delegation of powers under section 20 of the Pakistan WAPDA Act 1958?
  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal dismiss a service appeal involving complicated questions of fact and law in limine?
  • Was the holding of a regular inquiry wrongly dispensed with in the facts and circumstances of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• House Building Finance Corporation Versus Malik Muhammad Ashraf2002 PLC(CS) 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-11
  premature retirementwithdrawal of retirement applicationservice appealleave to appealmaster and servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the respondent-employee's service appeal was allowed. The respondent had applied for premature retirement on 10 September 1999 pursuant to a corporate circular adopting certain government office memoranda. Before the retirement application was accepted, the respondent submitted a written request on 12 October 1999 to withdraw his retirement application. The petitioner-department rejected the withdrawal and accepted the retirement request, prompting the respondent to approach the Federal Service Tribunal, which ruled in his favor. The Supreme Court considered whether an employee can withdraw an application for premature retirement prior to its acceptance and whether the applicable office memoranda bar such withdrawal. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that arguable questions of law and fact arose regarding the interpretation of the governing circular and the employee's right of withdrawal before the final acceptance order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the employees of the petitioner organization are entitled to get benefit from instructions issued by the Government of Pakistan regarding retirement from service?
  • Whether an employee can withdraw a request for premature retirement before the passing of a final order accepting the same?
  • Whether an employee can withdraw a request for premature retirement in view of Office Memorandum No. OB.2/12/63 (Imp) (1) dated 18th August, 1966 as amended?
  Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Limited Versus Momin Khan2002 PLC(CS) 898 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-02-11
  service matterWafaqi Mohtasibjurisdictionsub judiceReview Boardconstitutional petitiondismissal from servicemisconduct
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the reinstatement of a bank employee dismissed for misconduct in 1979. The respondent sought relief from a Review Board, established to address dismissals related to political victimization or martial law, which recommended reinstatement. The Wafaqi Mohtasib subsequently affirmed this recommendation. The Supreme Court addressed whether these forums possessed jurisdiction over service matters of bank employees and whether the Peshawar High Court could entertain a petition while the same matter was sub judice before the Sindh High Court. The Court held that the Review Board lacked jurisdiction as the respondent’s dismissal was based on misconduct, not political grounds. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the Wafaqi Mohtasib lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate personal service grievances of employees. Additionally, the Court ruled that the Peshawar High Court petition was not maintainable because the matter was already pending before the Sindh High Court. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, establishing that recommendations from unauthorized forums create no enforceable rights and that concurrent litigation on the same subject matter is impermissible.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib have jurisdiction to adjudicate personal service grievances of employees of financial institutions?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable in one High Court when the same subject matter is already sub judice in another High Court?
  • Does a Review Board constituted for political or martial law-related dismissals have the authority to review dismissals based on departmental misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Islamic Republic of Pakistan Versus Muhammad Yaseen2002 PLC(CS) 893 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-02-01
  service lawdisciplinary proceedingsquantum of punishmentnegligenceservice tribunalefficiency and discipline rulesmitigation of penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which modified a disciplinary penalty imposed on a government servant. The respondent, a Savings Officer, was reverted in rank by the competent authority for inefficiency and negligence after a robbery occurred while cash was being transported on foot by his subordinates. The respondent challenged this before the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the finding of negligence but reduced the penalty to the stoppage of two increments for three years. The Department appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the Tribunal lacked justification to interfere with the quantum of punishment. The Supreme Court held that while the respondent was indeed negligent for failing to follow security protocols, the department shared responsibility due to its failure to provide adequate security resources, such as official vehicles or armed escorts. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Tribunal’s exercise of discretion in mitigating the punishment was appropriate under the peculiar circumstances, and dismissed the appeal, affirming the principle that departmental failure to provide necessary infrastructure can mitigate the severity of disciplinary action against an employee.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the authority to modify the quantum of punishment imposed by a departmental authority in disciplinary cases?
  • Can the failure of a government department to provide necessary security resources mitigate the disciplinary liability of an employee for negligence?
  • Is an officer in charge of government funds personally responsible for the safety of cash during transit regardless of the availability of departmental security resources?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir Khan Versus Government of N. W.F.P.2002 PLC(CS) 876 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-16
  seniority disputeservice lawmerit-based senioritylimitation periodpast and closed transactionPublic Service Commissioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter concerns a seniority dispute between Assistant Engineers in the Irrigation Department of N.-W.F.P. The appellant, initially placed senior in a 1979 list, was later placed junior to the respondents in a 1981 revised seniority list based on merit positions assigned by the Public Service Commission. The appellant challenged this revision in 1997, claiming seniority based on his earlier date of joining. The Supreme Court held that candidates selected through the same competitive examination constitute a single batch, and their inter se seniority must be determined by the merit assigned by the Public Service Commission, not the date of joining. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the appellant’s failure to challenge the 1981 seniority list, which had attained finality, rendered his 1997 challenge time-barred. The Court affirmed that a settled seniority position constitutes a past and closed transaction, and the periodic re-publication of seniority lists does not create a fresh cause of action to challenge long-standing, accepted seniority determinations. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the seniority of candidates selected in the same competitive examination depend on the date of joining or the merit assigned by the Public Service Commission?
  • Can a civil servant challenge a seniority list after failing to contest a revised seniority list that attained finality years earlier?
  • Does the periodic publication of a seniority list create a fresh cause of action for a civil servant to challenge a long-settled seniority position?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh through A. G., Sindh, Karachi Versus Kazi Siraj Ahmad2002 PLC(CS) 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-04-06
  service appealpromotionnatural justiceshow-cause noticeadministrative lawcompetent authorityservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Province of Sindh, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had restored the respondent to his promoted position of Assistant City Survey Officer (BS-16). The respondent, a long-serving City Surveyor, was promoted by the competent authority, the Board of Revenue, following a recommendation by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Subsequently, the Chief Secretary cancelled this promotion without providing a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing, alleging the promotion involved an excessive grade jump. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of a duly approved promotion without adherence to natural justice principles was sustainable. The Supreme Court held that the promotion was validly issued by the competent authority and complied with relevant rules. The Court found the cancellation order arbitrary and procedurally flawed due to the lack of a hearing. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision, noting that the matter involved no question of public importance under the Constitution, and upheld the principle that administrative actions affecting vested rights require procedural fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Can a promotion order issued by a competent authority be cancelled without providing the affected employee an opportunity of being heard?
  • Does the cancellation of a promotion without a show-cause notice violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 where no question of public importance is involved?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood Versus Commissioner, Sargodha2002 PLC(CS) 858 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-23
  Naib TehsildarService Tribunalfunctus officioservice quotapromotionselection committeemerit list
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated appeals arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal concerning the selection and appointment of Naib Tehsildars under the Punjab Revenue Department (Revenue Administration Posts) Rules, 1990 as amended in 1992. Four posts were advertised, and a selection committee appointed candidates, including Ghulam Shabbir Tahir, while Khalid Mehmood and Azhar Abbas were placed lower on the merit list. Their service appeals before the Tribunal were dismissed on grounds of limitation and lack of merit. However, the Tribunal additionally recorded findings invalidating Ghulam Shabbir Tahir's selection on the premise that the stenographer quota was exceeded. The Supreme Court examined the matter and held that once the service appeals of Khalid Mehmood and Azhar Abbas were dismissed, the Service Tribunal lacked the legal authority to further interfere with the appointment of successful candidates, having exhausted its jurisdiction regarding those aggrieved parties. Furthermore, subsequent retirements had freed up vacancies within the applicable quota, rendering the Tribunal's interference unjustified. The Supreme Court accepted the appeal setting aside the Tribunal's adverse finding against the appointed candidate, and dismissed the appeal of Khalid Mehmood, affirming that his lower merit position precluded any entitlement to appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal interfere with an appointment after dismissing the appeals of the aggrieved candidates?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal becomes functus officio upon dismissing the main challenges to a selection process?
  • Does a candidate placed lower on the merit list have a right to challenge an appointment when no vacancy exists for their position?
