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.

• Messrs Flying Kraft Paper Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Charsadda vs Pakistan1999 SCMR 472 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-26
  fixed chargesload sheddingelectricity tariffWAPDAindustrial supplyconstitutional jurisdictionsanctioned load
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court challenges a judgment of the Peshawar High Court which dismissed a writ petition filed against the demand of Fixed Charges in electricity bills by WAPDA. The appellant, an industrial consumer holding a sanctioned load under Tariff B-4, argued that WAPDA was not entitled to recover Fixed Charges during periods of power breakdowns, load shedding, and interruptions. The core legal question was whether an industrial consumer is entitled to a proportionate reduction or adjustment of Fixed Charges during periods of load shedding when electricity is not supplied. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, holding that Minimum Fixed Charges are based on two factors: service charges for maintaining the network and the reservation of power to meet maximum demand. Since load shedding prevents WAPDA from reserving power—as available energy is rotated and sold to other consumers—a balanced approach is warranted. The Court laid down the principle that during load shedding, 50 percent of the proportionate amount of fixed charges shall remain with WAPDA towards line service charges, and the remaining 50 percent shall be adjusted to the benefit of the consumer prospectively.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an industrial consumer is entitled to proportionate reduction of Fixed Charges during periods of load shedding?
  • Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 resolve disputed questions of fact regarding electricity billing interruptions?
  • What is the underlying rationale and legal basis for the recovery of Minimum Fixed Charges by WAPDA under Tariff B-4?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Excell Builders and others vs Ardeshir Cowasjee and others1999 SCMR 2089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-12
  building regulationslocus standilocus poenitentiaeroad wideningcommercialization of residential plotssetback requirementsconstitutional petitionunauthorized construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a High Court judgment regarding the construction of a commercial building, "Glass Towers," in a residential area of Karachi. The core legal questions addressed whether the Karachi Building Control Authority (KBCA) was obligated to enforce road-widening setback regulations, whether residents possessed locus standi to challenge building approvals, and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae could protect unauthorized construction. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, maintaining the High Court’s order for the demolition of structural portions obstructing the proposed 150-foot road width. The Court held that building regulations, specifically those regarding setbacks, possess statutory force and must be strictly enforced by the KBCA. Furthermore, the Court established that the principle of locus poenitentiae cannot be invoked to validate illegal acts or perpetuate violations of public interest. Additionally, the Court affirmed that residents have standing to challenge construction projects that negatively impact their environment or public infrastructure. Finally, it ruled that land-use conversion does not grant developers an unbridled right to disregard building bye-laws or infrastructure capacity constraints.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Karachi Building Control Authority have a statutory obligation to enforce setback regulations for road widening?
  • Can the principle of locus poenitentiae be invoked to protect unauthorized building construction?
  • Do residents have locus standi to challenge the approval of building plans that violate town planning regulations?
  • Does the conversion of a residential plot to commercial use authorize the disregard of building bye-laws and infrastructure capacity?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abdul Razzaque Abdul SATTARs vs Abdul Shakoor and another1999 SCMR 519 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-29
  rent defaultejectmentlandlord and tenantstatutory obligationperiodic rent paymentwaiver of rentrent controller discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Sindh High Court, which reversed a Rent Controller's decision and ordered the eviction of the appellants (tenants) for default in rent payment. The tenants contended that they had sent a cheque for rent in March 1990, which the landlords failed to encash, and further argued that a past practice of accepting accumulated rent payments existed, thereby negating willful default. The Supreme Court examined the evidence and upheld the High Court's factual finding that the tenants failed to prove the delivery of the cheque. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that a past practice of accepting periodic, accumulated rent payments absolves a tenant from the statutory obligation to pay rent in a timely manner. The Court held that a landlord's mere acceptance of delayed rent does not constitute a modification of the tenancy contract or a waiver of statutory requirements. Consequently, the Court affirmed the eviction order, ruling that the tenants had committed default under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's acceptance of rent in lump sum amounts over several months constitute a modification of the tenancy agreement?
  • Can a tenant rely on a past practice of delayed rent payments to excuse a failure to pay rent within the statutory timeframe?
  • Does the mere acceptance of delayed rent by a landlord imply a waiver of the requirement to pay rent on time?
