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.

• Amanatullah Khan Versus WAPDA, Lahore1999 PLC(CS) 316 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-08
  service lawpensionary benefitsvested rightsretrospective applicationWAPDAremoval from serviceSection 17(1-A)
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's claim for pensionary benefits following his removal from service by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) on December 10, 1977, under Section 17(1-A) of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to pension benefits and whether a subsequent amendment to the WAPDA Pension Rules, 1977, which disqualified employees removed under Section 17(1-A) from receiving pension, could be applied retrospectively to his case. The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s right to pension was governed by the rules in force at the time of his removal in 1977. Consequently, the Court ruled that the subsequent amendment could not retrospectively divest the appellant of a vested right. Furthermore, because the removal order was issued simpliciter without alleging misconduct or corruption, the disqualification provisions of the unamended rules were inapplicable. The Court directed WAPDA to compute and grant the appellant's pension, excluding the period he remained in service due to stay orders.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subsequent amendment to pension rules retrospectively deprive an employee of a vested right to pension?
  • Does a removal order under Section 17(1-A) of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958, issued without assigning reasons, automatically disqualify an employee from pension benefits under Rule 7(iv) of the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Pension Rules 1977?
  • Is an employee entitled to pension benefits for a period during which they remained in service due to stay orders obtained in legal proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmed Versus Chairman, Pakistan Railways Board1999 PLC(CS) 290 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-08
  service tribunalremoval from servicecivil servantworkmanremandnatural justiceright of hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the majority judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the appellant's appeal against the penalty of removal from service imposed under the Railway Service (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975. Leave to appeal was initially granted to consider whether the Chief Inspector of Production in Loco Shop Moghalpura was a civil servant or a workman. During the hearing, counsel for the respondents pointed out a precedent where cases were remanded to the Service Tribunal because the Chairman had recorded an opinion without granting a fresh hearing to the parties. Acknowledging that a similar procedural lapse occurred in the present case where the Chairman did not issue notice or hear the parties before recording his opinion, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case back to the Service Tribunal for a fresh decision after hearing the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Chairman of the Service Tribunal can record an opinion without affording a hearing to the parties?
  • What is the legal effect of an opinion recorded by the Chairman of the Service Tribunal without issuing notice to the affected parties?
  • Whether the Supreme Court can remand a service matter to the Tribunal upon a procedural defect in the hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Versus M. Abdul Khaliq1999 PLC(CS) 1579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-12
  public appointmentmerit-based recruitmentpolitical recommendationquota systemservice lawconstitutional equalitysacred trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute over the appointment to the post of Laboratory Attendant in a government school. The respondent was initially appointed based on the recommendation of a Member of the Provincial Assembly (M.P.A.). Subsequently, the appellant, claiming a preferential right as the nominee of a land donor, successfully challenged the respondent's appointment, leading to the respondent's termination and the appellant's appointment. The Service Tribunal reinstated the respondent. The core legal question was whether appointments to public office based on political recommendations (quotas for M.P.A.s/M.N.A.s) or private nominations are legally valid. The Supreme Court held that such appointments are illegal ab initio. The Court affirmed that public appointments must be made on merit through a transparent, fair process, as public office is a sacred trust. The Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, ruling that neither party had a vested right to the post, and directed the department to fill the vacancy through open competition based strictly on merit, consistent with constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Are appointments to public office based on the recommendation of political representatives like M.P.A.s or M.N.A.s legally valid?
  • Does the allocation of quotas for public appointments to political figures violate the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can a candidate claim a preferential right to a government post based on being a nominee of a land donor?
  • Is the appointment of a public servant based on political influence void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ahmad Butt Versus Ghulam Murtaza Hashmi1999 PLC(CS) 1577 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-22
  service benefitsreinstatementindustrial relationsback benefitslabour court jurisdictionenforcement of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court order that had set aside a Labour Court's direction for the payment of service benefits to an employee. The petitioner, a former bank cashier, had been reinstated in service by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in 1988, though initially denied back benefits. Following protracted litigation, the employee sought enforcement of his post-reinstatement service benefits through a complaint under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court ordered the employer to pay these benefits, but the High Court subsequently overturned this decision. The core legal question was whether an employer is justified in withholding service benefits for the period between the employee's reinstatement and the final disposal of the case by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the employee was entitled to service benefits for the period from 12-12-1988 to 9-9-1997, finding no legal justification for withholding them. The Court established the principle that an employer cannot withhold service benefits accrued post-reinstatement pending the final outcome of litigation unless specifically ordered otherwise.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee entitled to service benefits for the period between their reinstatement and the final disposal of the case by the Supreme Court?
  • Does a Labour Court have the jurisdiction to compel an employer to implement a decision regarding service benefits under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Irshad Versus Pakistan Steel Mills, Karachi1999 PLC(CS) 1576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-29
  Service Tribunals Actretrospective operationservice matterjurisdiction of Service Tribunalremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's appeal in limine. The Tribunal had held that Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, as incorporated by Act No. XVII of 1997, did not have retrospective effect, thereby excluding the appellant's claim from its jurisdiction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal's interpretation regarding the non-retrospectivity of the newly incorporated Section 2-A was legally correct, particularly in light of established Supreme Court precedents. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the Tribunal's reasoning was inconsistent with the Court's previous rulings, specifically the judgment in Muhammad Afzal v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (Civil Appeal No. 1513 of 1998) and Ghulam Mustafa Khairati v. Federation of Pakistan (1998 SCMR 1603). Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with directions to hear the case afresh on its merits within six months, thereby affirming the applicability of the statutory provision in question.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 have retrospective effect?
  • Is a Service Tribunal empowered to dismiss an appeal in limine based on the non-retrospectivity of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Govxnment of Pakistan Versus Amar Mehmood1999 PLC(CS) 1574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
• Wazirullah Versus Chief Engineer (Hydel) North, WAPDA1999 PLC(CS) 1572 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-05
  service lawprobationary periodtermination of serviceemployees' son quotaWAPDAremandpublic functionaries
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the termination of his services as a Mali by WAPDA. The petitioner, appointed on probation, was terminated without specific reasons. He alleged his termination was based on a misconception regarding his brother's employment status under the 'employees' son quota.' The core legal question was whether the termination of a probationer, when potentially based on factual misconceptions regarding employment quotas, requires a proper departmental inquiry rather than summary dismissal. The Supreme Court held that while WAPDA may generally terminate a probationer without assigning reasons, the specific circumstances here—where the termination appeared linked to a disputed quota benefit—necessitated a factual inquiry. The Court emphasized that public functionaries have an obligation to present complete material before judicial forums to ensure fair adjudication of legal rights. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the case for a fresh decision, directing the Tribunal to ensure all relevant details and parties are heard.

  Questions settled

  • Is a public authority required to produce complete material before a judicial forum to justify an employee's termination?
  • Can a service tribunal dismiss an appeal in limine when the termination of a probationer is linked to a disputed factual premise regarding employment quotas?
  • Does the obligation of public functionaries to provide full disclosure apply to service matters involving the termination of probationers?
  Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Nazir Bhutta Versus Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Government of Punjab1999 PLC(CS) 1570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-05
  service tribunalinterim relieftransfer orderleave to appealdiscretionary power
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the interlocutory order dated 12-10-1998 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby an application for interim relief seeking a stay of the transfer order of the petitioner from District Engineer, Zila Council Rajanpur to Municipal Committee Kot Adu was dismissed. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the Service Tribunal's refusal to grant an interim injunction against a transfer order where the petitioner had already been relieved of his duties. The Supreme Court held that the grant of an interim order is a discretionary power vested in the Service Tribunal, which is entitled to examine the circumstances and existence of reasonable grounds, and found no legal infirmity or error in the impugned order since the petitioner had already handed over charge. The Supreme Court affirmed that interim relief is rightly refused when the transfer has already been given effect, dismissing the petition for leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal is justified in refusing interim relief against a transfer order where the employee has already been relieved of his duties?
  • Is the passing of an interim order considered a discretionary power vested in the Service Tribunal?
  • Does a transfer order passed allegedly under political influence render an interim stay mandatory?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan Versus Imtiaz Hussain1999 PLC(CS) 1561 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-14Read full judgment →
• Manager, State Bank of Pakistan Versus Muhammad Ikram1999 PLC(CS) 1558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-02-09
  service lawconfirmation in serviceadverse entrymemorandum of settlementadmission as evidenceconcurrent findings of factleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment upholding a decree in favor of the respondent, a former bank employee, regarding his claim for confirmation in service. The core legal question was whether the respondent, having completed two years of satisfactory service, was entitled to confirmation despite the employer's reliance on alleged adverse entries in his service record. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts correctly determined the respondent's entitlement to confirmation based on the Memorandum of Settlement, which granted benefits to temporary staff completing two years of satisfactory service. The Court affirmed that documentary evidence regarding service records takes precedence over an erroneous admission made by the respondent during testimony. Furthermore, the Court noted that juniors had been confirmed while the respondent was bypassed, constituting an injustice. The Court refused leave to appeal, emphasizing that the findings of fact were not tainted by misreading of evidence and that the issue was moot as the respondent had since retired.