  • Can the courts amend service rules to fix separate quotas for different offices?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahid Amin Hyder Versus Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan2002 PLC(CS) 841 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarksService Tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of serviceexpungement of ACRcivil servantjudicial review of ACR
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal seeking the expungement of adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the years 1996-97. The Tribunal had declined to interfere, reasoning that it lacked the jurisdiction to substitute its own opinion for that of the competent departmental authorities regarding the assessment of a civil servant. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal, holding that the Tribunal's approach was legally incorrect. The Court clarified that the recording of adverse remarks in an ACR constitutes a term and condition of service. Consequently, if a civil servant's departmental representation against such remarks is unsuccessful, the Service Tribunal is fully empowered to examine the merits of the ACR. The Tribunal must determine whether the remarks were recorded properly, based on objective material, or influenced by extraneous considerations. If the remarks are found unsupported by material or based on subjective bias, the Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to set them aside or modify them.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to examine and potentially set aside adverse remarks recorded in a civil servant's Annual Confidential Report?
  • Is the recording of adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report considered a term and condition of service for a civil servant?
  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal substitute its opinion for that of departmental authorities when reviewing adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited Versus Rasheed Ahmed Memon2002 PLC(CS) 838 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-14
  service tribunaldepartmental inquirybias of inquiry officerreinstatementmaster and servantdismissal from servicebank employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted the respondent employee's appeal and set aside his dismissal from service. The respondent, a cashier and union representative at United Bank Limited, was dismissed following a disciplinary inquiry concerning an unauthorized housing loan. The core legal question involved the validity of conducting a second departmental inquiry through the same inquiry officer against whom the employee had previously raised substantiated allegations of bias, and whether the Tribunal rightly set aside the dismissal order. The Supreme Court held that the bank authorities acted improperly and illegally by appointing the same biased inquiry officer for the second inquiry after disagreeing with the first report. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision reinstating the employee while permitting a fresh, impartial inquiry to be conducted. The key principle laid down is that an inquiry officer whose impartiality has been validly protested by the accused must not be re-appointed to conduct subsequent inquiry proceedings on the same charges.

  Questions settled

  • Whether appointing the same inquiry officer for a second departmental inquiry after allegations of bias invalidate the inquiry proceedings?
  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal set aside a bank employee's dismissal order due to flaws in the disciplinary inquiry?
  • Whether an employee can be reinstated for the purpose of a fresh inquiry when the initial dismissal order is found legally unsustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Fateh Bhutto Versus Government of Sindh2002 PLC(CS) 834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-11-26
  civil servicesenioritychange of cadretime-barred appealanti-corruption establishmentleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's service appeal regarding seniority. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner was discriminated against in the fixation of his seniority compared to other respondents whose seniority was reckoned from the date of appointment or promotion under section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and whether his departmental appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner, having changed his cadre to the Anti-Corruption Establishment, was correctly placed at the bottom of the seniority list in accordance with applicable rules and policies, and that no case of discrimination or hardship was made out, noting additionally that his departmental appeal filed in 1999 against a 1996 placement was barred by time. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed, laying down the principle that a change in service cadre properly entails placement at the bottom of the seniority list under the relevant service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant changing their cadre is entitled to seniority from the original date of appointment or from the date of joining the new cadre?
  • Does placement at the bottom of a seniority list upon transfer of cadre constitute actionable discrimination under service laws?
  • Whether an appeal challenging seniority placement after a significant delay is barred by limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan Lashari Versus Government of Pakistan2002 PLC(CS) 814 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service terminationinterim reliefad hoc salaryconsent orderFederal Service Tribunalfinal dues
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of petitions filed by former employees of the Pakistan Steel Mills challenging the termination of their services and the denial of interim relief by the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to interim relief in the form of ad hoc salary payments, based on a precedent where a consent order had granted such relief to another similarly situated employee. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the previous relief granted to the other employee was based on a specific consent order between the parties. Since the respondents in the present petitions refused to provide such consent and were actively seeking to withdraw the previous order, the Court declined to extend the same relief to the petitioners. The Court ultimately disposed of the petitions by directing the respondents to process and pay the petitioners' final dues upon completion of legal formalities and by mandating that the Federal Service Tribunal expedite the hearing and final disposal of the petitioners' pending appeals within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant interim relief based on a previous consent order when the respondent refuses to consent in the current proceedings?
  • Is a consent order granted in one case binding as a precedent in subsequent cases where the respondent objects?
  • What is the scope of the Supreme Court's authority to direct the Federal Service Tribunal to expedite the disposal of pending appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Versus General Manager, Western Telecommunication Region, Telephone House, Quetta2002 PLC(CS) 811 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-12
  service appealdismissal from servicedepartmental inquirymisconductleave to appealpublic importanceservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a Supervisor in the Telegraph and Telephone Department, for misconduct. The petitioner was dismissed following an inquiry committee's finding that he was involved in the unauthorized tampering of underground digital cables and the creation of illegal telephone connections within his jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the departmental inquiry and the subsequent dismissal were conducted in accordance with law and whether the Tribunal erred in upholding the penalty. The Supreme Court held that the departmental proceedings were conducted fairly, with the petitioner afforded full opportunity to participate, and that the Tribunal’s decision was based on a proper appreciation of the material. The Court affirmed that the petition lacked merit and failed to raise a question of public importance as required under the Constitution. Consequently, the Court declined to grant leave to appeal, affirming the principle that service tribunals' findings, when based on sound reasoning and proper procedure, will not be interfered with absent legal irregularity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a public servant based on a departmental inquiry report constitute a question of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a court interfere with the findings of a Service Tribunal when the proceedings were conducted with due process and the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to participate?
  • Is a supervisor responsible for illegal activities occurring within their jurisdiction even if they attempt to shift the burden to subordinates?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Qadir Shah Versus Government of Sindh2002 PLC(CS) 806 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-12-13
  service appealreinstatementtermination from serviceupgradation of postback benefitsSupreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil petitions directed against a common judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the petitioner in service in BS-19 with back and consequential benefits following his termination, while declining his request for reinstatement specifically as Project Director since the post had been upgraded to BS-20 and another officer posted. The core legal question concerned the legality of the petitioner's termination and his entitlement to be posted back to the specific upgraded post he previously held. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly set aside the unlawful termination and reinstated the petitioner in BS-19, but correctly found that he had no vested right to claim posting against the upgraded BS-20 post, leaving the department competent to post him against an equivalent post in BS-19. The Court laid down the principle that a reinstated civil servant is entitled to reinstatement in their previous scale/grade with consequential benefits, but cannot claim automatic posting to a specifically upgraded post currently occupied by another officer, and that no substantial question of public importance under Article 212(3) arises where the tribunal's judgment is based on sound legal principles.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant, upon reinstatement in service, is entitled to be posted against a specific post that has subsequently been upgraded?
  • Does the reinstatement of a civil servant automatically entitle them to claim posting to their exact previous position regardless of subsequent administrative changes and upgradations?
  • Whether an order of the Service Tribunal setting aside a termination and granting reinstatement in the appropriate pay scale warrants interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh Versus Masood Hussain2002 PLC(CS) 752 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service tribunallimitationvoid orderregularization of servicedepartmental selection committeetermination of serviceleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which set aside the termination of the respondents' services and ordered their reinstatement. The core legal questions involve whether the Service Tribunal erred in condoning the delay in filing appeals against a void termination order and whether the respondents' appointments were duly regularized by a competent Departmental Selection Committee. The Supreme Court held that no limitation runs against a void or illegal order, and the Tribunal's findings of fact regarding the existence of the 1993 Departmental Selection Committee and the regularization of services were unassailable as they were not shown to be perverse. The Court laid down the principle that concurrent or unchallenged findings of fact by a Service Tribunal regarding administrative actions and departmental committee proceedings will not be interfered with by the apex court in the absence of perversity or a substantial question of law of public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Does limitation run against a void or illegal administrative order in service matters?
  • Can findings of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal regarding the constitution of a Departmental Selection Committee be interfered with without showing perversity?