  • Is a tenant absolved of the statutory obligation to pay rent if the landlord does not collect it?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehr Sher Muhammad and others vs Federation of Pakistan1999 SCMR 185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-28
  senioritydeputationpermanent absorptionOffice Management Groupcivil servantsEstablishment DivisionFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves multiple sets of appeals and petitions concerning the determination of inter se seniority between officers who were on deputation and subsequently permanently absorbed into the Office Management Group (O.M.G.) of the Federal Secretariat, and regular Section Officers of different grades. The core legal question was whether the permanently absorbed deputationists were entitled to count their seniority from the initial date of joining the Federal Secretariat on deputation or strictly from the date of their permanent absorption. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of specific statutory rules prior to the promulgation of the Civil Servants Seniority Rules 1993, the applicable administrative instructions, specifically Office Memorandum No. 8/17/90-O.M.G-I dated January 28, 1991, and past departmental practice, governed the field. Consequently, the deputationists were rightly entitled to be assigned seniority from the date they joined the Federal Secretariat on deputation. The key principle laid down is that special departmental instructions and established practices regulate civil service seniority in the absence of framed rules, and general rules do not derogate from special provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether civil servants absorbed on deputation into the Office Management Group are entitled to seniority from the date of their initial deputation or the date of permanent absorption?
  • Do departmental Office Memoranda and established administrative practices regulate civil service seniority in the absence of statutory rules?
  • Whether general rules of seniority derogate from special provisions governing a specific occupational group?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the authority to uphold seniority fixed in accordance with prevailing administrative instructions?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehr Sher Muhammad and 2 others., Federation of Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan., Muhammad Sharif Sabir and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-28
  Office Management Groupdeputationpermanent absorptioninter se senioritysection officersgeneralia specialibus non derogantOffice Memorandum
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses the inter se seniority disputes between departmental Section Officers and officers inducted by transfer/absorption from other departments into the Office Management Group (OMG) of the Federal Secretariat. The primary issue was whether deputationists who were subsequently permanently absorbed into the OMG were entitled to have their seniority assigned from the date of their initial joining on deputation or from the date of their permanent absorption. The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment, holding that prior to the prospective promulgation of the Civil Servants Seniority Rules 1993, administrative practice and instructions—specifically Office Memorandum dated 28-01-1991—governed the field. Under these instructions, BPS-17 and BPS-18 officers appointed by transfer were entitled to seniority from the date they initially joined the Federal Secretariat on deputation. Applying the principle *generalia specialibus non derogant*, the Court held that special departmental instructions prevailed over general principles, upholding the absorbed officers' seniority from their initial deputation dates.

  Questions settled

  • How is inter se seniority determined among deputationists absorbed into a new occupational group in the absence of statutory rules?
  • Does an Office Memorandum regulating seniority have binding effect before the promulgation of statutory seniority rules?
  • From what date is seniority reckoned for civil servants transferred on deputation and subsequently absorbed into the Office Management Group prior to 1993?
  • Do the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules 1993 operate prospectively or retrospectively upon past administrative practice?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ahmad Butt vs Ghulam Murtaza Hashmi and others1999 SCMR 2301 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-22
  reinstatementback benefitsindustrial relationslabour courtservice benefitscomplaint for non-implementation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition filed against the orders of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Punjab Labour Court. The petitioner, a bank employee, was dismissed for fraud and misappropriation, but was subsequently ordered to be reinstated by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal without back benefits. After protracted litigation up to the Supreme Court, the employee filed a complaint under the Industrial Relations Ordinance for non-implementation of the reinstatement order and non-payment of wages. The Labour Court accepted the complaint and the Tribunal dismissed the employer's revision. However, the High Court accepted the employer's writ petition and set aside those orders. The core legal question was whether the employee was entitled to service benefits for the period following his reinstatement order. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that the employee was entitled to his service benefits from the date of reinstatement without justification for withholding them. The key principle laid down is that an employee reinstated by a competent tribunal is entitled to the consequential service benefits unless lawfully withheld.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee entitled to service benefits following reinstatement by a Labour Appellate Tribunal?
  • Whether a complaint under sections 53 and 54 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1965 is maintainable for non-implementation of a Labour Court decision?
  • Can service benefits be withheld during the pendency of proceedings when a reinstatement order has been passed?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ahmad vs The State1999 SCMR 1102 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-05
  Zinarapedelay in FIRmedical evidencecriminal appealHudood Ordinancevictim testimony
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of the appellant for the offence of Zina under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, for which he was sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions concerned the impact of a four-day delay in lodging the First Information Report (FIR) and the evidentiary weight of medical findings regarding the victim's hymen healing. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction. The Court held that the delay in reporting the crime did not undermine the prosecution's case, emphasizing that societal taboos often cause such delays, and victims should not be penalized for the difficulty of reporting sexual offences. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellant's defense regarding the absence of physical violence marks, noting that the appellant's possession of a deadly weapon against a child victim provided sufficient explanation. The Court established the principle that courts must approach the testimony of rape victims with understanding rather than skepticism regarding reporting delays, and that the gravity of such heinous offences outweighs minor inconsistencies in medical evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a delay in lodging an FIR for the offence of rape automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can the absence of physical marks of violence on a victim's body be explained by the presence of a deadly weapon?