  Questions settled

  • Is an admission made by a party during testimony considered conclusive proof if it contradicts established documentary evidence?
  • Does the completion of two years of satisfactory service by a temporary employee create a right to confirmation under the terms of a settlement agreement?
  • Can a party raise an objection regarding the jurisdiction of a civil court for the first time in the Supreme Court if it was not argued before the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Asghar Jameel1999 PLC(CS) 1394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-15
  service lawadministrative reorganizationsurplus employeevested rightpromotiongovernment servantpost redesignation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a service dispute regarding the reorganization of the Pakistan Public Administration Research Centre (PPARC) and the subsequent adjustment of a surplus employee into a redesignated post. The core legal question was whether the government’s administrative decision to redesignate a post and adjust an existing incumbent into it, thereby allegedly bypassing the promotion rights of another employee, was legally valid. The Supreme Court held that the government possesses plenary authority to reorganize departments, create or abolish posts, and adjust surplus staff, provided no mala fide intent is shown. The Court found that the adjustment of the appellant into the redesignated post was lawful under the applicable rules, as she was qualified and the petitioner had no vested right to the post at the time of the reorganization. The Court affirmed that administrative reorganization and the adjustment of surplus employees are within the exclusive competence of the executive, and such actions do not infringe upon the service rights of other employees unless a specific vested right is impaired or mala fide is established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the government have the plenary authority to reorganize administrative departments and redesignate posts?
  • Can a surplus government employee be adjusted against a redesignated post without violating the promotion rights of other employees?
  • Is the adjustment of a surplus employee into a redesignated post considered a violation of the Civil Servants Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• The Chairman Central Board of Revenue Versus Muhammad Malook1999 PLC(CS) 1391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-15Read full judgment →
• Masaud Jamal Versus Secrtary to the Gov Rnment of Pakistan1999 PLC(CS) 1389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-29
  move-overBPS-19adverse remarksACRdepartmental representationremandFederal Service Tribunaluncommunicated adverse remarks
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal regarding his entitlement to move-over from BPS-18 to BPS-19 with effect from 1-12-1984 on the ground that he failed to file a prior departmental representation. Leave to appeal was granted to determine whether a departmental representation was necessary given a previous FST judgment directing his move-over case to be considered without relying on uncommunicated adverse remarks. The Supreme Court observed that the department's own internal correspondence supported the appellant's entitlement, and the order turning down his request lacked reasons. Consequently, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Departmental Appellate Authority with instructions to decide the appellant's move-over case afresh within three months after hearing him, without considering uncommunicated adverse ACR remarks, and while taking into account the departmental recommendation letter.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental authority can rely on uncommunicated adverse ACR remarks to deny a civil servant move-over to a higher pay scale?
  • Whether a move-over claim can be rejected through an order that assigns no reasons?
  • Whether a service matter regarding move-over should be remanded for fresh consideration when departmental recommendations support the employee's claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Versus Chairman C.T.T. Board Chairman PTCL Islamabad1999 PLC(CS) 1386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-09
  date of birth correctionvoluntary separation schemeservice tribunalbelated claimservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The petitioner, who had served as a peon for over twenty-five years and was retired under the Voluntary Separation Scheme (V.S.S.), subsequently sought a correction of his date of birth in his service records after his retirement. The core legal question was whether an employee can seek the alteration of their date of birth at a belated stage after accepting retirement under a voluntary scheme without raising any objection during their long tenure of service. The Supreme Court held that the employee's request, made after nearly twenty-five years of service and following the acceptance of his V.S.S. retirement, was an afterthought and rightly rejected by the departmental authorities and the Tribunal. The Court laid down the principle that a belated request for the change of date of birth, un-agitated throughout the entire duration of service and raised only after retirement, cannot be entertained.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant or employee seek the correction of their date of birth after accepting retirement under a Voluntary Separation Scheme?
  • Whether an employee can agitate a discrepancy in their date of birth at a belated stage after serving for more than twenty-five years without raising objections?
  • Is a birth certificate procured on the basis of a post-retirement affidavit sufficient to alter longstanding service record entries?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmed Dhoon Versus Givernment of Sindh1999 PLC(CS) 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-08
  leave to appealappointment of Assistant CommissionersSindh Public Service Commissionconstitutional petitionpublic serviceservice tribunalselection board
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional petition challenging the regular appointment of certain respondents as Assistant Commissioners without routing their posts through the Sindh Public Service Commission, as well as the promotion of other respondents against reserved direct recruitment posts. The core legal question concerned the legality of inducting respondents directly without reference to the Public Service Commission and whether such appointments and the High Court's view were in accordance with law. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal limited to respondents Nos. 3 to 28 who were inducted directly through a Selection Board without going through the Public Service Commission, to examine whether the High Court's view is in consonance with law, while noting that leave had already been granted in similar connected cases. The principle laid down is that leave to appeal may be granted to examine the legality of direct public appointments made without reference to the Public Service Commission.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of Assistant Commissioners without reference to the Sindh Public Service Commission is lawful?
  • Does a candidate have a vested right to claim appointment against specific posts when recommended and appointed to another service cadre?
  • Whether the controversy regarding induction into service can be dealt with by the High Court in constitutional jurisdiction or by the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Govri'nment of the Punjab Versus Khadim Hussain1999 PLC(CS) 1373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-20
  disciplinary proceedingscompulsory retirementservice tribunaldiscriminationinquiry reportgovernment servants efficiency and discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from departmental disciplinary proceedings initiated against several engineering staff members, including the respondent Khadim Hussain, following an inspection by the Governor's Inspection Team in 1980 which detected serious faults and sub-standard execution in a World Food Programme road project. After two inquiry reports containing significant inconsistencies and selective exonerations, the respondent was penalized with compulsory retirement, whereas other co-accused officers were largely exonerated. The Punjab Service Tribunal converted the penalty to a minor penalty upon finding discrimination. Upon appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the Service Tribunal correctly identified illegal discrimination, it erred by failing to revive departmental proceedings against the other co-accused officers. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the case back to the Tribunal to issue notices to the respondent's associates to show cause why proceedings against them should not be revived based on the inquiry findings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal can interfere with a departmental penalty on the ground of discrimination when other co-accused are unceremoniously exonerated?
  • Can inconsistency in successive inquiry reports vitiate the basis of a major departmental penalty?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal, upon finding discrimination in departmental punishments, ought to ensure consistent proceedings against all co-accused associates?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tahir Achakzai Versus Government of Balochistan , Basharat Ullah1999 PLC(CS) 1360 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-05
  service appealdepartmental remedyexhaustion of remediesjurisdiction of service tribunalcivil servantpromotionrecruitment rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns service appeals arising from a judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, which had adjudicated upon the promotion of medical professors and the validity of recruitment rules. The core legal question was whether a service appeal before the Tribunal is maintainable when the aggrieved civil servant has failed to exhaust the mandatory departmental remedies provided under the law. The Supreme Court held that under Section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974, an appeal before the Tribunal is incompetent unless the aggrieved party has first exhausted all available departmental remedies, such as appeals or representations. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal cannot independently examine the validity of service rules in the absence of a competent appeal regarding the violation of an aggrieved civil servant's terms and conditions of service. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, ruling that the respondent's failure to pursue departmental remedies rendered the service appeal before the Tribunal non-maintainable. The key principle laid down is that the exhaustion of departmental remedies is a mandatory jurisdictional prerequisite for invoking the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Is a service appeal before a Service Tribunal maintainable if the aggrieved civil servant has not exhausted the departmental remedy?
  • Can a Service Tribunal independently examine the validity of service rules if there is no competent appeal regarding the violation of terms and conditions of service?
  • Does the failure to exhaust departmental remedies render a service appeal incompetent under the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq Versus Secretary, Goverameat of Pakistan1999 PLC(CS) 1202 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
• Fouzia Ahmad Versus First Women Bank Limited, Karachi1999 PLC(CS) 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-28Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Versus Rana Muhammad Khalil1999 PLC(CS) 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-09Read full judgment →
• S.M. Farooq Versus Muhammad Yar Khan Imtiaz Muhammad Khan,1999 PLC(CS) 1163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-02
  surplus staffabsorptionsenioritycivil servanttransferservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals by leave of the Court challenged the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had accepted an appeal filed by respondent Muhammad Yar Khan regarding his inter-se seniority in the Department of Tourist Services. The core legal question concerned how the seniority of a civil servant rendered surplus in one department and subsequently absorbed into another department under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 should be determined vis-a-vis existing officers of the recipient department. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal misconstrued the legal position by carrying over the respondent's past seniority from his parent department. The ratio decidendi is that upon absorption of a surplus civil servant into a new department, their seniority must be reckoned from the date of regular appointment by transfer to the new post or cadre in accordance with Rule 4 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, rather than from their initial appointment in the parent department, thereby ranking junior to those already serving regularly in that cadre. The Court accordingly set aside the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the respondent's service appeal, while granting him the option to return to his parent department.