  • Whether the termination of a civil servant based on a non-existent subsequent committee is sustainable when prior regularization stands proved?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner, Sindh Employees' Social Securities Institution Versus Messrs E.M. Oil Mills and Industries Ltd., S.I.T.E., Karachi2002 PLC(CS) 740 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-07-27
  social security contributionwage ceilingemployee definitionretrospective operationprospective legislationdeclaratory statuteremedial legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of 15 appeals arising from divergent judgments of the High Court of Sindh concerning the payment of social security contributions under the Provincial Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question was whether employees drawing wages exceeding the statutory ceiling of Rs. 1,500 per month were covered under the definition of 'employee' prior to the 1993 and 1994 amendments, and whether those amendments operated retrospectively. The Supreme Court held that under the unamended section 2(8)(f) read with section 20(4)(a) of the Ordinance, persons employed on wages exceeding Rs. 1,500 per month were excluded from the definition of an employee, and employers were not liable to pay contributions for them during the period preceding the amendments. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the subsequent amendments enhancing the wage ceiling to Rs. 3,000 and adding a clarifying proviso were prospective in operation, as they created new obligations and affected vested rights, and could not be applied retroactively. The first set of appeals by the institution was dismissed, and the second set of appeals was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee whose wages exceeded Rs. 1,500 per month was covered under the definition of 'employee' under section 2(8)(f) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 prior to the 1993 and 1994 amendments?
  • Do the amendments made to section 2(8)(f) and section 20 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 by the Labour Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 1993 operate retrospectively?
  • Is an employer liable to pay social security contributions in respect of employees drawing wages above the prescribed statutory ceiling during the period preceding the 1993 and 1994 amendments?
  • Whether the proviso added to section 2(8)(f) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 can be classified as a purely declaratory or clarificatory provision affecting vested rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Mehmood Versus Additional Inspector-General of Police2002 PLC(CS) 732 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-07-05
  police constabledischarge from serviceacquittal in criminal casedepartmental inquirymisconductservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the validity of discharging a police constable from service under Police Rule 12-21 on the basis of a criminal case in which he was subsequently acquitted. The appellant, a constable in the Punjab Police, was served a show-cause notice and discharged from service following his trial and acquittal under the Arms Ordinance. His departmental appeal was rejected, and the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissed his subsequent service appeal. The core legal question was whether a departmental authority can maintain a discharge or removal order based on misconduct when the underlying criminal charge, which served as the sole basis for the action, has resulted in an acquittal by a competent court without any independent departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that an acquittal in a criminal case washes away the basis of a departmental action heavily reliant upon it, especially when no independent regular inquiry or separate material establishing misconduct was conducted. The court laid down the principle that termination or discharge founded on criminal allegations cannot stand when the foundational criminal charge collapses, and that condemning a temporary employee or probationer for misconduct without a regular departmental inquiry violates the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the acquittal of a civil servant in a criminal case washes away the basis of a departmental discharge order solely founded on that criminal charge?
  • Can a departmental authority discharge a police constable under Police Rule 12-21 on grounds of misconduct without conducting a regular departmental inquiry?
  • Does the judgment of a criminal court acquitting an accused person preclude the department from taking disciplinary action when independent material or a regular inquiry establishes misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Hussain Versus Secretary, Ministry of Finance2002 PLC(CS) 53 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-09-20
  annual incrementsmedical leavefundamental rulescivil servantservice tribunalpension revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court was directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the appellant's service appeal regarding the refusal of annual increments. The core legal question was whether a civil servant who remained on medical leave (other than extraordinary leave) was entitled to annual increments under F.R. 26(a) of the Fundamental Rules. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, holding that periods of leave other than extraordinary leave explicitly count towards increments in a time-scale under F.R. 26(a). The Court laid down the principle that a civil servant on sanctioned medical leave is entitled to earn annual increments, and such benefits cannot be denied arbitrarily or based on a misinterpretation of the Revised Leave Rules, 1980.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant on medical leave is entitled to annual increments under F.R. 26(a) of the Fundamental Rules?
  • Does Rule 32 of the Revised Leave Rules 1980 bar the grant of annual increments during ordinary leave prior to the 1994 amendment?
  • Does the exception of extraordinary leave apply to ordinary medical leave for the purpose of denying annual increments?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Versus Government of Balochistan2002 PLC(CS) 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-07-26
  seniorityservice tribunaltehsildarreinstatementback benefitsretroactive senioritycivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals regarding their seniority position as Tehsildars. The core legal question concerns whether civil servants whose services were terminated during initial training, subsequently reinstated by a Review Board without back benefits, are entitled to have their seniority reckoned retrospectively from the date of their initial selection as candidates. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that seniority cannot be determined without reference to continuous appointment in a particular grade, and since the petitioners failed to complete their training and remained out of service for several years before being reinstated without back benefits, they cannot claim retrospective seniority. The Court laid down the principle that reinstatement simpliciter without back benefits excludes consequential benefits like seniority, and that seniority cannot be conferred retrospectively in the absence of a continuous appointment or an established legal right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether civil servants reinstated into service without back benefits are entitled to claim seniority with retrospective effect for the period they remained out of service?
  • Can seniority be determined without reference to a continuous appointment in a particular grade?
  • Whether an order of reinstatement passed by a Review Board without specifying back benefits includes the right to claim retrospective seniority?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas Versus Secretary/Chairman, Ministry of Railways, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2002 PLC(CS) 310 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-07-31
  service appealtemporary workmanpermanent statusartificial break in servicemaster and servantFederal Service TribunalPakistan Railways
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals by leave of the Court arise from a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellants' service appeals on the ground that, not being permanent workmen, they could not invoke the Tribunal's jurisdiction, and because they failed to produce formal appointment and termination orders after serving Pakistan Railways for over a decade. The core legal question concerns the competency of the service appeals and the employment status of workers subjected to artificial breaks in service. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeals in limine without addressing the substantive evidence. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matters were remanded to the Federal Service Tribunal for a fresh decision on merits after considering relevant evidence. The key principle laid down is that temporary employment maneuvers involving artificial breaks to deny permanent status must be examined through comprehensive evaluation of service records and evidence rather than summary dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Can temporary workers who experience artificial breaks in employment invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can dismiss service appeals solely due to the non-production of written appointment and termination orders when long-term employment is evidenced by service records?
  • Do benefits such as medical treatment, free travelling passes, increments, and G.P. Fund deductions indicate the status of regular employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Syed Mumtaz Ahmed Burney2002 PLC(CS) 25 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-06-21
  compulsory retirementmisconductpolice serviceservice tribunalbaildepartmental inquiryreinstatementback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that reinstated a Superintendent of Police (respondent) who had been compulsorily retired. The Federation of Pakistan alleged the respondent committed misconduct by consenting to the release of a notorious smuggler on bail by an Investigating Officer. The core legal question was whether the respondent was responsible for the release and if the Tribunal erred in finding the charges unproven. The Supreme Court held that the evidence failed to establish that the respondent issued any written direction or connived in the release, which was executed by the Investigating Officer. While noting the respondent displayed negligence and inefficient supervision, the Court found the extreme penalty of compulsory retirement harsh and discriminatory given the lack of proof regarding the specific charge of misconduct. The Court affirmed that it does not ordinarily interfere with concurrent findings of fact by the Service Tribunal and dismissed the petition, upholding the reinstatement of the respondent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a superior officer can be held liable for misconduct for the release of an accused on bail by an investigating officer without proof of written direction or connivance?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by a Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is the penalty of compulsory retirement disproportionate when the specific charge of misconduct remains unproven?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor, Supervisor/Inspector, N,H.A. Versus National Highway Authority2002 PLC(CS) 225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-22
  service lawpromotionacting charge appointmentwork-charge servicemandatory qualificationsseniorityservice rulessupersession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's service appeal regarding his supersession in promotion to B-17 within the National Highway Authority. The appellant, a Diploma holder in Civil Engineering, alleged that respondents were promoted to B-17 in violation of service rules, while he was ignored despite being eligible. The core legal questions were whether the appellant's work-charge service counted towards seniority and whether the promotion of a respondent lacking the mandatory academic qualification (Diploma in Civil Engineering) was lawful. The Supreme Court held that while work-charge service counts for qualifying service for promotion and pension, it does not count for seniority. The Court further held that while authorities may relax the length of service requirements for acting charge promotions, they lack the discretion to dispense with or relax mandatory prescribed academic qualifications. Consequently, the Court declared the promotion of the unqualified respondent to be without lawful authority, while upholding the promotions of other respondents who were qualified Graduate Engineers. The Court directed the Authority to process promotion cases for eligible Diploma holders.

  Questions settled

  • Does work-charge service count towards seniority for the purpose of promotion?
  • Can an appointing authority relax the mandatory academic qualifications prescribed for a post?