  • Should a victim of a sexual offence be penalized for the delay in reporting the crime due to societal taboos?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Naeem Qureshi vs The State1999 SCMR 828 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-10
  reinvestigationappellate powerscriminal appealretrialpolice investigationjudicial interferenceprosecution sanction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave arose from a Lahore High Court judgment in an appeal filed by a convict under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. While setting aside the conviction and ordering a retrial for lack of requisite prosecution sanction, the High Court directed the Anti-Corruption Department to thoroughly reinvestigate the case, associate the appellant (a supervisory officer who had originally testified as a prosecution witness) with the investigation, and submit a challan within two months against all guilty parties. The appellant challenged these directions before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether an appellate court disposing of an appeal under Section 423(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has the authority to order a reinvestigation or dictate its manner. Reaffirming established precedent, the Court held that Section 423(b) does not empower an appellate court to direct reinvestigation or interfere with police investigative powers, as the functions of the judiciary and investigating agencies are complementary and distinct. The appeal was accepted and the High Court's directions regarding the appellant were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appellate court under Section 423(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have the power to order a reinvestigation of a criminal case?
  • Can a High Court while hearing a criminal appeal direct the police to array a witness as an accused during a ordered reinvestigation?
  • Does the judiciary possess statutory authority to interfere with or direct the police in matters of crime investigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ali and others vs Senior Superintendent of Police/Deputy1999 SCMR 1941 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-04
  service tribunaldismissal from serviceabsence from dutymala fidescriminal acquittalleave to appealdepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions filed by Mazhar Ali and Akhtar Ali against the judgment and order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed their appeals against dismissal from service. The core legal questions for determination involve whether the failure to frame a separate charge regarding absence from duty and to afford an opportunity to meet that charge violated the law, and whether the criminal investigations and subsequent proceedings against the petitioners were vitiated by mala fides arising from a personal dispute with their uncle, a former Inspector-General of Police, particularly in light of their subsequent acquittal in the criminal case. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these questions of law of public importance, holding that the petitions warrant a full hearing regarding procedural fairness in departmental proceedings and the impact of alleged mala fides and acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to frame a separate charge regarding absence from duty and to provide an opportunity to meet that charge vitiate a departmental dismissal?
  • What is the legal effect of a criminal acquittal on departmental proceedings arising out of the same factual background?
  • How does the presence of mala fides by a superior authority affect the validity of investigations and subsequent disciplinary actions against a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Maulvi Abdul Ghani and another vs Election Tribunal, Balochistan and others1999 SCMR 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  election petitionrecounting of votesElection Tribunalinterim order appealRepresentation of the People Actlocal commissionerSupreme Court appellate jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil petitions, subsequently converted into appeals, arose from orders passed by the Election Tribunal directing the inspection and recounting of ballot papers through a Local Commissioner in ongoing election petitions challenging the results of general elections held in February 1997. The core legal questions pertained to the maintainability of petitions against interim orders of the Election Tribunal before the Supreme Court under Article 185 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and Section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, as well as the scope of the Tribunal's powers under Section 46 of the said Act to delegate recounting to an authorised officer. The Supreme Court held that while interim orders of the Tribunal are generally not appealable piecemeal unless they amount to a final 'decision', the Tribunal possesses plenary jurisdiction under Section 46 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, to order the inspection and recounting of votes through an authorised officer, provided that the ultimate determination of validity remains exclusively with the Tribunal. However, the inclusion of certain extraneous officials in the recounting process was held to be without jurisdiction. The petitions were accordingly disposed of with modifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal is maintainable before the Supreme Court against an interim interlocutory order passed by an Election Tribunal?
  • Does an Election Tribunal possess the jurisdiction under the Representation of the People Act, 1976, to appoint a Local Commissioner or Authorised Officer for the inspection and recounting of ballot papers?
  • Can a delegated authority or authorised officer legally determine the validity of a vote during the recounting process, or does that power rest exclusively with the Election Tribunal?
  • What constitutes a 'decision' under Section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, for the purpose of invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmad and others vs Taj Muhammad Baloch and others1999 SCMR 755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-15
  civil servicetransfermala fideout-of-cadre transferpromotionEfficiency and Discipline Rulesservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that set aside the transfer of a Deputy Shipping Master to the Department of Shipping Control. The core legal question was whether the transfer constituted a valid exercise of administrative authority under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, or if it was a mala fide action intended to deprive the respondent of promotion and post-upgradation benefits. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, holding that the transfer was mala fide and legally unsustainable. The Court established that while Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, empowers the government to transfer civil servants, this power cannot be used as a disguised disciplinary measure. If an employee faces complaints, the proper procedure is to initiate action under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, not to effect an out-of-cadre transfer. Furthermore, a transfer designed to deprive a civil servant of legitimate career advancement, such as promotion or the benefits of a pending post-upgradation, is mala fide and invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Can a transfer under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act 1973 be used as a disciplinary penalty?