  Questions settled

  • How is the seniority of a surplus civil servant absorbed into a new department or cadre to be determined?
  • Does a civil servant absorbed upon being rendered surplus carry their previous service and seniority from their parent department into the new cadre?
  • Whether the seniority of an absorbed surplus employee takes effect from the date of initial government appointment or from the date of regular appointment by transfer to the new post?
  • Can the service rights of existing regular employees in a department be adversely affected by the outside introduction and absorption of surplus staff without specific statutory backing?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Khan Versus Government of Pakistan1999 PLC(CS) 1149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  deputationpro forma promotionliencivil servicesenioritydiscriminationforeign service
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil service appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal. The appellant, originally recruited as a peon and later promoted to Lower Division Clerk (LDC), was sent on deputation to the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and other departments from 1962 to 1977. During this period, his juniors were promoted to Upper Division Clerk (UDC) and Assistant, whereas the appellant's promotion was kept in abeyance. The respondent-Government regularized his excess deputation period in 1987 but subsequently refused to grant him pro forma promotion. The Supreme Court held that under Fundamental Rules 9(7) and 113, a permanent civil servant on foreign service/deputation retains their lien and is entitled to substantive or officiating promotion in their parent cadre, taking into account the promotion of their juniors. The Court ruled that the appellant was discriminated against compared to similarly situated colleagues. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and directed the respondents to consider the appellant for promotion from the dates his juniors were promoted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a permanent civil servant's lien in their parent department is terminated during their period of deputation or foreign service?
  • Is a civil servant on deputation entitled to substantive or officiating promotion in their parent cadre when their juniors are promoted?
  • Does the regularization of an excess deputation period by the competent authority remove impediments to considering a civil servant for retrospective pro forma promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi Versus Muhammad Miskeen1999 PLC(CS) 1145 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-13
  civil servantregular employmentcontractual appointmentunilateral modificationservice tribunalreinstatementpension deduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that ordered the reinstatement of a Naib-Qasid whose services were terminated. The core legal question was whether the respondent was a regular employee or a contract employee, given that his initial appointment letter did not specify a contract basis, but was unilaterally modified later. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that the respondent was appointed to a permanent vacancy through a properly constituted Selection Committee, and that the subsequent unilateral amendment of his appointment status to 'contract' was invalid. The Court affirmed that an appointment made against a permanent vacancy, following proper selection procedures, cannot be arbitrarily converted into a contract-based appointment. Furthermore, the Court noted that the department's objection regarding the respondent's receipt of pension was rendered academic by the respondent's concession to allow deductions of his pension amount from his salary. The petition was dismissed, confirming the respondent's status as a regular employee.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer unilaterally convert a regular appointment made through a selection committee into a contract-based appointment?
  • Does the receipt of a pension from previous military service automatically preclude a person from holding regular civil employment?
  • Is an employee appointed against a permanent vacancy entitled to regular status despite later attempts to classify the employment as contractual?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited Versus Shahmim Ahmed Khan1999 PLC(CS) 1032 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-25
  retrenchmentmaster and servantservice tribunaldeeming provisioncorporate employeesreorganizationmanagerial discretionnon-statutory rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated batch of civil appeals arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal setting aside the compulsory retrenchment of 5,416 employees of United Bank Limited under a 1997 retrenchment scheme and ordering their reinstatement. The core legal questions involve whether the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, converted corporate bank employees into civil servants governed by statutory rules, and whether the bank's compulsory retrenchment scheme was legally justified, non-discriminatory, and compliant with principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that Section 2-A merely provided a remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal without altering the non-statutory nature of the bank's staff service rules or transforming the employees into statutory civil servants; consequently, the relationship of master and servant continued to apply. The Court further held that a commercial organization facing continuous financial losses possesses the managerial discretion to reorganize its operations and execute a bona fide retrenchment without violating statutory provisions or natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 alter the terms and conditions of service of corporate employees or convert them into civil servants governed by statutory rules?
  • Whether the relationship between a banking corporation and its employees remains that of master and servant in the absence of statutory service rules despite the enactment of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does a commercial organization suffering continuous financial losses have the managerial discretion to implement a bona fide retrenchment scheme to reorganize its operations?
  • Are employees terminated under a bona fide retrenchment scheme carrying no stigma entitled to a prior show-cause notice or hearing under the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Muhammad Nazir1998 PLC(CS) 720 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-13
  Pakistan Rangerscivil servantservice tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsefficiency and discipline rulesjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the respondent's dismissal from service as a Deputy Superintendent in the Pakistan Rangers was set aside and he was reinstated, with permission for the department to proceed afresh under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 or the Pakistan Rangers specific rules applied to the employees of the Pakistan Rangers, and whether such employees are civil servants. The Supreme Court held that while the Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959 and its rules prevail over the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder in case of any conflict by virtue of section 1 of the Ordinance, the employees of the Pakistan Rangers nevertheless remain civil servants performing duties in connection with the affairs of the Federation, making an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal competent under the Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The Court laid down that disciplinary matters of Pakistan Rangers personnel are governed by the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal to decide the case on merits under the correct legal framework.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 apply to the employees of the Pakistan Rangers?
  • Do the provisions of the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959 prevail over the Civil Servants Act, 1973 in case of a conflict?
  • Are the employees of the Pakistan Rangers considered civil servants for the purpose of approaching the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Which rules govern the disciplinary proceedings of the members of the Pakistan Rangers?
  Read full judgment →
• Director-General, Pakistan Rangers, Lahore Versus Faiz Ahmad , Hamid Aslam Qureshi1998 PLC(CS) 714 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-13
  Pakistan Rangerscivil servant statusFederal Service Tribunal jurisdictiondisciplinary proceedingsservice lawterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves six consolidated appeals filed by the Director-General, Pakistan Rangers, challenging judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal that modified disciplinary penalties imposed on various Rangers personnel. The core legal question was whether members of the Pakistan Rangers qualify as "civil servants" and if the Federal Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to entertain appeals against disciplinary orders passed by the Rangers' authorities. The Supreme Court held that members of the Pakistan Rangers are deemed civil servants as they perform duties in connection with the affairs of the Federation. Consequently, the Federal Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to adjudicate appeals regarding their terms and conditions of service. The Court clarified that while the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 prevail in instances of conflict with the Civil Servants Act, this does not exclude the status of Rangers' personnel as civil servants. Finding no jurisdictional error and noting that the Tribunal decided each case on its merits, the Court dismissed the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Are members of the Pakistan Rangers considered civil servants for the purpose of service law?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to entertain appeals against disciplinary orders passed by the Pakistan Rangers authorities?
  • Which rules prevail in the event of a conflict between the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 and the Civil Servants Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmad Versus Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1998 PLC(CS) 542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-04
  Four-Tier Service StructureSelection Gradeupgradation of postsservice tribunalcivil appealsdiscriminationremand
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arises from civil appeals directed against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellants' appeals seeking inclusion of Selection Grade posts (BPS-17) of Teaching Staff in the Four-Tier Service Structure. The appellants, working as Trained Graduate Teachers in BPS-15 and granted Selection Grade BPS-17, argued that their exclusion from the Scheme approved by the Prime Minister was illegal and discriminatory. The core legal question was whether the exclusion of Selection Grade BPS-17 teachers from the approved Four-Tier Service Structure without a back-reference to the Prime Minister and subsequent reduction of posts by the Cabinet Secretariat was valid, and whether such exclusion caused discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the matter required re-examination to ascertain if the reduction of posts was done without the Prime Minister's re-approval and whether the appellants were treated discriminatorily compared to similar teachers who received the benefit. The appeals were disposed of with a remand for reconsideration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the exclusion of Selection Grade BPS-17 teachers from an approved Four-Tier Service Structure by an administrative office memorandum without re-approval from the Prime Minister is legally sustainable?
  • Does the denial of benefits of the Four-Tier Service Structure to certain teachers while granting the same to others constitute discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether change of grade or scale of pay for the better amounts to promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspector-General of Police, Punjab, Lahore Versus Mahmood Ikram1998 PLC(CS) 521 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
• Sirajun-Munira Versus Pakistan1998 PLC(CS) 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-22
  service appealwilful absencecondonation of delaylimitationmedical certificateFederal Service Tribunalremoval from service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's service appeal as time-barred and on merits. The appellant, employed as a Midwife, was removed from service following charges of wilful absence from duty and negligence after repeatedly failing to appear for a second medical opinion despite numerous departmental notices and telegrams. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant's prolonged absence justified termination and whether sufficient grounds existed to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal under the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's conduct was obstinate and contumacious, the departmental proceedings and removal were legally sound on merits, and the delay in filing the service appeal was not satisfactorily explained. The Court laid down the principle that each day of delay in filing an appeal must be reasonably explained with verifiable evidence, and manipulated or out-of-time medical certificates cannot form the basis for condoning limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether wilful absence from duty and failure to appear for a second medical opinion justify removal from service?
  • Whether the delay in filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal can be condoned without a day-to-day explanation and verifiable medical evidence?
  • Whether an appellant can rely on unverified and manipulated medical certificates to seek condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Aslam Versus Federal Directorate of Education Islamabad1998 PLC(CS) 487 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-16
  seniority listad hoc appointmentregularisation of serviceService Tribunalleave to appealmultifariousness
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Trained Graduate Teacher, challenged his seniority status in successive seniority lists, alleging that several colleagues appointed on an ad hoc basis had their services regularized illegally. The Service Tribunal dismissed his appeal on multiple grounds, including that the petitioner's own ad hoc appointment was regularized after the respondents, some respondents graduated before him, and the appeal suffered from multifariousness. On petition for leave to appeal, the petitioner contended that he had previously raised a similar grievance against respondents Nos. 38 to 43, which had been remanded by the Supreme Court for a fresh decision, and that the 1995 seniority list was connected to that dispute. The Supreme Court observed that the Service Tribunal failed to consider this specific aspect of the case. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal exclusively against respondents Nos. 38 to 43 to determine the impact of the prior remand and the validity of the 1995 seniority list.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant challenge the seniority of colleagues whose services were regularized prior to the regularization of the civil servant's own ad hoc service?
  • Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal is maintainable if it combines multiple distinct causes of action accruing at different times?
  • Should leave to appeal be granted where the Service Tribunal fails to consider that a previous dispute involving the same parties and seniority issues had been remanded by the Supreme Court for fresh decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem-II, Stenographer, Establishment Division, Versus Islamabad Federation of Pakistan1998 PLC(CS) 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-12Read full judgment →
• Zain Yar Khan Versus Chief Engineer, C.R.B.C. - WAPDA, D.I. Khan1998 PLC(CS) 1484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-01
  departmental appealpower of remandmisconductWAPDA employeesefficiency and disciplinequasi-judicial ordersreasons for order
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the legality of an order of remand passed by an appellate authority in departmental disciplinary proceedings under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978. The appellant, a Junior Engineer, was penalized for alleged misconduct regarding inflated compensation assessments for damaged trees during a canal project. Upon departmental appeal, the General Manager set aside the penalty on technical grounds and ordered a fresh inquiry. The Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the appellant's challenge, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal questions centered on whether the appellate authority possessed the power to remand a case under the WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978, despite the absence of an explicit remand provision, and whether the remand order was vitiated for lack of reasoning. The Supreme Court held that the power to remand is an inherent and conventional incident of appellate jurisdiction, further supported by residuary powers in Rule 11(4)(d) and statutory duties under section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The Court dismissed the appeal while ensuring safeguards for the appellant's service rights during the de novo proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appellate authority under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 has the inherent power to remand a case for a fresh inquiry?
  • Does the absence of an explicit remand provision in a set of disciplinary rules preclude the appellate forum from ordering a remand?
  • Are administrative and quasi-judicial authorities obligated to provide reasons for their orders under section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • Can a service tribunal uphold a departmental appellate order lacking reasons if the grounds are discernable from the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Director, Technical Education, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar Versus Abdul Samin1998 PLC(CS) 1472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-12
  higher pay scaleannual incrementsservice tribunalunqualified employeeupgraded postreversion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Director, Technical Education, N.-W.F.P., challenged the judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal which had granted annual increments in a higher pay scale to the respondent, Abdul Samin, for the period he served on an upgraded post of Instructor (BPS-17). The core legal question was whether an unqualified employee temporarily adjusted against a higher post is entitled to annual increments in the higher pay scale for the period served. The Supreme Court held that while the respondent was entitled to the pay of the higher post for the period he functioned on it, he had no vested right to claim annual increments since he lacked the requisite qualifications for the post and the competent authority had the discretion to allow reduced terms under relevant service principles. The appeal was accordingly accepted and the Tribunal's order granting increments was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Is an unqualified employee holding a higher post entitled to annual increments in the higher pay scale?
  • Can a competent authority allow reduced terms or pay to an incumbent who is not fully qualified for a higher post?
  • Does an employee who has functioned in a higher post without the requisite qualifications have a vested right to claim increments?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Versus Chief Secretary, N.-W.F.P. Fateh Muhammad1998 PLC(CS) 1468 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-26
  service tribunalsubject specialistarrears of payhigher posttemporary appointmentlimitationregularization
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of fifteen civil appeals arising from two separate judgments of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, concerning teachers temporarily adjusted or appointed against the higher post of Subject Specialist in BPS-17. The core legal questions involved whether these civil servants were entitled to the minimum salary of BPS-17 despite lacking prescribed qualifications such as B.Ed. or M.Ed., whether their service could be regularized by the Tribunal, and whether their claim for arrears of salary beyond three years was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that civil servants who have actually worked against a higher post are entitled to the minimum pay of that post from the date of their appointment, regardless of lack of formal qualifications, and that such continuous agitation of their rights prevents the arrears from becoming time-barred. However, the Court affirmed that the Service Tribunal correctly refrained from ordering regularization, leaving that matter to the department. The appeals by the civil servants were partly allowed to grant arrears for the entire period worked, while the government appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant temporarily appointed to a higher post is entitled to the minimum salary of that post even if lacking the required academic qualifications?
  • Can a service tribunal restrict the recovery of salary arrears to a period of three years when the employee continuously agitated the matter?
  • Is a service tribunal competent to directly regularize a civil servant against a higher post without prior consideration by the department?
  Read full judgment →
• Establishment Secretary to the Government of Pakistan Versus S.A.M. Wahidi, Deputy Solicitor, Law Division, Islamabad1998 PLC(CS) 1425 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-13
  civil service seniorityex-cadre postservice tribunalregular officiationGrade-19Secretariat Group
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a Service Tribunal decision regarding the determination of seniority for a civil servant. The core legal question was whether the respondent, who had been appointed to an ex-cadre post (Deputy Solicitor) before his formal appointment as a Deputy Secretary, was entitled to count his seniority from the date of his initial appointment to the Grade-19 equivalent post. The Supreme Court held that while generally promotion to an ex-cadre post does not count for seniority within a cadre, the specific circumstances of this case—including the Establishment Secretary's confirmation that the appointment was formal and regular, and the relevant Service Rules allowing seniority to be determined from the date of continuous regular officiation in any Grade-19 post—entitled the respondent to the claimed seniority. The Court affirmed the principle that where service rules permit seniority to be reckoned from the date of continuous regular officiation in a Grade-19 post or its equivalent, an officer is entitled to such seniority even if the service was rendered in a post other than the specific cadre post.