  • Is an appeal to a Service Tribunal maintainable when an ineligible candidate is promoted in violation of service rules?
  • Does an acting charge appointment confer a vested right for regular promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Rehmat Ibad Khan Versus Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI) through Its Chairman2002 PLC(CS) 203 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-07-24
  service tribunalstatutory corporationterms and conditions of servicejurisdictionsenioritytransferleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of a constitutional petition filed by the petitioner, an employee of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI), challenging his transfer to the General Cadre. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly determined that the dispute relating to the terms and conditions of service of an employee of a statutory corporation fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act and Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the dispute essentially related to the terms and conditions of service and seniority, which could only be agitated before the Federal Service Tribunal. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, upholding the High Court's view and leaving the petitioner to seek his remedy before the Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute regarding the transfer and seniority of an employee of a statutory corporation fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Whether the provisions of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act oust the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 in matters relating to terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan Lashari Versus Government of Pakistan2002 PLC(CS) 199 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-12-26
  service terminationinterim reliefad hoc salaryconsent orderFederal Service Tribunalfinal dues
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a batch of petitions filed by former employees of the Pakistan Steel Mills whose services were terminated en bloc on February 1, 2000. Following the termination, the employees approached the Federal Service Tribunal for redress, but the Tribunal declined to grant interim relief regarding the payment of ad hoc salaries. The petitioners approached the Supreme Court, seeking interim relief similar to that granted to another employee, Pasha Ahmed Gul, in a previous consent order. The core legal question was whether the Court should grant interim relief in the form of ad hoc salary payments to the petitioners despite the respondents' refusal to consent to such an arrangement. The Supreme Court held that since the relief granted in the previous case was based on a consent order and the respondents explicitly refused to consent in the present petitions, the Court could not extend that relief. The Court directed the respondents to pay the petitioners' final dues subject to legal formalities and ordered the Federal Service Tribunal to decide the pending appeals within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Can interim relief granted via a consent order in one case be automatically extended to other petitioners when the respondent refuses to consent?
  • Is a respondent obligated to pay ad hoc salaries to terminated employees pending the final adjudication of their service appeals?
  Read full judgment →
• Punjab Small Industries Corporation Versus Ahmad Akhtar Cheema2002 PLC(CS) 182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-16
  constitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionalternate remedydisciplinary proceedingscompulsory retirementexhaustion of remediesdisputed questions of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the compulsory retirement of a government servant. The respondent, a Project Director, was retired following disciplinary proceedings but bypassed the mandatory departmental appeal process, filing a writ petition directly. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by entertaining the petition despite the availability of an efficacious alternate remedy, which the respondent failed to exhaust. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is not intended for resolving disputed questions of fact that necessitate evidence, nor should it be used to substitute the findings of disciplinary authorities where proper procedure was followed. The Court found that the respondent was afforded a fair opportunity of hearing during the inquiry. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside. However, acknowledging the respondent's superannuation and the lack of proof regarding misappropriation, the Court modified the penalty to remove the financial recovery order while upholding the compulsory retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 when an adequate alternate remedy, such as a departmental appeal, has not been exhausted?
  • Is it appropriate for a High Court to resolve disputed questions of fact requiring evidence within its constitutional writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the failure of an inquiry officer to recommend a specific penalty invalidate disciplinary proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• G.M., National Bank of Pakistan Versus Abdul Aziz2002 PLC(CS) 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-09-28
  Service Tribunal jurisdictionAbatement of proceedingsSection 2-A Service Tribunals ActTermination of serviceMaintainability of appealEmployer's right of appealService matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal could entertain appeals filed by an employer against orders previously passed by Labour Courts, the National Industrial Relations Commission, or Civil Courts, which had abated due to the statutory change. The Tribunal had dismissed these appeals, holding that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over other judicial forums and that only civil servants could invoke its jurisdiction under Section 4 of the Act. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, holding that Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, provides a special remedy upon the abatement of proceedings, allowing any party to such proceedings to approach the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate these matters on their merits. The principle laid down is that Section 6 overrides Section 4 in cases of abatement, and the Tribunal must determine the legality of original termination orders rather than dismissing appeals on technical grounds of maintainability.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals filed by an employer against orders of Labour Courts or other forums that have abated under Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Can an employer, as a party to proceedings that have abated, file an appeal before the Service Tribunal under Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, override the provisions of Section 4 regarding the maintainability of appeals before the Service Tribunal in cases of abatement?
  Read full judgment →
• Auditor-General of Pakistan Versus Ikramullah Khan2002 PLC(CS) 168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  compulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingsproportionality of punishmentinefficiencyservice lawFederal Service Tribunalcommensurate punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the respondent, a Divisional Accounts Officer, to the withholding of promotion for three years. The respondent had been charged with inefficiency regarding unauthorized payments made in the C&W Division. The core legal question was whether the penalty of compulsory retirement was commensurate with the established charge of inefficiency, particularly when other functionaries identified as bearing major responsibility in the enquiry report faced no disciplinary action. The Supreme Court held that the penalty of compulsory retirement was excessive. The Court observed that the irregularity involved no fraud, forgery, or embezzlement, but rather stemmed from human error without malicious motive. Furthermore, the Court noted the discriminatory nature of the disciplinary action, as the primary responsibility was attributed to the District Accounts Officer, who was not penalized. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, establishing the principle that punishment in disciplinary proceedings must always be commensurate with the guilt established and that selective or disproportionate punishment is legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a penalty of compulsory retirement for inefficiency sustainable when the employee's role was secondary to other officials who faced no disciplinary action?
  • Must the punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings be commensurate with the guilt established?
  • Can a penalty be modified by an appellate tribunal if it is found to be excessive in relation to the nature of the misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Federal Government Employees' Housing Foundation Versus Muhammad Akram Alizai, Deputy Controller, PBC, Islamabad2002 PLC(CS) 1655 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-18
  housing foundationterms and conditions of serviceFederal Service Tribunal jurisdictionallotment of plotjudicial reviewwrit petitionpublic agency
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal directing the Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation to consider the respondent, a Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation employee, for allotment of a plot under the civil servant quota. The core legal questions were whether the Foundation—a company limited by guarantee—is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199, and whether the allotment of a plot under its housing scheme forms part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant so as to attract the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's judgment. The Court held that while the Foundation functions as an official agency controlled by the Federal Government, making its actions subject to judicial review via civil suit or writ petition, plot allotments under its self-financing schemes do not constitute terms and conditions of service. Consequently, the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain service appeals regarding such allotments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the allotment of a residential plot by a government housing foundation constitute a term and condition of service enforceable before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain appeals regarding matters that do not relate to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Is a government-controlled company functioning as an official agency of a Ministry subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Shah Versus Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd., H.Q., Islamabad2002 PLC(CS) 1647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-23
  service lawdepartmental promotionhonourable acquittalwithdrawal of prosecutiondiscrimination in servicecriminal procedureseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of the appellant's service appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the denial of his promotion. The appellant, an Assistant Divisional Engineer, had his promotion deferred due to pending criminal charges under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Although the government subsequently withdrew the prosecution, the department denied the appellant's promotion, arguing that the withdrawal did not constitute an 'honourable acquittal.' The core legal question was whether the withdrawal of a criminal case under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitutes an acquittal sufficient to entitle an employee to promotion, and whether the concept of 'honourable acquittal' is legally recognized. The Supreme Court held that the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 results in an acquittal, and the distinction regarding 'honourable acquittal' is a self-coined term alien to the Code. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appellant was entitled to promotion from the date his juniors were promoted, as the denial constituted discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a criminal case under Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute an acquittal?
  • Is the concept of 'honourable acquittal' recognized under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an employee be denied promotion on the basis that the withdrawal of a criminal case against them does not amount to an 'honourable acquittal'?
  Read full judgment →
• Baber Gul Versus Sohail Ahmad Sheikh2002 PLC(CS) 160 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  seniority disputeservice tribunalcondonation of delaylimitationad hoc appointmentjudicial discretionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal regarding a seniority dispute between Deputy Superintendents of Police. The petitioners, who were initially appointed on an ad hoc basis and later regularized, contested the Tribunal's decision to accept the respondent's appeal, which had been filed with a two-day delay. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the determination of whether there is sufficient cause for condoning a delay is a question of fact falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that once the Tribunal exercises its discretion to condone a delay, such a decision is not subject to interference by the Supreme Court unless it is arbitrary or capricious. The principle established is that the Supreme Court will not disturb the Service Tribunal's discretionary exercise of power regarding limitation periods, provided the discretion was exercised judiciously and based on the record.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to interfere with a Service Tribunal's decision to condone a delay in filing an appeal?