  • Is a transfer that deprives a civil servant of legitimate promotion prospects considered mala fide?
  • Can a civil servant be transferred to a post outside their service cadre?
  Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmad and 2 others vs Taj Muhammad Baloch and others1999 PLC (C.S.) 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-15
  civil servanttransfermala fide transferout-of-cadre transferupgradation of postFederal Service Tribunalterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from appeals filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the transfer of the respondent from the post of Deputy Shipping Master to the Department of Shipping Control as Assistant Controller Shipping. The core legal question was whether the transfer of a civil servant under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, which was alleged to be mala fide and intended to deprive him of the benefit of the upgradation of his post and subsequent promotion, was sustainable in law. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that although a civil servant is liable to transfer anywhere under Section 10, a transfer used as a punitive measure or designed to bypass statutory rules and deprive an incumbent of promotion and upgradation benefits—especially when the cadres are distinct and non-interchangeable—is illegal and mala fide. The Court laid down that transfer cannot be used as a penalty outside the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, and out-of-cadre transfers actuated by extraneous motives to block legitimate career advancement are subject to judicial scrutiny and liable to be set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant be transferred by way of punishment without proceeding under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules?
  • Whether an out-of-cadre transfer made to deprive a civil servant of promotion and post upgradation is sustainable under Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
  • Is transfer simplicitor immune from judicial review when proven to be mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Masaud Jamal vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry1999 SCMR 1542 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-29
  service lawmove-overdepartmental representationadverse remarksAnnual Confidential ReportsremandFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for a move-over to BPS-19 on the procedural ground that he failed to file a departmental representation against the order rejecting his claim. The core legal question was whether such a departmental representation was necessary, given that the Tribunal had previously adjudicated the appellant's case in an earlier appeal (Appeal No. 14-L of 1993) regarding the same subject matter. The Supreme Court observed that the department's own internal correspondence, specifically a letter from the Chief Administrative Officer, acknowledged the appellant's entitlement to the move-over based on previous Tribunal decisions. The Court, without expressing a final opinion on the merits, held that the matter should be remanded to the Departmental Appellate Authority for reconsideration. The holding mandates that the Authority must decide the appellant's case for move-over to BPS-19 while disregarding adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Reports that were not previously communicated to the appellant, and by taking into account the Chief Administrative Officer's letter, within a specified timeframe.

  Questions settled

  • Is a fresh departmental representation required when the subject matter has already been adjudicated by the Federal Service Tribunal in a previous appeal?
  • Can an authority deny a move-over based on adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Reports that were never communicated to the civil servant?
  • Does the existence of internal departmental correspondence acknowledging an entitlement to a move-over necessitate a reconsideration of a rejected claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Masaljd Jamal vs Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry1999 PLC (C.S.) 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-29
  service lawmove-overdepartmental representationadverse ACRsremandFederal Service Tribunalcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for a move-over to BPS-19 on the procedural ground that he failed to file a departmental representation before approaching the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether such a representation was mandatory given a prior Tribunal judgment in the appellant's favor regarding the same subject matter. The Supreme Court observed that the department itself had acknowledged the appellant's entitlement to the move-over in official correspondence. Without determining the merits of the entitlement, the Court held that the matter required reconsideration by the departmental appellate authority. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case, directing the authority to decide the appellant's move-over to BPS-19 within three months. Crucially, the authority was ordered to exclude from consideration any adverse remarks in the appellant's Annual Confidential Reports that had not been previously communicated to him, in accordance with the earlier Tribunal judgment. This decision reinforces the principle that administrative bodies must adhere to prior judicial directions concerning fair evaluation practices in service matters.

  Questions settled

  • Is a departmental representation mandatory before approaching the Federal Service Tribunal when a prior judicial order already exists on the same issue?
  • Can a departmental authority ignore previous judicial directions regarding the exclusion of uncommunicated adverse remarks in Annual Confidential Reports?
  • Does the failure to file a departmental representation automatically bar an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsud Ahmad vs The Accountant-General, Pakistan Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 5 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-28
  pension recalculationcivil servantretirement benefitsoffice memorandumservice tribunalpay scale revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's claim for recalculation of his pension. The appellant, who retired as an Audit Officer on July 25, 1970, sought recalculation of his basic pension based on salary and fringe benefits of currently serving civil servants of the same grade, relying on paragraph 4 of Office Memorandum dated October 3, 1991, which stated that pension shall be calculated from time to time in accordance with the latest rules. The core legal question was whether paragraph 4 of the said Memorandum entitled retired civil servants to a notional revision of their pension whenever pay scales of serving civil servants are revised. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that retired civil servants and serving civil servants constitute distinct classes, and pensioners cannot claim notional revision of pay scales or recalculation of pension based on subsequent revisions of salaries of serving employees. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's interpretation, dismissed the appeal, and established the principle that pension is to be computed based on the rules and salary drawn at the date of retirement, precluding uniformity among civil servants retiring on different dates.