  Questions settled

  • Does promotion to an ex-cadre post automatically preclude an officer from counting that service for seniority purposes within their cadre?
  • Can a government functionary authorize an advocate to represent the government in legal proceedings even if the power of attorney is executed by a subordinate officer?
  • Under the Secretariat Group Service Rules, can seniority be determined from the date of continuous regular officiation in a Grade-19 post even if the officer had not yet served as a Deputy Secretary?
  Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Rashid Versus Muhammad Muneer1998 PLC(CS) 1371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-01
  service mattertransfer of civil servantjurisdiction of High CourtArticle 212constitutional petitioninterim reliefservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an interim order of the Lahore High Court, which had admitted a writ petition filed by a civil servant challenging his transfer order and granted interim relief. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding the transfer of a civil servant, given the constitutional bar on service matters. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by granting interim relief without first determining its own jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and remanded the matter with a direction to the High Court to decide the jurisdictional issue first. The key principle laid down is that under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted in matters connected with the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including transfers, and this bar applies even if the impugned order is alleged to be mala fide, ultra vires, or coram non judice.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to entertain a writ petition regarding the transfer of a civil servant?
  • Does the bar on jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 apply even if the impugned service order is alleged to be mala fide or ultra vires?
  • Must the High Court decide the question of its own jurisdiction before granting interim relief in a service matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority Versus Shan Elahi1998 PLC(CS) 1144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-17
  unauthorized absencedisciplinary proceedingsWAPDA employeesservice tribunalretrospective dismissalmisconductpenalty modification
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns four civil appeals filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) challenging Federal Service Tribunal decisions that mitigated disciplinary penalties imposed on employees for prolonged unauthorized absence. The core legal question was whether Rule 5-A of The Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, which provides limited penalties for habitual malingerers, applies to cases of extended unauthorized absence. The Supreme Court held that Rule 5-A is inapplicable to prolonged absences, which instead constitute misconduct under Rule 2(5)(xii) of the Rules, warranting major penalties under Rule 4(b). The Court clarified that while Service Tribunals possess the authority to modify penalties, such discretion must not be exercised arbitrarily or on misconceptions of law. Additionally, the Court affirmed that disciplinary orders for unauthorized absence may take effect retrospectively from the date the employee abandoned their duties, as the employee cannot be deemed on duty during such periods. Consequently, the Court restored the original dismissal and removal orders in two appeals while upholding the Tribunal's modified penalties in the remaining two.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 5-A of The Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 apply to cases of prolonged unauthorized absence from duty?
  • Can a disciplinary order of dismissal or removal from service for unauthorized absence be made effective retrospectively from the date of the absence?
  • Is the Service Tribunal empowered to arbitrarily modify penalties imposed by an employer in disciplinary cases?
  • Does prolonged unauthorized absence constitute misconduct under Rule 2(5)(xii) of The Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zarin Versus Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Shahpur1998 PLC(CS) 1041 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-16
  service lawprobationary periodrecruitment rulesdirect appointmentservice tribunalleave to appealtermination of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed appeals filed by petitioners challenging the termination of their services while on probation. The petitioners, appointed as Laboratory Attendant and Naib-Qasid respectively, alleged their services were terminated to accommodate private respondents appointed at the behest of a Provincial Minister. The petitioners contended that their own appointments, while also made without advertisement, were similar to those of the private respondents, and that the Tribunal failed to address the illegality of the private respondents' appointments under established recruitment rules. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave regarding the petitioners' reinstatement, noting they were on probation and their initial appointments violated recruitment rules. However, the Court granted leave to consider whether the Service Tribunal was legally obligated to examine the validity of the private respondents' appointments, given that such direct appointments without advertisement contravene established recruitment rules as previously enunciated by the Supreme Court. The core legal question is the Tribunal's duty to adjudicate the legality of appointments made in violation of recruitment rules.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Service Tribunal obligated to examine the legality of appointments made in violation of recruitment rules when raised in an appeal?
  • Can a probationer claim reinstatement if their initial appointment was made in violation of recruitment rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamic Republic of Pakistan Versus Muhammad Zaman Khan1997 PLC(CS) 971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-04
  interlocutory ordersleave to appealstatus quocontractual employmentservice lawtermination of servicewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against High Court interlocutory orders that suspended the termination of the respondents' services as Members of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal questions were whether the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition for leave to appeal against an interlocutory order under Article 185(3) of the Constitution, and whether a court can grant interlocutory relief that effectively reinstates an employee who has already relinquished charge. The Supreme Court held that Article 185(3) permits appeals against 'orders,' encompassing both final and interlocutory orders, unlike the 'final order' requirement in Article 185(2). Furthermore, the Court held that interlocutory relief should maintain the status quo rather than create a new situation. Since the respondents had already handed over charge months prior to filing their writ petitions, the High Court's order reinstating them was legally unsustainable. The principle established is that courts should not grant interim relief that effectively allows the main case without a full trial, especially when the impugned action has already taken effect.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Supreme Court have jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal against an interlocutory order under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a court grant an interlocutory order that effectively reinstates an employee who has already handed over charge of their office?
  • Is it permissible for a court to grant interim relief that amounts to allowing the main case before a full trial?
  • Does the term 'order' in Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 include interlocutory orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax and Wealth Tax Versus Muhammad Asif1997 PLC(CS) 93 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-10
  service tribunaldate of birthforgeryremoval from serviceleave to appealevidentiary valuedomicile certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal setting aside the removal from service of the respondent, a government driver who had been penalized under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 for allegedly forging his date of birth on his identity card. The core legal question concerned the validity of the Tribunal's reliance on official documents—such as a school leaving certificate, domicile certificate, and birth register extract—to verify the respondent's correct date of birth as 1969. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal committed no error in accepting these documents, noting that they were produced at the instance of the petitioner's own counsel who had inspected the originals without raising any objection or seeking verification time. The Court established that a party cannot challenge the evidentiary use of documents produced upon their own challenge and inspection when no opportunity for verification was requested at the relevant stage. Consequently, finding no question of public importance, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can rely on school leaving and domicile certificates to determine an employee's correct date of birth?
  • Can a party object to the evidentiary value of documents produced at their own instance and inspected without objection before the Tribunal?
  • Does a factual dispute regarding an employee's date of birth constitute a matter of public importance warranting leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Basharat Ali Versus Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore1997 PLC(CS) 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-05
  service tribunalmisconductembezzlementregular inquirydispensing with inquiryshow-cause noticecivil servantback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which partly allowed the appellant's service appeal by substituting his dismissal from service with removal from service for alleged misconduct regarding temporary embezzlement of government money. The core legal question was whether the department was justified in dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry based on the material available when the employee vehemently denied the charges. The Supreme Court held that where the allegations of misconduct are of a serious nature and are explicitly denied by the accused civil servant, a regular inquiry cannot be dispensed with, as disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved fairly without recording evidence and affording an opportunity of cross-examination. The Court set aside the impugned judgments, ordered the reinstatement of the appellant with back benefits subject to a gainful employment inquiry, and laid down the principle that the discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry under disciplinary rules must be exercised reasonably and fairly depending on the facts of each case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a regular inquiry can be dispensed with under the disciplinary rules when a civil servant categorically denies serious charges of misconduct involving disputed questions of fact?
  • Does the discretion of an authorised officer to dispense with a regular inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, remain absolute or is it subject to fairness and reasonableness?
  • What is the extent of the right to a fair hearing and cross-examination in departmental disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Elahi Versus Federation of Pakistan1997 PLC(CS) 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-11
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse ACRservice lawprocedural violationadministrative biasPAF civilians
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition filed by a Head Clerk in the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) challenging an adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) recorded in 1991. The petitioner, having served for thirty-one years, contended that the adverse report was biased, as it was authored by a Reporting Officer under whom he served for only one year and who allegedly harbored a grievance against him. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the communication of this adverse ACR was delayed by nearly four years, occurring only on August 15, 1994, which constituted a procedural violation of the specific instructions governing Confidential Reports for PAF Civilians. The core legal question before the Court was whether an adverse ACR communicated with significant, unexplained delay and allegedly motivated by personal bias should be expunged. Upon considering the petitioner's submissions regarding the procedural irregularities and the questionable circumstances of the report's issuance, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the adverse ACR and the potential violation of the governing administrative instructions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in communicating an adverse Annual Confidential Report to a civil servant constitute a violation of administrative procedure?
  • Can an adverse Annual Confidential Report be challenged on the grounds of personal bias by the Reporting Officer?
  • Are the instructions contained in the Confidential Reports for PAF Civilians mandatory for the validity of an adverse report?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab Versus Ghulam Sarwar Khan1997 PLC(CS) 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Abdullah Versus University College of Engineers, Taxila1997 PLC(CS) 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-08
  service appealpromotion quotatemporary arrangementleave to appealsuperannuation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Lecturer Assistant who served in Grade-11 for over ten years and subsequently obtained Selection Grade-17, grievance is that he was denied promotion against the post of Laboratory Supervisor Grade-16 within the sixty-seven percent quota. Instead, respondent No. 3 was brought from another department and posted as a temporary arrangement, which had been continuing for six years while the petitioner had six years remaining before superannuation. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion against the quota post and whether the prolonged temporary arrangement denying such promotion is valid. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding his promotion entitlement. The key principle laid down is that prolonged temporary appointments cannot indefinitely frustrate the promotion rights of eligible departmental candidates entitled to quota posts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an eligible employee is entitled to promotion against a quota post instead of a prolonged temporary arrangement?
  • Can a temporary appointment from another department continue indefinitely to the detriment of departmental promotees?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Niaz Ahmad1997 PLC(CS) 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzaffar Abbas Versus Pakistan1997 PLC(CS) 70 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  seniority listservice matterdepartmental representationFederal Service Tribunalcirculation of seniority list
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Muzaffar Abbas concerning a dispute over seniority in Grade-18 based on the adjustment of seniority in Grade-17. The core legal question was whether a seniority list that was not circulated could form the final basis for determining aggrieved rights without affording an opportunity for representation. The Supreme Court noted the departmental representative's candid admission that the 1992 seniority list was never circulated. Holding that fairness requires proper circulation of the list to enable aggrieved persons to seek remedies, the Court set aside the impugned order. The ratio established is that a seniority list must be duly circulated to the affected personnel, allowing them to file departmental representations and subsequently approach the appropriate forum such as the Federal Service Tribunal if aggrieved.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an uncirculated seniority list can be used to prejudice the service rights of an employee without providing an opportunity for representation?
  • What is the proper procedure for an aggrieved civil servant to challenge a seniority placement after the circulation of a seniority list?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaiiq Versus Secreatary, Senate Secretariat, Islamabad1997 PLC(CS) 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Farrukh Hussain Mirza Versus Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Health Department, Lahore1997 PLC(CS) 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ali Versus Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad1997 PLC(CS) 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Versus Water and Power Development Authority1997 PLC(CS) 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
• Azad Khan Versus Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1997 PLC(CS) 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• Government of Punjab Versus Muhammad Iqbal1997 PLC(CS) 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Lqbal Versus Chief Administrator of Auqaf/Secretary to Government of Punjab, Auqaf Department, Lahore1997 PLC(CS) 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Chaudhry Versus Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communications and Works Department, Lahore1997 PLC(CS) 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
• Gulfraz Raja Versus Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation1997 PLC(CS) 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Versus Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore1997 PLC(CS) 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-10
  service appealdepartmental remedyexhaustion of remediesremand ordermaintainabilitypremature appealcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former J.V. Teacher, challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. Initially, the Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the grounds of non-exhaustion of departmental remedies and merits. Upon a previous remand by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal's Chairman found the departmental order irregular and ordered reinstatement, but the majority of the Tribunal members disagreed, holding that the appeal remained non-maintainable due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust departmental remedies before filing. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the interplay between Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Specifically, the Court sought to determine whether an appeal filed prematurely before a Service Tribunal becomes competent once the 90-day statutory period for departmental appeal processing has elapsed without a final decision. Furthermore, the Court aimed to clarify whether a question of maintainability, once addressed by the Supreme Court in a remand order, can be re-agitated before the Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a premature appeal filed before a Service Tribunal become competent if the 90-day period for departmental appeal processing elapses before the Tribunal decides the case?
  • Can a question of maintainability, once addressed by the Supreme Court in a remand order, be re-agitated before the Tribunal?
  • Is an appeal before a Service Tribunal maintainable if the departmental appeal was pending but not finally decided at the time of filing?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Yusuf Khan Versus Government of Pakistan1997 PLC(CS) 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-03Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ahmad Versus Government of Pakistan1997 PLC(CS) 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-26Read full judgment →
• General Manager, Pakistan Railways Versus Federal Service Tribunal1997 PLC(CS) 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-10
  Service Tribunalannual confidential reportadverse entryexpungement of remarkspre-counsellingleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the General Manager, Pakistan Railways against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which expunged an adverse annual confidential report for the period from January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1994, characterizing respondent No.2 as an unwilling worker without pre-counselling as allegedly required under the rules. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal was justified in expunging the adverse entry when the department contended that pre-counselling was unnecessary due to fourteen other similar adverse reports issued against the employee advising him to improve, which were not produced before the Tribunal due to the absence of prior allegations. The Court granted leave to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner department regarding the necessity of pre-counselling and the existence of other adverse reports.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal was justified in expunging an adverse annual confidential report on the ground of lack of pre-counselling?
  • Can the department rely on other adverse reports not produced before the Service Tribunal to justify the absence of pre-counselling?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem Saddozai Versus Cahairmn, P.O.F., Wah1997 PLC(CS) 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-30
  service appealsenioritycompulsory serviceleave to appealarmed forces ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal regarding seniority vis-a-vis respondent No. 3. The Tribunal had held that under section 9-A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971, respondent No. 3 was entitled to count his period of compulsory service for seniority. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that section 9-A applied only to employment under the Federal and Provincial Governments and did not extend to service under the Pakistan Ordnance Factories (P.O.F.), which did not constitute service under either government. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised a question requiring examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal to consider the applicability of the statutory provision.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 9-A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971 apply to service under the Pakistan Ordnance Factories?
  • Is service under the Pakistan Ordnance Factories considered service under the Federal or Provincial Government for the purpose of seniority determination?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Noor Hussain Pathan1997 PLC(CS) 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-10
  service tribunaldismissal from serviceleave to appealappraisement of recorddisciplinary proceedingsaiding escape of smuggler
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had allowed the appeal of respondent Noor Hussain Pathan and reinstated him in service with back benefits after he was dismissed for allegedly aiding and abetting the escape of a smuggler in his custody. The core legal question is whether the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal is sustainable in law and whether it properly appraised the entire record, including previous inquiry reports, statements of witnesses, and the respondent's own F.I.R. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the Tribunal failed to properly go through the entire record and the reasons provided by the authorised officer for disagreeing with the inquiry findings. The key principle laid down is that a service tribunal must conduct a comprehensive and proper appraisement of the entire evidentiary record before setting aside disciplinary action taken by competent authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal is sustainable in law when it fails to properly appraise the entire record?
  • Can an authorised officer disagree with the findings of an inquiry officer by recording cogent reasons in the show-cause notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Taza Khan Versus General Manager (Personnel), Railway Headquarters, Lahore1997 PLC(CS) 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• Javed Hussain Shah Versus Government of Punjab1997 PLC(CS) 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-31
  constitutional petitionservice matterjurisdictional barinterim stay orderservice tribunalexclusive jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an interim stay order passed by the Lahore High Court in a Constitutional petition. The petitioner challenged the High Court's jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute, which related to the terms and conditions of service, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner had filed an application in the High Court to vacate the stay order based on this jurisdictional bar, but the High Court had not yet adjudicated that application. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had issued the interim stay order without addressing the critical question of its own jurisdiction under Article 212. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and remanded the matter to the High Court with a specific direction to decide the stay application only after first determining whether it possessed jurisdiction in light of the constitutional bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a Constitutional petition regarding the terms and conditions of service in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Must a High Court decide the question of its own jurisdiction before passing an interim stay order in a service-related matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Versus Government of the Punjab1997 PLC(CS) 1175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Riasat, S.E.T. (Science) Versus Secretary of Education, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar1997 PLC(CS) 1095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
• Nasimulhaquemalik Versus Chiefsecretarytogovernmentofsindh,Karachi1996 PLC(CS) 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-07
  service senioritydepartmental promotiondirect recruitmentquota violationstatutory interpretationregularization of servicecivil service rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, challenging a Sindh Service Tribunal judgment that declared departmental promotees senior to direct recruits. The core legal question was whether the regularization of promotees in 1977, which exceeded the established 50:50 quota, conferred seniority over direct recruits, and whether the quota could be implicitly altered by executive action. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation. Relying on Section 9 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973, the Court ruled that departmental candidates are only eligible for promotion against posts reserved for them under the rules. Consequently, promotions made in excess of the quota are not regular from the date of the order but only from the date a vacancy within the quota becomes available. The Court affirmed that statutory quota ratios cannot be altered by implication or executive fiat without formal amendment of the relevant rules. Accordingly, the appeals were accepted, and the seniority list was ordered to be revised based on the prescribed quota and the dates of direct recruitment.