  • Is the determination of sufficient cause for condonation of delay a question of fact within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by a Service Tribunal regarding limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Khan Versus Federal Employees Benevolent and Group Insurance Funds2002 PLC(CS) 15 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-08
  civil servicesenioritypromotionvoluntary forfeituredefermentservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding seniority disputes within the Federal Employees Benevolent and Group Insurance Funds. The petitioner, an Assistant Director, sought ante-dating of his promotion to Director, arguing that his voluntary forfeiture of a previous promotion opportunity should not prejudice his seniority relative to a colleague promoted earlier. The core legal question was whether a civil servant who voluntarily opts out of a promotion opportunity can claim seniority over a junior colleague who was promoted earlier, under the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's voluntary choice to forego promotion did not constitute 'deferment' or circumstances 'beyond control' under the rules. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that seniority in a promoted post takes effect from the date of regular appointment. The key principle laid down is that the general rule of seniority—whereby a civil servant promoted earlier is senior to those promoted later—prevails unless specific exceptions regarding deferment or circumstances beyond control are met, which do not apply to voluntary forfeiture of promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant who voluntarily forfeits a promotion opportunity qualify for the protection of seniority rules regarding deferment?
  • From what date does seniority in a post to which a civil servant is promoted take effect?
  • Are civil servants who are promoted on an earlier date generally senior to those promoted later under the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993?
  Read full judgment →
• Imdad Magsi Versus Karachi Water and Sewerage Board2002 PLC(CS) 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-14
  writ of mandamusservice tribunal jurisdictionprobation periodretrenchmentconstitutional petitionKarachi Water and Sewerage Boarddeemed confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil appeals against a High Court judgment dismissing constitutional petitions filed by employees of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KW&SB) seeking the implementation of a reinstatement order passed by the Chief Minister of Sindh. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could issue a writ of mandamus to enforce the Chief Minister's appellate order, whether the Vice-Chairman of the Board had the authority to obstruct such an order, and whether the dispute fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Vice-Chairman’s interference was without lawful authority. It ruled that the dispute did not concern the original terms and conditions of service but rather the enforcement of a final appellate order, thus falling outside the Service Tribunal's exclusive domain. The Court established that where an appellate authority has already redressed a grievance, the High Court has the jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to ensure the implementation of that order, particularly when subordinate functionaries obstruct it without legal basis.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus to enforce an order passed by the Chief Minister in an appeal?
  • Can a Vice-Chairman of a statutory board interfere with or block the implementation of an order passed by the Provincial Government or Chief Minister?
  • Does a dispute regarding the implementation of an appellate order fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • When does an employee on probation attain the status of a permanent employee by operation of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal Qureshi Versus Muhammad Ali2002 PLC(CS) 1358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  damagesleave preparatory to retirementwithholding of salarytorturepublic official liabilitycivil revisionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the decree of damages against the petitioner, a District Accounts Officer, for unreasonably withholding the salary of the respondent, a government servant, following the withdrawal of his Leave Preparatory to Retirement (L.P.R.). The core legal question concerned whether a public official could be held liable in damages for mental torture and financial hardship caused by an unjustified and arbitrary refusal to release statutory pay. The Supreme Court held that the District Accounts Officer acted without authority and exhibited high-handedness in challenging the competent authority's decision to cancel the L.P.R. and refusing to honor valid pay bills despite applicable government policy. The Court laid down the principle that government officials dealing with public rights and fellow servants are legally and morally bound to perform their duties without arbitrary obstruction, and that an unreasonable, sadistic refusal to release rightful dues causing mental and financial injury gives rise to civil liability in damages.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government servant sue for damages against a public official for the arbitrary and unjustified withholding of salary?
  • Does a District Accounts Officer have the authority to challenge the competence of an authority that has withdrawn an employee's Leave Preparatory to Retirement?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the quantum of damages awarded by lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus General Manager, Pakistan Railways2002 PLC(CS) 1181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-18
  service appeallimitation periodbelated grievance noticeremoval from serviceservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The core legal question concerns the limitation period and unexplained delay in pursuing remedies regarding the removal from service of a Pakistan Railways employee who remained absent from duty. The Supreme Court held that the petition was devoid of force due to an unexplained delay of six years in sending a grievance notice and filing proceedings, as well as the appeal being barred by time following the insertion of section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The key principle laid down is that unexplained, inordinate delay in invoking the jurisdiction of judicial forums and service tribunals disentitles a party to relief, and proceedings instituted beyond the prescribed limitation periods are liable to dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unexplained delay of several years in filing a grievance notice and petition bars the remedy?
  • Is an appeal before the Service Tribunals barred by time if not filed within the prescribed limitation period following the introduction of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez Abbasi Versus Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation; Karachi2002 PLC(CS) 1083 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-02-12
  service tribunaldepartmental appealmaster and servantaudi alteram partemback benefitsreinstatementabatement of suits
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals, by leave of the court, arise from judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi, regarding the termination of service of various employees of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). The core legal questions involve the competency of service appeals without prior departmental representations following the abatement of civil suits under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the applicability of natural justice and the master-and-servant rule, and entitlement to back benefits. The Supreme Court held that PIAC employees and others whose organizations lack statutory service rules are not strictly obliged to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Federal Service Tribunal. Furthermore, the court held that the maxim audi alteram partem applies to adverse employment actions even under master-and-servant frameworks, rendering arbitrary termination without a show-cause notice unlawful, and that the Service Tribunal possesses the power to order reinstatement under section 5 of the Act. The key principles laid down are that employees of corporations deemed civil servants solely under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 without governing statutory rules can directly approach the Service Tribunal, and that the principle of natural justice must be observed prior to any adverse termination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees of an organization lacking statutory service rules are obliged to file departmental appeals before approaching the Federal Service Tribunal under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem) apply to terminate the services of an employee governed by the master-and-servant principle?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to order reinstatement of an illegally terminated employee of a corporation?
  • Under what circumstances is an employee entitled to back benefits upon reinstatement by the Federal Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Sikandar Ali Shah Versus Auditor-General of Pakistan2002 PLC(CS) 1027 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-01
  civil servicelienreinstatementretrospective terminationservice appealback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that upheld the termination of the appellant, a Senior Auditor, from his parent department. The appellant had joined another organization as a Management Trainee while retaining his lien in his parent department for two years with official approval. Following the termination of his training appointment, the appellant sought to rejoin his parent department within the stipulated lien period, but his request was denied, and his services were terminated retrospectively. The Supreme Court held that the appellant possessed a valid right to revert to his parent department, as his lien had not expired and he had not been permanently absorbed elsewhere. The Court ruled that the termination order was unlawful, particularly because it was given retrospective effect without express statutory authority. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that statutory rules, such as the Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules, 1993, must be interpreted holistically rather than in isolation. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and ordered the appellant's reinstatement with full back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant who has retained a lien in their parent department revert to that department after the termination of a new appointment?
  • Is a termination order issued with retrospective effect legally sustainable in the absence of express statutory authority?
  • Should statutory rules be interpreted by reading specific sub-rules in isolation or as a comprehensive whole?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Versus Omar Saeed Nazi2002 PLC(CS) 1019 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-18
  service appealnepotismirregular appointmentmerit-based recruitmentcontractual employmentshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which allowed a service appeal filed by the respondent. The respondent was appointed as an Officer (Marketing) in the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) on a contract basis, a process facilitated by his own father, who served as an Administrative Manager within the same department. The appointment was made without public advertisement, without a solicited application, and against a vacancy that had not been properly established by the Board of Directors. The Corporation subsequently terminated the respondent's services after issuing a show-cause notice regarding the irregularities, nepotism, and lack of merit in his initial appointment. The core legal question is whether the respondent's appointment, characterized by nepotism and procedural irregularities, violated the principles of transparency and merit-based recruitment established by the Supreme Court. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the appointment was contrary to the principles laid down in Abdul Jabbar Memon v. PIA, which strictly prohibits illegal appointments made due to extraneous reasons, nepotism, or favoritism.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appointment made through nepotism and without public advertisement be sustained in a public corporation?