  Questions settled

  • Whether retired civil servants are entitled to recalculation of their pension based on revised pay scales and fringe benefits of currently serving civil servants holding the same rank?
  • What is the correct interpretation of the phrase 'from time to time in accordance with the latest rules' under paragraph 4 of the Office Memorandum dated October 3, 1991?
  • Can pensioners claim notional revision of their pay scales for re-computing pension amounts upon the revision of pay scales for serving civil servants?
  • Do serving civil servants and retired civil servants constitute a single class for the purpose of pension determination?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad Qureshi And Other vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 41 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  Lambardar appointmentrule of primogeniturehereditary claimsIslamic injunctionsFederal Shariat CourtPunjab Land Revenue Rulespublic office meritSarbarah appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals challenge the judgments of the Federal Shariat Court dismissing petitions against various provisions of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, which govern the appointment of headmen (Lambardars) and incorporate factors such as hereditary claims, primogeniture, and the appointment of substitutes or minors. The core legal question is whether these rules, particularly those favoring hereditary succession and primogeniture, are repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals, holding that sub-rule (2) of Rule 19, which mandates the appointment of the nearest eligible heir according to the rule of primogeniture, is repugnant to Islamic injunctions requiring public offices to be filled purely on merit, capability, and honesty. Consequently, Rules 25 and 26 were also declared repugnant to the extent they permit the appointment of minors or incapable persons as headmen. The key principle laid down is that public offices and agency roles must be distributed based on merit and capability rather than hereditary descent or blood relationship.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of primogeniture in the appointment of a successor Lambardar under the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Does the office of a village headman (Lambardar) constitute an office in the service of Pakistan?
  • Can hereditary claims be given an overriding effect over merit in the appointment of public office holders under Islamic principles?
  • Are the provisions regarding the appointment of substitutes or minors for non-resident or incapacitated headmen under the Punjab Land Revenue Rules, 1968, contrary to Shariah?
  Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed vs The State1999 SCMR 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  sentence enhancementdeath penaltymurderself-defensesudden provocationcriminal appealappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged a High Court judgment that enhanced the appellant's sentence from life imprisonment to death for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned whether the appellant was entitled to a reduction in sentence based on claims of sudden provocation or self-defense, and whether the High Court's enhancement of the sentence was legally justified. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the death sentence. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the murder was committed in a brutal manner against an unarmed victim. The defense failed to substantiate claims of self-defense or sudden provocation, as the appellant trespassed into the victim's house and inflicted multiple fatal injuries. The Court established the principle that for Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 to apply, all statutory ingredients must co-exist; where an offender acts in a cruel and unusual manner against a helpless victim, the normal penalty of death is appropriate. Sentencing must be proportional to the guilt while serving as a deterrent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of a simple abrasion on an accused's body establish the right of private defense in a murder case?
  • Are all ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 required to co-exist for the exception to apply?
  • Is the death penalty the appropriate sentence for a murder committed in a cruel and brutal manner against an unarmed person?
  Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, Punjab Seed Corporation, Lahore vs Hazrat1999 SCMR 2150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  land acquisitionexecution of decreemisdescription of partycompensationexecuting court powersbody corporate
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment regarding the execution of a decree for compensation for land acquired for public purposes. The petitioner, Punjab Seed Corporation, contended that as a body corporate established under the Punjab Seed Corporation Act, 1976, it was not a party to the original reference proceedings and therefore the decree could not be executed against it. The core legal question was whether an executing court can refuse to execute a decree on the grounds that the judgment-debtor was misdescribed in the original proceedings. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the executing court cannot go behind the decree to challenge its validity based on a mere misdescription of the judgment-debtor. The Court held that the beneficiary of land acquisition is legally obligated to deposit compensation with the Land Acquisition Collector for disbursement to the affected landowners. Furthermore, the Court condemned the petitioner's use of delaying tactics to avoid paying compensation for land acquired decades prior, emphasizing that the State should not act against its citizens without just cause.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executing court go behind a decree to examine its validity on the ground of misdescription of the judgment-debtor?
  • Is a body corporate established under a statute liable to pay compensation for land acquired for its public purpose even if not named in the original reference?
  Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, Pakistan Engineering Company Limited vs Muhammad Siddique Sindhu and 2 others1999 SCMR 166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-03
  industrial employmentdismissal from servicecharge-sheetextraneous matterslabor appellate tribunalback benefitsreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal reinstating the respondent employee with back benefits. The respondent was dismissed from service following an inquiry report finding him guilty under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. He challenged his dismissal through a petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was initially dismissed by the Labour Court but allowed on appeal by the Labour Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the inquiry was vitiated by the consideration of extraneous matters, specifically the employee's previous service record. The core legal question was whether an inquiry officer and employer can rely on extraneous matters not forming part of the formal charge-sheet when finding an employee guilty and directing dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the Inquiry Officer was bound to confine himself strictly to the matters specified in the charge-sheet and could not be influenced by extraneous considerations such as past penalized service records. The Court affirmed the decisions of the Appellate Tribunal and the High Court, ruling that the dismissal order was rightly quashed as being without lawful authority. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that relying on extraneous matters vitiates a disciplinary inquiry and dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inquiry officer can consider extraneous matters not mentioned in the charge-sheet when determining the guilt of an employee?
  • Is a dismissal order sustainable if the inquiry report is influenced by the previous service record for which the employee had already been penalized?
  • Does the reliance on extraneous matters render an industrial dismissal order without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Manager, State Bank of Pakistan and another vs Ch. Muhammad Ikram1999 SCMR 2578 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-02-09
  service lawconfirmation of employeeadverse entryadmissionconcurrent findingsmemorandum of settlementcivil jurisdiction
  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 employee of the State Bank of Pakistan, regarding his entitlement to confirmation in service. The core legal question was whether the respondent, having been granted benefits of a confirmed staff member under a Memorandum of Settlement due to two years of satisfactory service, was entitled to confirmation when juniors were confirmed, despite alleged adverse entries in his service record. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which determined that the respondent's service was satisfactory and that he was unjustly bypassed for confirmation, were based on a proper appreciation of evidence. The Court affirmed that an admission made by a party in testimony is not conclusive proof if documentary evidence contradicts it. Furthermore, the Court declined to entertain arguments regarding the trial court's jurisdiction that were not pressed before the High Court, particularly as the respondent had since retired, rendering the issue moot. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is an admission made by a party in testimony conclusive proof of the fact admitted if contradicted by documentary evidence?
  • Can a party raise an objection regarding jurisdiction in the Supreme Court if it was not argued before the High Court?
  • Does the existence of adverse entries prior to a qualifying period invalidate an employee's claim to confirmation based on satisfactory service?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Riaz Ahmed vs Khalid Hanif, Deputy Commissioner, Hafizabad and 3 other1999 SCMR 507 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-21
  Bakar Mandicattle marketurban local councilZila Councillocal governmentlease auctionslaughter house
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the lease of a cattle market in Pindi Bhattian, originally granted by the Town Committee to the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner cancelled the lease, citing the inadequacy of the bid and legal restrictions on urban local councils holding cattle markets. The core legal question was the extent of the authority of urban local councils to hold cattle markets or fairs under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, following legislative amendments. The Supreme Court held that while urban local councils are generally precluded from holding cattle markets and fairs—which fall under the purview of Zila Councils—they retain the authority to hold 'Bakar Mandi' specifically for the sale of cattle intended for slaughter within their local area. The Court clarified that the legislative intent was to create distinct operational compartments for rural and urban bodies. Consequently, the Court ordered a limited re-auction between the contesting parties for a lease restricted to a 'Bakar Mandi' for slaughter-ready cattle, emphasizing that such activities must strictly adhere to the statutory framework and the specific limitations imposed by the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Can an urban local council hold a cattle market within its local area under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is the holding of a 'Bakar Mandi' by an urban local council permissible under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the definition of 'market' in the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, include a 'fair'?
  • Are the bye-laws regarding fees for markets a mandatory prerequisite for the validity of a lease contract by a local council?
  Read full judgment →
• Majeed and anothers vs The State1999 SCMR 2317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-28
  ocular testimonyinjured witnesscapital punishmentcorroborationinterested witnesscriminal appealmurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for the murder of four individuals and causing injuries to a complainant, P.W. 13 Amir. The trial court sentenced the appellants to death, which the High Court subsequently commuted to life imprisonment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the ocular testimony of an injured witness, who is related to the deceased and hostile toward the accused, is sufficient to sustain a conviction in the absence of independent corroboration. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the testimony of an injured witness is highly reliable because their presence at the scene is established by the injuries sustained. The Court affirmed that mere relationship or enmity does not render a witness "interested" or unreliable if their testimony is confidence-inspiring and corroborated by medical evidence. The principle laid down is that the testimony of an injured witness, being a natural witness, carries significant weight and can form the basis of a conviction without further corroboration, provided the witness is truthful and their presence is undisputed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the ocular testimony of an injured witness sufficient to sustain a conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a pre-existing enmity or relationship between the witness and the deceased automatically render the witness's testimony unreliable?