  Questions settled

  • Can departmental promotees claim seniority over direct recruits if their promotion exceeded the prescribed quota?
  • Does the phrase 'for the time being' in Section 9(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 allow for the implicit alteration of promotion quotas?
  • Can a competent authority alter the promotion quota of civil servants without formally amending the relevant service rules?
  • From what date is a promotion regularized if it was initially made in violation of the prescribed departmental quota?
  Read full judgment →
• Divisionalsuperintendent,Pakistanrailways,Lahore Versus Muhammadhalim1996 PLC(CS) 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-14Read full judgment →
• Faridmuhammad Versus Secretary,Ministryoffood,Agricultureandcooperatives,Governmentofpakistan,Islamabad1996 PLC(CS) 891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-28
  civil servicelienrepatriationlimitationnon-joinder of partiesaudi alteram partemSecretariat Allowance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three appeals arising from a Federal Service Tribunal judgment regarding the repatriation and seniority of a civil servant, Farid Muhammad, who sought to return to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture from the National Council for Conservation of Wildlife (NCCW). The core legal questions were whether the respondent retained a lien in his parent department after confirmation in another organization, whether his service appeal was time-barred, and whether the appeal was incompetent due to the non-joinder of affected parties. The Supreme Court held that upon confirmation in the NCCW, the respondent ceased to hold a lien in the Ministry, rendering his claim for repatriation legally unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court determined that the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by limitation and incompetent for failing to implead necessary parties, thereby violating the principle of audi alteram partem. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the respondent was ineligible for the Secretariat Allowance. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant’s lien in a parent department terminates upon regular confirmation in another organization, and service appeals must strictly adhere to limitation periods and joinder requirements.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant retain a lien in their parent department after being confirmed in a post in another organization?
  • Is a service appeal incompetent if the appellant fails to implead parties whose seniority would be adversely affected by the relief sought?
  • Does the termination of a departmental appeal trigger the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Is an employee of an Attached Department entitled to the Secretariat Allowance if the allowance is not specifically applicable to that class of personnel?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammadanwar Versus Chiefsecretarytogovernmentofn.W.F.P1996 PLC(CS) 887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbarkhan Versus Governmentofsindh1996 PLC(CS) 862 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service lawseniority disputeadverse remarkslimitation periodservice tribunal jurisdictioncivil servantACR
  Summary & questions settled