  • Does an appointment made against a vacancy not approved by the competent authority constitute an illegal appointment?
  • Whether an employee appointed through irregular means and nepotism is entitled to protection against termination?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan Versus Doctor Waseem Imran Sheikh2002 PLC(CS) 1009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-17
  service appealtermination of serviceshow-cause noticeexhaustion of remediesstatutory corporationback benefitsdepartmental appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent, a former employee of the State Life Insurance Corporation, with back benefits following his termination. The core legal questions were whether the respondent was required to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Service Tribunal, and whether the termination was lawful in the absence of a show-cause notice. The Supreme Court held that because the State Life Employees (Service) Regulations, 1973, did not provide a specific mechanism for appeals against termination, the respondent was not required to file a departmental appeal before approaching the Tribunal. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the termination was unjustified as it was effected without a show-cause notice. The principle laid down is that where service rules of a statutory corporation do not provide for an appeal or representation against a departmental order, an aggrieved employee may approach the Service Tribunal directly. Additionally, the Court reiterated that the services of an employee, whether permanent or on probation, cannot be terminated without issuing a show-cause notice.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee of a statutory corporation approach the Service Tribunal directly if the applicable service regulations do not provide a mechanism for departmental appeal?
  • Is the issuance of a show-cause notice a mandatory requirement before terminating the services of an employee of a statutory corporation?
  • Does the absence of a statutory provision for appeal or representation waive the requirement to exhaust departmental remedies under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ullah Baloch Versus Government of Balochistan2002 PLC(CS) 1002 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-02-27
  service lawpromotionfitness for promotionservice tribunal jurisdictionpromotion policycivil servantannual confidential report
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his service appeal by the Balochistan Service Tribunal, which had declined jurisdiction regarding his non-promotion from B-19 to B-20. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to review promotion decisions when a civil servant alleges violations of the Promotion Policy, despite the statutory bar under Section 4(b) of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974, regarding 'fitness' for promotion. The Supreme Court held that while the determination of 'fitness' for promotion is generally subjective and beyond judicial scrutiny, the Service Tribunal retains jurisdiction to examine whether the promotion process adhered to established Promotion Policy and whether objective factors were properly considered. However, upon reviewing the merits, the Court found the petitioner failed to meet the mandatory 70-mark threshold for selection posts, scoring only 69.36. Furthermore, his challenge to a past Annual Confidential Report was rejected as time-barred and meritless. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, affirming that while procedural adherence is justiciable, the subjective assessment of fitness remains protected.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to review a promotion decision if the civil servant alleges a violation of the Promotion Policy?
  • Is the determination of a civil servant's fitness for promotion subject to judicial scrutiny by the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a civil servant challenge the scoring of an Annual Confidential Report years after the entry was made?
  • Are posts in Basic Pay Scale 19 and above considered selection posts subject to specific eligibility thresholds?
  Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. Versus Engr. Naraindas2001 PLC(CS) 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-03-30
  review petitionmaster and servantservice tribunalreinstatementnon-statutory rulespublic corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses review petitions filed against an earlier decision of the Supreme Court that had set aside impugned termination judgments and directed the petitioner-Company to absorb the respondent-employees. The core legal questions involved whether the rule of master and servant barred the reinstatement of employees of a public corporation governed by non-statutory rules, and whether the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 empowered Service Tribunals to order reinstatement instead of merely awarding damages. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that a review does not lie merely to re-hear a case or because a different view is possible. The Court reaffirmed that upon the statutory intervention of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the Service Tribunal possesses the authority to set aside illegal terminations and direct reinstatement. The key principle laid down is that public corporations cannot arbitrarily violate internal service rules under the guise of master and servant, and statutory service tribunals have full competence to grant appropriate remedies including reinstatement in service.

  Questions settled

  • Does a review petition lie merely because a judgment is considered wrong or because a different view is plausible?
  • Whether the rule of master and servant bars a Service Tribunal from ordering reinstatement of an employee of a public corporation whose services are terminated illegally?
  • What is the effect of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on employment disputes previously governed strictly by the common law master and servant principle?
  • Can a public corporation be permitted to violate its own framed service rules under the pretext that they lack statutory force?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.?W.F.P Versus Ruhul Qudoos2001 PLC(CS) 697 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-10-20
  Service Review Boardcompulsory retirementreinstatementback benefitscompetent authorityservice tribunalpast and closed transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal whereby the respondent's service appeal was accepted and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits. The respondent, a former Superintendent of Police, had been compulsorily retired from service under Section 13(i) of the N.W.F.P. Civil Servants Act, 1973. Subsequently, the Government constituted a Service Review Board to review cases of civil servants prematurely retired. The Board examined the respondent's case, found his ACRs to be good, and recommended his reinstatement, which the competent authority and Governor rejected summarily. The core legal question was whether the competent authority could arbitrarily reject the recommendations of the duly constituted Service Review Board and whether the original retirement order constituted a past and closed transaction. The Supreme Court held that the establishment of the Review Board reopened the matter and that the competent authority could not reject the Board's recommendations mechanically or arbitrarily without providing justiciable reasons. The appeal was dismissed with a modification regarding back benefits, which the respondent voluntarily abandoned.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the constitution of a Service Review Board effectively reopens a past and closed transaction regarding a civil servant's compulsory retirement?
  • Is the competent authority bound to record proper, justiciable reasons when disagreeing with the recommendations of a Service Review Board?
  • Can an order rejecting the recommendations of a Service Review Board be passed mechanically and without a proper application of mind?
  • Whether a civil servant is entitled to full back benefits upon reinstatement when the absence from service was due to an arbitrary retirement order?
  Read full judgment →
• The Managing Director, Sui Southern Gas Co. Ltd. Versus Saleem Mustafa Shaikh2001 PLC(CS) 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-07-10
  service tribunal jurisdictionmaster and servanttermination of serviceprobation perioddiscrimination in employmentexecutive service rulesdeemed civil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions challenging the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment setting aside the termination of the respondent's service as a trainee engineer and directing the petitioner company to issue a letter of absorption. The core legal questions involve whether the Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to enforce internal company rules in employment disputes of deemed civil servants, whether an employee can be kept on a temporary assignment or probation indefinitely beyond the maximum period prescribed by the company's executive service rules, and whether arbitrary termination and discriminatory treatment of similarly placed employees violate principles of fairness. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly enforced the company's internal executive service rules regarding probation and found the termination unsustainable due to lack of valid reasons and established discrimination. The court laid down the principle that employers cannot arbitrarily bypass their own framed service rules to the detriment of employees, and that keeping an employee on extended temporary status beyond maximum probationary limits without proper cause is impermissible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to enforce non-statutory executive service rules of a corporate body controlled by the Federal Government?
  • Can an employer retain an employee on a temporary training assignment or probation beyond the maximum period prescribed under the service rules?
  • Whether an employee whose services are terminated without assigning reasons can claim protection against discriminatory treatment when similarly placed employees are regularized?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Maj. (Retd.) Muhammad Azam2001 PLC(CS) 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-13
  probationary periodtermination of servicemala fidecivil servantvictimizationservice tribunalreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Federation of Pakistan challenged the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment, which set aside the termination of the respondent's services. The respondent, a System Analyst, completed his two-year probationary period on July 20, 1993. The core legal question was whether the respondent's services were validly terminated before the expiry of his probation period and whether the termination was tainted by mala fide. The Supreme Court held that the termination order, served after office hours on the final day of the probationary period, was ineffective as the respondent had already successfully completed his probation. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings that the department's action was an act of victimization and mala fide, lacking support from applicable rules. The principle laid down is that where a probationer completes the prescribed probationary period without adverse orders being effectively served during working hours, the service is deemed satisfactory, and subsequent termination attempts are invalid. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the respondent's reinstatement and the Tribunal's decision regarding the lack of legal basis for the termination.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant's services be terminated after the expiry of the probationary period if the termination order is served after office hours on the final day?
  • Does the completion of a probationary period without adverse remarks create a presumption of satisfactory service?