  • Can an injured witness be considered a natural witness whose presence at the scene is established by their injuries?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmoodul Hassan Zia and another vs Province of Punjab1999 SCMR 2362 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-26
  civil serviceseniorityleave to appealadministrative lawstatus quoTehsildarsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition challenging an administrative decision by the Chief Minister of Punjab regarding the seniority of Tehsildars. The petitioners, appointed on a permanent basis in 1979, had their seniority fixed in 1996, including their training period, which subsequently led to their promotion to Grade-18. However, a 1998 notification withdrew this seniority, prompting the petitioners to challenge the Chief Minister's authority to alter seniority and exclude the jurisdiction of the competent forum. The core legal question is whether the Chief Executive of a province possesses the lawful authority to arbitrarily withdraw previously fixed seniority of permanent civil servants and whether such administrative actions can bypass established legal forums. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the issues raised required detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court suspended the operation of the High Court's impugned order and the notification withdrawing the seniority, directing that the status quo regarding the petitioners' seniority be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Chief Executive of a province have the lawful authority to arbitrarily withdraw the seniority of permanent civil servants?
  • Can an administrative notification override the seniority fixed by a competent forum for civil servants?
  • Is the exclusion of a competent forum's jurisdiction by an administrative order legally permissible?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmed and 16 others vs Aziz and 2 others1999 SCMR 2239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-18
  pre-emptionpartial pre-emptionindivisibility of transactionco-vendeenon-joinder of partiesmutationagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal arising from a pre-emption suit involving agricultural land. The land was sold to multiple vendees via an oral mutation, with each vendee's specific share clearly delineated. Respondents filed a suit for possession through pre-emption, which was decreed by the Trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the First Appellate Court dismissed the petitioners' appeal on the ground that one co-vendee had not joined the appeal, rendering the transaction indivisible and precluding a decree for partial pre-emption. The Lahore High Court upheld this dismissal. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the specification of individual shares in the mutation effectively negated the finding of indivisibility and partial pre-emption. Furthermore, the Court sought to determine whether the non-joinder of a co-vendee who was also the brother of the pre-emptors constituted a fatal defect in the proceedings. The case addresses the legal implications of specific share allocation in pre-emption transactions and the procedural requirements regarding the joinder of parties in appellate proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Where the share of each vendee is specified in a mutation, does this prevent the transaction from being considered indivisible for the purposes of partial pre-emption?
  • Is the non-joinder of a co-vendee in an appeal against a pre-emption decree fatal to the appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• M.P. Khan and another vs Justice (Retd) Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and others1999 SCMR 90 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-23
  Presidential electionnomination paperselectoral collegeMajlis-e-Shooraconstitutional requirementsproposer and seconder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which affirmed the rejection of the petitioners' nomination papers for the election to the office of the President of Pakistan. The petitioners challenged the decision of the Acting Chief Election Commissioner, who had rejected their nominations because they were not proposed or seconded by any member of the electoral college, as mandated by the Constitution. The core legal question was whether the nomination papers for the Presidential election were validly submitted without the required proposer and seconder. The Supreme Court held that the rejection was correct, as the Constitution explicitly requires that a candidate's nomination paper be signed by a proposer and a seconder who are members of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) or a Provincial Assembly. The Court affirmed that compliance with the procedural requirements set out in the Second Schedule to the Constitution is mandatory for a valid nomination. Finding no illegality in the lower court's order and noting that some petitions were time-barred, the Supreme Court dismissed all petitions for lack of merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for a candidate for the office of the President of Pakistan to have their nomination paper signed by a proposer and a seconder?
  • Does the electoral college for the election of the President of Pakistan consist of members of the Majlis-e-Shoora and Provincial Assemblies?
  • Can nomination papers for the office of the President be accepted if they fail to comply with the requirements of the Second Schedule to the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt.Col. (Retd.) Muhammad Aslam vs District Collector, Sargodha and others1999 SCMR 1116 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-08
  interim reliefleave to appealresumption of landlease expirationwrit petitiondiscretionary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had declined to grant interim relief to the petitioner regarding the resumption of disputed land. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court's refusal to grant interim relief, based on the finding that the lease period for the land in question had expired in 1996, warranted interference by the apex court. The Supreme Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute to avoid prejudicing either party, held that it was not inclined to interfere with the interim orders passed by the High Court. The Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to deny interim relief. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the petitioner remains at liberty to raise all relevant legal and factual arguments in support of his case during the final hearing of the main writ petition before the High Court, ensuring that the petitioner's rights to a full adjudication on the merits are preserved.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expiration of a lease period constitute a valid ground for a High Court to decline interim relief in a land dispute?