  This service matter concerns a seniority dispute where the appellant challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Sindh Service Tribunal. The core questions were whether the appeal was time-barred, whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and whether uncommunicated adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report could justify denying seniority. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the communication of an adverse order lies with the government; having failed to prove such communication, the appellant's appeal was deemed timely. Furthermore, the Court held that the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction because the dispute concerned seniority determination under the relevant rules rather than fitness for promotion. The Court established the principle that uncommunicated adverse remarks are ineffective and cannot form the basis for denying seniority. Under Rule 13(iv) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, a civil servant not considered for promotion for reasons other than unfitness is entitled to seniority in the same batch as their juniors upon subsequent promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving the communication of an administrative order lie with the government when a civil servant denies receiving it?
  • Is a dispute regarding seniority determination under the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 barred by proviso (b) to section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Can uncommunicated adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report be used as a valid basis to deny a civil servant's seniority?
  • Under Rule 13 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, is a civil servant entitled to seniority in the same batch as their juniors if they were not considered for promotion for reasons other than unfitness?
  Read full judgment →
• Saghirahmadnaqvi Versus Provinceofsindh1996 PLC(CS) 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-23
  ad hoc appointmentMartial Law Order 55service tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional petitioninterlocutory ordersterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal examined whether the ad hoc appointment of a Civil Judge had matured into a regular appointment, thus excluding it from the Martial Law Order No. 55 of 1978, and whether constitutional petitions remain maintainable against interlocutory orders when a final order regarding service terms and conditions has been passed, attracting the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's post fell within the definition of ad hoc appointment under MLO 55, and once a final order of removal from service was passed by the competent authority, the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, as interim or pending orders cannot be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction to bypass exclusive statutory forums. The Court laid down the principle that the writ jurisdiction of superior courts cannot be invoked to challenge interlocutory service matters or defeat exclusive statutory forums, and that even constitutional issues relating to service terms must be raised before the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ad hoc appointment matures into a regular appointment so as to be excluded from the ambit of Martial Law Order No. 55?
  • Does the High Court retain constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 once a final order regarding service terms and conditions has been passed, attracting Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Can constitutional petitions be maintained against interlocutory orders when the governing statute or Constitution provides an exclusive forum of appeal only against final orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammadislamqamar Versus Abdurrashid1996 PLC(CS) 793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashidkhan Versus Muhammadsaleemakhtar1996 PLC(CS) 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mueenullah Versus Medicalsuperintendent,Dhqhospital,Kasur1996 PLC(CS) 759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
• Waterandpowerdevelopmentauthority Versus Fidamuhammadkhan1996 PLC(CS) 700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-29
  service tribunalremoval from servicecompulsory retirementmisconductillegal gratificationappellate jurisdictionWAPDA employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which converted the respondent employee's removal from service into compulsory retirement. The respondent, employed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), was removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, following allegations of receiving illegal gratification without a formal inquiry. Upon appeal, the Tribunal altered the penalty, taking into account the return of the amount and the respondent's length of service. The core legal question examined was whether the Tribunal was justified in converting the punishment of removal to retirement on such grounds. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal possesses the appellate jurisdiction to alter, modify, or substitute departmental penalties where orders under Section 17(1-A) are passed without a regular inquiry or opportunity of hearing for misconduct. The key principle laid down is that while length of service alone may not suffice in cases of proved corruption through regular inquiry, the Tribunal can competently grant relief and modify punishments based on valid reasons and mitigating circumstances when summary penal powers are invoked without due inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to alter or substitute an order of removal from service passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 with an order of compulsory retirement?
  • Can the length of service and the return of the disputed amount serve as valid grounds for the Service Tribunal to reduce a penalty awarded by the departmental authority?
  • Does an employee removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 without a regular inquiry into allegations of misconduct suffer condemnation without an adequate opportunity of hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjadahmedjavedbhatti Versus Secretary,Establishmentdivision,Islamabad1996 PLC(CS) 652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-23
  service lawpromotionsupersessionsenioritySection 12(2) CPCres judicatacivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal in limine. The petitioner, a civil servant, sought to challenge his previous supersession for promotion to Grade-19, arguing that the Central Selection Board had made a mistake in 1983 and subsequently recognized it. Having failed in previous litigation before the Tribunal and the Supreme Court regarding his seniority and promotion, the petitioner attempted to reopen the matter by invoking Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging fraud. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could initiate fresh proceedings to review final judgments based on claims of fraud regarding a past administrative decision. The Supreme Court held that the previous judgments were based on the valid record of the Central Selection Board at the time and contained no error justifying a review under Section 12(2). The Court affirmed the Tribunal's dismissal, establishing that final judicial orders cannot be reopened through such proceedings absent genuine grounds of fraud, though the dismissal does not preclude departmental remedies if otherwise available under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a final judgment of a court be reopened under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the basis of an alleged administrative mistake in a promotion board's decision?
  • Does the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal preclude a civil servant from seeking relief at the departmental level if otherwise entitled under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawarmunirdar Versus Director-General,Exciseandtaxatica,Punjab1996 PLC(CS) 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-21
  service tribunaljudgment announcementretirement of memberremanddisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the legality of the Punjab Service Tribunal's judgment dismissing his service appeal, on the ground that one of the members of the Tribunal who heard the appeal had retired prior to the announcement of the judgment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a judgment signed by a Tribunal member before retirement but announced after his retirement constitutes a valid judgment of the Tribunal. The Court held that a judgment takes effect from the date of its announcement, and since the member had already retired by that date, he was no longer a member of the Tribunal, rendering the judgment invalid. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh rehearing.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a judgment signed by a tribunal member before retirement but announced after retirement is valid?
  • Does a judgment take effect from the date it is recorded or the date it is announced?
  • What is the legal effect of an order pronounced by a tribunal member who has ceased to hold office?
  Read full judgment →
• Postmaster-General,'AJK&Fcislamabad Versus Muhammadzorab1996 PLC(CS) 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-19
  service tribunalquantum of punishmentcompulsory retirementmitigation of penaltyleave to appealmaster-generalsupervisory negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which modified the respondent's penalty of compulsory retirement to the stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal is justified in altering the quantum of punishment imposed by the departmental authority. The Supreme Court held that Service Tribunals are forums of appeal on both questions of law and fact with the power to uphold, set aside, or vary impugned orders, provided that the Tribunal gives cogent reasons satisfying standards of reasonableness to avoid arbitrariness. The Court found that the Tribunal had fully applied its mind, noted the lack of direct evidence, the lesser punishment awarded to the primary offender, and the disproportionate nature of compulsory retirement for mere supervisory negligence. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that the Supreme Court will only interfere with a Service Tribunal's decision on quantum of punishment if the order lacks application of mind or suffers from arbitrariness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the power to alter or modify the quantum of punishment imposed by a departmental authority?
  • What are the limitations on the Service Tribunal's power to interfere with factual conclusions and penalties in service appeals?
  • Does the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's decision regarding the reduction of a departmental penalty unless it is arbitrary or lacks application of mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Chairman,WAPDA,Lahore Versus Gulbatkhan1996 PLC(CS) 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31
  Service Tribunaldisciplinary proceedingsremandWAPDApenalty substitutionarbitrary orderservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals filed by the Chairman, WAPDA, against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified disciplinary penalties imposed on a respondent employee. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal is mandatorily required to remand a case to the disciplinary authority whenever an impugned order is found to be arbitrary or lacking sufficient reasons, or if the Tribunal possesses the authority to substitute the penalty itself. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal is not obligated to remand the case in every instance where an order is set aside. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal possesses the requisite power to set aside or substitute penalties. The principle laid down is that remand is not a routine matter to be adopted to allow authorities to fill lacunae or improve their case. Instead, where the record is sufficient and the facts are clear, the Tribunal may decide the matter on merits, particularly in cases involving lack of bona fides, bias, or arbitrariness.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the power to substitute a penalty imposed by a disciplinary authority?
  • Is the Service Tribunal legally obligated to remand a case to the disciplinary authority whenever an impugned order is found to be arbitrary or lacking reasons?
  • Under what circumstances is it appropriate for the Service Tribunal to remand a case to the disciplinary authority rather than deciding it on the merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretarytogovernmentofpunjab,Healthdepartment,Lahore Versus Sarwarjehanhaq,Nursingsuperintendent,Dhqhospital,Sheikhupura1996 PLC(CS) 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-17Read full judgment →
• WAPDA Versus Muhammadfaridkhan1996 PLC(CS) 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
• Nawazkhan Versus Federalgovernment1996 PLC(CS) 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-11Read full judgment →
• Secretarytogovernmentofn.W.F.P.,Zakat/Socialwelfaredepartment,Peshawar Versus Sadullahkhan1996 PLC(CS) 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Saeedibnealitirmizi Versus Pakistanwaterandpowerdevelopmentauthority1996 PLC(CS) 345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-27
  service lawmala fidesremoval from serviceWAPDA ActFederal Service Tribunalremandshow-cause notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's challenge against his removal from service by the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The appellant, a Transport Supervisor, had contested his removal, alleging that the action was motivated by his trade union activities and personal vendettas involving a superior officer. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, erroneously concluding that the appellant had neither alleged nor substantiated any mala fides in his pleadings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the appellant had explicitly raised the issue of mala fides in his grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, detailing specific allegations against a Project Director. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's finding was factually unfounded and ignored material evidence on the record. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a fresh determination specifically on the question of whether the removal order was tainted by mala fides, emphasizing the necessity of addressing pleaded facts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is required to adjudicate upon specific allegations of mala fides if they are pleaded in the grounds of appeal?