  • Is a termination order issued against a civil servant valid if it is found to be motivated by mala fide and victimization?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque Versus Government of the Punjab2001 PLC(CS) 382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-11-22
  service appealleave to appealvested rightamended ruleslachesmisjoinder of partiesjoint appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 16-9-1999 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed their service appeal against departmental authorities. The petitioners contended that rules could not be changed to their detriment and explained the delay in approaching the Tribunal by referring to writ petitions and departmental representations. Conversely, the caveator argued that the appeal before the Tribunal was improperly instituted due to the non-joinder of the competent authority and that a joint appeal was not maintainable. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether employees have a vested right to be governed by rules prevailing at the time of their induction or by amended rules, whether the service appeal suffered from laches and misjoinder of parties, and whether a joint appeal before the Service Tribunal was competent. The request for interim relief was declined, and the main appeal was ordered to be fixed for hearing within six months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the petitioners can legally claim to be governed by the rules which prevailed at the time of their induction in service, or they have no vested right to claim so and they will be governed by the amended rules?
  • Whether the appeal before the Tribunal suffered from laches/undue delay and misjoinder of parties?
  • Whether joint appeal before the Board by all the petitioners was not competent?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaullah Sheikh Versus WAPDA2001 PLC(CS) 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-09-20
  suspension periodhonourable acquittalback benefitsdepartmental proceedingsbenefit of doubtservice lawWAPDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the entitlement of a government servant to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension following an acquittal in criminal proceedings. The appellant, a WAPDA employee, was suspended pending criminal charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Although acquitted by the Special Judge, the department denied full emoluments, citing a separate departmental penalty imposed under the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. The core legal question was whether an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt constitutes an "honourable acquittal" entitling the employee to full pay, and whether departmental proceedings based on the same charges remain valid after a criminal acquittal. The Supreme Court held that all acquittals are "honourable," and departmental proceedings based on the same charges as a criminal case become irrelevant upon acquittal by a competent court. Consequently, the appellant was deemed entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspension period. The principle established is that criminal acquittal precludes departmental reliance on the same charges to deny financial benefits during suspension.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt constitute an 'honourable acquittal' for the purpose of service rules?
  • Are departmental proceedings based on the same charges as a criminal case maintainable after the employee's acquittal by a competent court?
  • Is a government servant entitled to full pay and allowances for the period of suspension upon acquittal in criminal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali Versus Board of Intermedaite and Secondary Education2001 PLC(CS) 280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  probationary periodtermination of servicead hoc appointmentservice regulationstermination simplicitervested rightcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions challenging the termination of service of employees by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad. The core legal questions were whether the termination of regularized employees during their probationary period was lawful despite the lack of a prior hearing, and whether ad hoc employees possess a vested right to continued employment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the termination of the regularized employees was lawful as it strictly adhered to the terms and conditions of their appointment letters and the applicable service regulations. The Court further held that termination simpliciter during probation, without casting a stigma, does not require a prior hearing. Regarding the ad hoc employees, the Court held they held no vested right to claim continuation in service. The key principle laid down is that where an appointment is subject to a probationary period, the employer may terminate the service in accordance with the terms of the appointment letter and governing regulations without a hearing, provided the termination is not punitive or stigmatizing.

  Questions settled

  • Can the services of a probationer be terminated without a prior hearing if the termination is not stigmatizing?
  • Does an ad hoc employee have a vested right to claim continuation in service beyond the fixed period of appointment?
  • Is a termination of service valid if it is executed in accordance with the express terms and conditions of the appointment order?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, Karachi Versus Shah Muhammad Chaudhry2001 PLC(CS) 1247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-05-22
  service lawreversionlocus poenitentiaenatural justicelimitation periodabsorptionpensionary benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that allowed a respondent's appeal regarding his reversion from the post of Deputy General Manager to Manager. The respondent, originally a government servant, was absorbed into the petitioner's service but was later reverted without a show-cause notice or disciplinary proceedings. The core legal questions were whether the respondent's appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred and whether the reversion was legally sustainable without due process. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the reversion was unlawful as it violated the principles of natural justice and the rule of locus poenitentiae, given that the respondent had served in the higher position for years without misconduct. The Court affirmed that the respondent was entitled to the difference in pay and pensionary benefits accrued during the period of his wrongful reversion. The key principle laid down is that an employee cannot be reverted from a position to which they were validly absorbed without a show-cause notice or an opportunity to defend, particularly when the action lacks a valid disciplinary basis.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee be reverted from a position to which they were validly absorbed without a show-cause notice or opportunity to be heard?
  • Does the pendency of a matter before a departmental review committee toll the limitation period for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal?
  • Is the rule of locus poenitentiae applicable when an employee has served in a position for a significant period without any charge of misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq Versus G.M. SNGP Ltd., Lahore2000 PLC(CS) 888 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-21
  service appealgross misconductdepartmental inquiryleave to appealquestion of lawservice tribunaldismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld his dismissal from service by the departmental authority. The petitioner had been dismissed for gross misconduct after being found guilty of stripping naked in office premises during working hours. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner admitted to stripping but claimed it was a reflexive action due to a swarm of bees entering his clothes. The Tribunal rejected this explanation as unbelievable and affirmed the dismissal, noting that the petitioner's admission rendered the absence of eyewitnesses irrelevant and that the inquiry report's preparation by a subordinate did not invalidate the proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court held that the petitioner's contentions regarding the lack of direct evidence and the validity of the inquiry were essentially factual grievances rather than questions of law of public importance. Finding no legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision, the Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the findings of fact by the Service Tribunal regarding misconduct were not subject to interference under the constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the preparation of an inquiry report by a subordinate, rather than the Inquiry Officer personally, render the inquiry legally defective?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's findings of fact under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does an admission of the act by the accused render the absence of eyewitnesses in a departmental inquiry irrelevant?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Akhtar Versus M.S., Mental Hospital , M. Sharif Butt2000 PLC(CS) 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-29
  service tribunaldismissal from serviceillegal strikehospital staffessential servicesleave to appealrule of consistency
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of 47 petitions directed against a common judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals against their dismissal from service. The petitioners, who were hospital staff, had gone on an illegal strike, abandoning their duties despite repeated public notices and warnings issued by the competent authority, resulting in severe hardships and casualties among patients. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether leave to appeal should be granted against the Tribunal's decision upholding the dismissal, and whether the rule of consistency applied to reinstate the petitioners based on past cases. The Supreme Court held that the petitions lacked merit and declined to grant leave, noting that the petitioners were subject to the Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958, which prohibits such absence and imposes criminal liability. The key principle laid down is that hospital employees engaged in essential services cannot abandon their duties through strikes without legal justification, and irresponsible conduct resulting in patient suffering and casualties disentitles them to discretionary relief from the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether hospital employees subject to the Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958 have any legal justification to go on strike and abandon their duties?
  • Does the rule of consistency apply to reinstate delinquent employees dismissed for participating in an illegal strike in essential services?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will grant discretionary leave to appeal to employees whose irresponsible conduct during a strike resulted in patient hardships and casualties?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ahmad Khan Versus Muhammad Ramzan Abid Muhammad Sharif Butt , Rana Maqbool Ahmad Khan2000 PLC(CS) 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-24
  service tribunalpromotionnecessary partyright of audienceremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal challenging an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated 3-8-1998, wherein the Tribunal accepted an appeal holding that a department was not justified in forcing a promotion upon an employee who consistently refused it and whose request to forego promotion had been approved by the Chief Minister. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an affected party who was not impleaded before the Service Tribunal could challenge an order passed in his absence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was a necessary party who was not heard before the Tribunal and consequently set aside the matter by remanding the case back to the Tribunal. The Court laid down the principle that an adversely affected person must be given an opportunity to be heard and may apply to be impleaded as a respondent in the pending service appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a department force a promotion upon an employee against their wishes when the refusal has been approved by the competent authority?
  • Whether an order passed by a Service Tribunal without hearing a necessary party is sustainable?