  • Can an appellate tribunal dismiss an appeal on the basis that mala fides were not alleged when the record demonstrates such allegations were present?
  • Does the failure of a tribunal to consider material evidence on the record regarding mala fides warrant a remand of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• M.Muneerhassan Versus Chancellor,N.E.D.Universityofengineeringandtechnology/Governorofsindh,Karachi1996 PLC(CS) 1229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-26
  abatement of proceedingscivil servantservice tribunal jurisdictionVice-Chancellor removalterms and conditions of servicestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, the former Vice-Chancellor of the N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, challenged the dismissal of his Constitution petition by the High Court, which had upheld his removal from office by the Chancellor prior to the expiration of his four-year term. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant's removal, effected during the Chancellor's pleasure, was legally sustainable given the statutory tenure, and whether the subsequent enactment of the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, necessitated the abatement of the current proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, as an officer of the University, fell within the definition of a civil servant under the amended Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, pursuant to the abatement provisions introduced by the 1994 Amendment Act, the Court ruled that the pending appeal must abate, as the matter regarding the terms and conditions of service now falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sindh Service Tribunal. The principle established is that where statutory amendments retrospectively classify university employees as civil servants, pending litigation in higher courts regarding their service terms must abate in favor of the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, cause the abatement of pending litigation regarding the service terms of a university employee?
  • Are employees of a university established by a provincial enactment considered civil servants for the purposes of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed Versus General Manager, WAPDA1995 PLC(CS) 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-28
  service lawdisciplinary proceedingsenhancement of penaltyWAPDA employeesdismissal from servicereasoned orderleave to appeal
  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 from service. The petitioner, a Senior Engineer with WAPDA, was initially penalized with a reduction in his time-scale for misconduct. While his departmental appeal was pending, the authority issued a notice under Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1978, to reconsider the punishment. Subsequently, the authority dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged this dismissal, arguing that the order failed to provide reasons for the enhancement of the punishment, relying on precedent regarding the necessity of reasoned orders in disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the contention that an order passed under Rule 12 must disclose valid reasons for enhancing a penalty. Finding that the legal question regarding the sustainability of an enhancement order lacking explicit reasoning required further examination, the Court granted leave to appeal to address whether the authority's failure to articulate reasons for the enhancement rendered the dismissal order legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order passed under Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1978, for the enhancement of a penalty require the disclosure of reasons for such enhancement?
  • Is an order of dismissal sustainable if it fails to provide specific reasons for enhancing a previously imposed penalty?
  Read full judgment →
• Safia Aziz Versus Dil Ara Malik1995 PLC(CS) 852 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Shahid Iqbal Versus Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1995 PLC(CS) 846 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Anwar Muhammad Versus General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Lahore1995 PLC(CS) 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-30
  service appealadverse remarkslimitationcondonation of delaycompetent authorityAnnual Confidential Reportperformance evaluation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal regarding adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.) on the grounds of limitation. The appellant had initially submitted a representation to an incompetent authority (the Divisional Superintendent) rather than the General Manager, as required by the performance evaluation guidelines. Years later, he submitted a fresh representation to the General Manager, which was rejected on merits rather than limitation. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred when the competent authority had already adjudicated the representation on merits. The Supreme Court held that since the initial representation was made to an incompetent authority, the subsequent representation to the General Manager was the first valid one. Furthermore, because the General Manager decided the representation on merits without raising a limitation objection, the delay was impliedly condoned. The Court established that a tribunal cannot dismiss an appeal on limitation grounds when the competent authority has already waived that objection by deciding the matter on its merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service tribunal dismiss an appeal on the ground of limitation if the competent authority previously decided the underlying representation on its merits?
  • Does a decision on merits by a competent authority constitute an implied condonation of delay?
  • Is a representation filed before an incompetent authority legally valid for the purpose of calculating limitation periods?
  Read full judgment →
• Imran Raza Zaidi Versus Government of Punjab1995 PLC(CS) 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-23
  stay applicationservice tribunalout-of-turn hearingmiscellaneous applicationappellate procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a miscellaneous application seeking a stay order, which had previously been refused at the time leave to appeal was granted. During the proceedings, counsel for both parties agreed that the retention of the original record by the Supreme Court was unnecessary as the paper books were prepared and relevant documents could be incorporated. Consequently, the Court directed that the record be returned to the Service Tribunal. Furthermore, upon the joint request of the parties, the Court ordered that the main appeal be scheduled for an out-of-turn hearing. As a result of these directions, the miscellaneous application for a stay was rendered infructuous and was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a miscellaneous application for a stay be dismissed as infructuous if the parties agree to an expedited hearing of the main appeal?
  • Is it permissible for the Supreme Court to direct the return of the record to the Service Tribunal when paper books are ready?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Punjab Versus Shaliida Shah1995 PLC(CS) 801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi1995 PLC(CS) 799 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Versus Federation of Pakistan1995 PLC(CS) 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-11
  service appealreversionmisconductregular inquirynatural justiceFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding the reversion of the appellant from the post of Staff-car Driver to Naib-Qasid on allegations of misconduct involving the damage and replacement of vehicle tyres. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of reversion based on allegations amounting to theft and gross negligence could be imposed without conducting a regular departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court held that where the charge involves serious allegations such as theft, a regular inquiry must be held to record evidence and afford the accused an opportunity of cross-examination, especially in the absence of a written decision by the authorized officer dispensing with the inquiry. The appeal was accordingly accepted, the impugned judgment set aside, the appellant's employment as Driver restored, and a direction issued for a regular inquiry to be conducted in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a regular inquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty for misconduct involving allegations of theft?
  • Can an employee be penalized for misconduct without being afforded an opportunity of hearing and cross-examination?
  • Is it necessary for the authorized officer to record written reasons for dispensing with a regular inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Federation of Pakistan Versus Abdul Rashid1995 PLC(CS) 792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-02
  service tribunalpromotionrecruitment rulesdepartmental candidateleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which allowed the respondent's appeal directing the department to consider him for promotion to the post of Director-General (BPS-20). The core legal question was whether an outsider could be appointed to a promotional post by transfer without first considering an eligible departmental candidate for promotion according to the applicable recruitment rules. The Supreme Court held that under the recruitment rules, the post was to be filled primarily by promotion, and resorting to other methods of recruitment such as transfer was permissible only if no departmental officer was eligible. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the Government could not induct an outsider without first considering the eligible respondent, and consequently dismissed the petition as it raised no substantial question of law of public importance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an outsider can be appointed to a promotional post without first considering eligible departmental candidates under the recruitment rules?
  • Does a service tribunal have the authority to direct the department to place an eligible employee's case before the selection board for promotion?
  • Whether the induction of an officer by transfer is permissible when eligible candidates for promotion are available within the department?
  Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher Khan Versus Secretary to the Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore1995 PLC(CS) 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-01
  service tribunalseniority disputeremanddepartmental representationjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding a service seniority dispute. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction and proper scope of proceedings before the Punjab Service Tribunal upon remand by the Supreme Court, specifically whether the Tribunal could direct the Provincial Government to decide a representation rather than inquiring into the maintainability and fulfillment of statutory preconditions of the appeal. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the Tribunal erred by directing the Provincial Government to decide the matter, clarifying that the Tribunal must itself determine the maintainability of the appeal based on the expiration of the statutory ninety-day period following departmental representation. The key principle laid down is that service tribunals must strictly adhere to the scope of remand orders and independently resolve jurisdictional prerequisites concerning departmental remedies under the relevant service laws rather than remitting matters back to the executive authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal can direct the Provincial Government to decide a pending departmental representation instead of determining the maintainability of the service appeal itself?
  • What is the effect of the expiration of the ninety-day period after moving a departmental representation under the Punjab Service Tribunal Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Versus Riazuddin , Mumtaz Khan, A.S.D.E.O.1995 PLC(CS) 744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-10
  illegal appointmentvoid ab initiopolitical recommendationpublic employmentservice lawquota allocation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a judgment declaring his appointment as a Chowkidar in a Government Primary School void ab initio. The appointment had been made in 1988 following the termination of the respondent, who had previously served as a part-time Bhishti-cum-Chowkidar. The petitioner's appointment was secured based on the recommendation of a Member of the Provincial Assembly (MPA). The core legal question was whether an appointment to a government post made solely on the recommendation of a political representative, such as an MPA, is legally sustainable. Relying on the precedent established in Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad and others (1993 SCMR 1287), the Supreme Court held that the allocation of appointment quotas to Ministers, MNAs, or MPAs, and any appointments made pursuant to such recommendations, are illegal and void ab initio. Consequently, the Court upheld the impugned judgment, affirming that such political interference in the recruitment process is impermissible, and refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the invalidation of the petitioner's appointment.

  Questions settled

  • Are appointments to government posts made on the recommendation of an MPA legal?
  • Does the allocation of appointment quotas to political representatives like MNAs or MPAs render resulting appointments void ab initio?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Gul Versus Commissioner, Afghan Refugees, Peshawar1995 PLC(CS) 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
• Karamat Hussain Versus Water and Power Development Authority1995 PLC(CS) 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Rafiq Malik Versus Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore1995 PLC(CS) 638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-12
  advance incrementsservice tribunaldiploma holderservice mattereligibility criteriadepartmental notification
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which denied the appellant's request for five advance increments under the Government of Punjab, Finance Department memo dated 6-12-1975. The core legal question was whether the appellant, a diploma holder, was entitled to these increments, given the Tribunal's restrictive interpretation of the eligibility criteria. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established in 'Government of Punjab and another v. Muhammad Amin', held that the Tribunal erred in distinguishing the appellant's case based on his diploma status, as the A.B. Course AMIE (Pakistan) is also a diploma course. The Court determined that the appellant's entitlement was fully covered by the cited precedent, which established that the benefit of advance increments applies to incumbents of posts where the prescribed qualification is graduation, regardless of whether the specific incumbent is a graduate or holds a recognized diploma equivalent. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and affirmed the appellant's entitlement to the five advance increments.

  Questions settled

  • Is a diploma holder entitled to five advance increments under the Government of Punjab Finance Department memo dated 6-12-1975?
  • Does the precedent in 'Government of Punjab and another v. Muhammad Amin' apply to diploma holders seeking advance increments?
  • Can a Service Tribunal deny advance increments to an employee by distinguishing their qualification from that of a graduate when the underlying course is equivalent?
  Read full judgment →
• Director, Small Industries Department, Quetta Versus Hameedullah Khan1995 PLC(CS) 623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-27
  Annual Confidential ReportService TribunalAdverse remarksBias and prejudiceHierarchical bureaucracyService lawMala fide
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Balochistan Service Tribunal judgment that expunged adverse remarks recorded in the respondent’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 1989 and 1990. The core legal question concerned whether the Service Tribunal was justified in disregarding the adverse remarks of the second countersigning officer, given the established principle of hierarchical precedence in ACR assessments. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal’s decision. The Court held that while the opinion of the highest reporting officer generally prevails in a hierarchical bureaucracy, this principle does not shield remarks proven to be the result of bias, prejudice, or mala fide intent. An ACR tainted by bias lacks legal validity, regardless of the rank of the officer recording it. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while procedural delays in recording ACRs do not automatically vitiate them, significant unexplained delays may undermine their authenticity. Ultimately, the Service Tribunal retains the jurisdiction to scrutinize the validity of ACRs to ensure they are based on objective assessment rather than personal vendetta or improper motives.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of hierarchical precedence in ACRs apply when the remarks are proven to be biased?
  • Can a Service Tribunal expunge adverse remarks from an ACR if it finds the reporting officer acted with mala fide intent?
  • Does a delay in recording an Annual Confidential Report automatically render the remarks invalid?
  • Is the opinion of the highest reporting officer in an ACR assessment absolute?
  Read full judgment →