  • What is the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved person who was not joined as a party in proceedings before the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz Versus Pakistan Railways2000 PLC(CS) 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-10
  back benefitsservice lawmisconductreinstatementgainful employmentFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which reinstated a Pakistan Railways employee who had been removed from service on charges of misconduct. While the Tribunal set aside the removal order, finding the department's action unjustified and the charges unproven, it denied the petitioner back benefits for the period of his forced absence. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an employee, exonerated of charges and reinstated in service, is entitled to back benefits when the department fails to prove gainful employment elsewhere during the period of removal. The Supreme Court held that since the petitioner was exonerated on merits rather than technical grounds, and given the respondent's failure to challenge the reinstatement or prove the petitioner was gainfully employed elsewhere, the denial of back benefits was unjustified. The Court established the principle that an employee exonerated of misconduct charges and reinstated is entitled to full back benefits unless the employer can demonstrate that the employee was gainfully employed during the period of separation.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee who is exonerated of misconduct charges and reinstated in service entitled to back benefits?
  • Does the burden of proof lie with the employer to show that a reinstated employee was gainfully employed elsewhere during the period of removal?
  • Can a service tribunal deny back benefits to an employee who was removed from service without justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilqees Zairian Versus Federation of Pakistan2000 PLC(CS) 1300 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-12
  service lawretrospective promotionlimitationservice tribunalreinstatementseniorityback benefitscivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for promotion to Grade-17 with retrospective effect from 1972, along with associated seniority and back benefits. The appellant, a former Population Welfare Officer, challenged her termination and subsequent reinstatement, arguing she was entitled to the same benefits as her juniors. The core legal questions concerned the validity of her claim for retrospective promotion and whether her appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, dismissing the appeal. The Court held that claims regarding service benefits for periods preceding an individual's status as a civil servant are legally untenable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that Service Tribunals possess the inherent competence to determine the issue of limitation regarding departmental appeals, irrespective of whether the departmental authority explicitly raised the objection. Finally, the Court ruled that reinstatement orders issued in compliance with judicial directives do not confer retrospective benefits unless the order explicitly provides for such treatment, rejecting the appellant's contention that her reinstatement was distinct from others.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal adjudicate the issue of limitation for a departmental appeal even if the departmental authority did not raise it?
  • Is a claim for promotion and seniority maintainable for a period during which the claimant was not a civil servant?
  • Does a reinstatement order passed in compliance with a court judgment automatically entitle a civil servant to retrospective benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan Versus Imtiaz . Ahmed Gill1999 PLC(CS) 419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yar Buttar Versus Board of Governors, Overseas Pakistanis Foundation, Islamabad1999 PLC(CS) 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-27
  Service Tribunalmaintainability of appealshow-cause noticeterms and conditions of servicedisciplinary proceedingscivil servantinterim orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellants' appeals against show-cause notices issued to them by the Overseas Pakistanis Foundation (O.P.F.) for alleged irregularities and misconduct. The core legal question is whether, following the omission of the word 'final' from section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, an appeal is maintainable before the Service Tribunal against an interim or procedural step such as a show-cause notice. The Supreme Court held that the omission of the word 'final' does not render all intermediate or procedural orders, including show-cause notices, appealable, as doing so would frustrate and endlessly prolong disciplinary proceedings. The Court laid down the principle that an appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is maintainable only against final orders affecting the terms and conditions of service—specifically involving departmental punishments or penalties such as dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement, or reduction in rank—unless issues of mala fides or coram non judice are involved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a show-cause notice issued in disciplinary proceedings is appealable before the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Does the omission of the word 'final' from section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 make all interim and procedural orders appealable?
  • What types of orders are appealable before the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 in respect of terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Baluch Versus Liaqat Ali Baloch1999 PLC(CS) 397 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-20
  seniority disputecivil servantplenary powersconstitutional petitionjurisdiction of High CourtSupreme Court judgmentaid of Supreme Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service dispute over inter se seniority between two provincial government employees in Sindh, where the appellant's claim to seniority had previously been dismissed by the Sindh Service Tribunal and ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. Notwithstanding the finality of the Supreme Court's decision, the Provincial Government subsequently issued notifications purporting to grant the appellant seniority and promotion benefits by invoking the plenary powers under section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973. The respondent challenged these notifications through a constitutional petition before the High Court, which allowed the petition and declared the notifications void. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the constitutional petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional petition was maintainable and that the bar of Article 212 was not attracted, as the core issue was not a mere dispute over terms and conditions of service, but whether the executive government could bypass and nullify a final judgment of the Supreme Court under the garb of section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, in violation of its constitutional duty to act in aid of the Supreme Court under Article 190. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and the leave earlier granted was recalled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 precludes the High Court from entertaining a constitutional petition challenging executive orders that seek to bypass a final judgment of the Supreme Court regarding civil service seniority?
  • Can the Provincial Government exercise its plenary powers under section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 to alter the inter se seniority of civil servants that has already been finally settled by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
  • Does an executive authority have a constitutional duty under Article 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to enforce and respect in letter and spirit the final orders and judgments passed by the Supreme Court?
  • Whether notifications issued under section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 to circumvent judicial determinations can be assailed through a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab Versus Jamida Malik1999 PLC(CS) 389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-05
  correction of date of birthsuperannuationcivil servantlimitationservice tribunalestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which accepted the respondent's appeal and corrected her date of birth from 6 July 1930 to 17 December 1934, setting aside her retirement notification. The core legal question was whether a civil servant can seek the correction of their date of birth after remaining silent for over thirty years and nearing the age of superannuation, in violation of service rules prescribing a two-year limitation period. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that a civil servant cannot remain in deep slumber for decades, acquiesce to recorded entries, and then abruptly seek a change in the date of birth at the fag end of their service career without explaining the inordinate delay. The key principle laid down is that applications for the correction of a date of birth filed beyond the prescribed period of two years from entering service, or after prolonged and unexplained delay, are barred by limitation and principles of estoppel, and courts must discourage the growing tendency of government employees attempting to alter their dates of birth near retirement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant seek the correction of their date of birth after remaining silent for more than thirty years of service?
  • Whether the prescribed two-year limitation period under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Financial Rules Volume-I for correcting a date of birth is mandatory?
  • Does an inordinate and unexplained delay in challenging the recorded date of birth constitute a bar of limitation?
  • Is a civil servant estopped by their conduct from challenging their recorded date of birth at the fag end of their service career?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman, Central Board of Revenue Versus Muhammad Malook1999 PLC(CS) 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-15
  civil servicepromotiondepartmental promotion committeevested rightdisciplinary proceedingsmeritorious servicewithholding promotion
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, which directed the promotion of the respondent to BS-18 after his name was omitted from a promotion notification despite being recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The core legal question was whether the competent authority could withhold a promotion after the Departmental Promotion Committee had found the candidate fit and the authority had initially approved the recommendation, based on unproven allegations of corruption. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that once a candidate is recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee and approved by the competent authority, a vested right is created. The Court found that the withholding of the respondent's promotion without any disciplinary proceedings, show-cause notice, or substantiated material—and in the face of his record of meritorious service—was legally unwarranted. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant cannot be denied a promotion based on mere suspicion or unproven allegations of misconduct; proper disciplinary proceedings must be initiated if there is material to support such claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does the recommendation of a Departmental Promotion Committee followed by the approval of the competent authority create a vested right to promotion?
  • Can a civil servant's promotion be withheld based on unproven allegations of misconduct without initiating disciplinary proceedings?
  • Is a promotion notification valid if it omits a candidate previously approved by the competent authority without providing a legal basis for such omission?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed Dhoon Versus Government of Sindh1999 PLC(CS) 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-08
  civil service appointmentpublic service commissionleave to appealadministrative lawconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the appointment and promotion of several Assistant Commissioners. The petitioner contended that the appointments of respondents Nos. 3 to 28, made without routing through the Sindh Public Service Commission, were unlawful, and that the promotion of respondents Nos. 29 to 52 against reserved posts was irregular. The High Court had previously held that under Rule 5 of the Sindh Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1990, the Chief Minister possessed the authority to exclude certain posts from the Commission's purview in the public interest. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that leave to appeal had already been granted in similar pending cases involving the same controversy regarding the induction of these respondents. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal specifically regarding the induction of respondents Nos. 3 to 28, who were appointed via a 'Selection Board' rather than the Sindh Public Service Commission, to determine if the High Court's view aligns with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chief Minister exclude specific posts from the purview of the Sindh Public Service Commission under the Sindh Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1990?
  • Is the induction of civil servants through a 'Selection Board' without reference to the Public Service Commission lawful?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a constitutional petition regarding civil service appointments, or does the matter fall exclusively under the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed Versus Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi1999 PLC(CS) 323 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-30Read full judgment →