  • Will the Supreme Court interfere with an interim order of the High Court if the merits of the main case remain pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Liberty Power Limited through Authorised Director Syed Ahmad1999 P.C.T.L.R. 44 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-13
  territorial jurisdictionwrit petitionleave to appealcustoms dutiesservice chargesconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which dismissed a writ petition in limine on the grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioner-company, Liberty Power Limited, challenged the imposition of a 2% service charge on imported machinery for a thermal power project, arguing that the goods were exempt from customs duties under S.R.O. No. 279(1)/94. The High Court had held that the matter fell within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh rather than the Rawalpindi Bench. The Supreme Court, noting that leave to appeal had already been granted in several identical cases involving the interpretation of Article 199(4B) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, granted leave to appeal in the present petition as well. The Court ordered that this appeal be heard alongside the other pending identical matters. The interim relief previously granted was withdrawn.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have territorial jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to hear a challenge against a levy imposed on goods located at a port outside its territorial limits?
  • Should leave to appeal be granted when identical matters involving the interpretation of Article 199(4B) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 are already pending before the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Lehar Khan and others vs Amir Hamza and others1999 SCMR 108 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-29
  limitation periodcondonation of delayvacationSupreme Court Registriesstatutory interpretationtime-barred petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, filed 21 days beyond the period of limitation. The petitioners sought condonation of delay, arguing that the Copying Agency failed to notify them of the copy's readiness and that the limitation period expired during the Supreme Court's summer vacation, thereby invoking Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Supreme Court rejected the first contention due to a lack of evidence regarding the alleged failure of the Copying Agency. Regarding the second contention, the Court held that Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies only when a court is closed for business. The Court clarified that Supreme Court Registries remain open for receiving petitions and conducting routine business during vacations, as mandated by the Supreme Court Rules 1980 and administrative orders. Consequently, because the Court was not closed for the purpose of receiving petitions, the benefit of Section 4 could not be extended to the petitioners. The petition was dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to extend the limitation period for filing petitions in the Supreme Court during summer vacation?
  • Are the Registries of the Supreme Court of Pakistan considered closed for the purpose of receiving petitions during court vacations?
  • Can a party claim the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act 1908 if the Court's offices remain open for routine business during a vacation?
  Read full judgment →
• Land Acquisition Collector, Rawalpindi and others vs Dina and others1999 SCMR 1615 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-12
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuepotentiality of landcompulsory acquisitionlimitationsupreme court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against a consolidated judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the compensation for land acquired for the Dhamial Air Field in Rawalpindi. The core legal question involves the determination of just and fair market compensation and potentiality of urban agricultural land acquired under statutory provisions. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's enhancement of compensation was justified, based on a proper appreciation of evidence, the urban and residential potential of the land, and established principles regarding market value assessment. Furthermore, the Court found the petitions to be barred by time with no plausible explanation for the delay. The key principle laid down is that determination of land compensation must account for market value, potentiality, accessibility to urban amenities, and evidence of what a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller, and such concurrent factual findings by the High Court are not interfered with absent misreading of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the enhancement of compensation for acquired land by the High Court based on its potentiality and evidence is sustainable?
  • What factors must be considered while determining the market value and compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Can a petition for leave to appellant be entertained when it is barred by time and lacks a plausible explanation for the delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore High Court, Lahore through Registrar vs Muhammad Jahangir1999 PLC (C.S.) 1278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-29
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarksService Tribunaljudicial officeradministrative instructionsexpunction of remarkscountersigning officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the expunction of adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of a Judicial Magistrate by the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider the High Court Administration Committee’s rejection of the respondent's representation and by misinterpreting the procedural instructions governing ACRs. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal’s decision was perverse, as it ignored the High Court's administrative decision upholding the remarks and misconstrued the nature of the countersigning officer's role. The Court ruled that where a countersigning officer expresses an inability to record remarks, the reporting officer's adverse remarks remain valid. Furthermore, the Court established that procedural instructions, such as underlining remarks in red ink, are not mandatory requirements whose omission invalidates the ACR. The judgment emphasizes that a Service Tribunal must consider all material factors, including administrative decisions by superior authorities, and that the conduct of a judicial officer seeking external validation to rebut ACR remarks is improper. The appeal was accepted, and the Service Tribunal's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a countersigning officer to record remarks automatically invalidate the adverse remarks of a reporting officer?
  • Is the requirement for a reporting officer to underline remarks in red ink a mandatory procedural instruction?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's decision if the Tribunal omits material factors or misinterprets admitted facts?
  • Does the limitation period for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court commence from the date of the judgment's announcement or the date of receipt of the copy?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore High Court , Lahore through Registar vs Muhammd Jahangir1999 SCMR 2117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-29
  Annual Confidential Reportadverse remarksService TribunalJudicial Magistratecountersigning officerconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution examines the validity of a Service Tribunal judgment that expunged adverse remarks recorded in the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of a Judicial Magistrate for the period between March and October 1986. The core legal question concerned whether the Service Tribunal erred in law by ignoring material factors, misinterpreting instructions regarding ACR recording, and failing to consider the rejection of the officer's representation by the High Court's Administration Committee. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal misdirected itself by drawing perverse conclusions from the countersigning officer's lack of remarks, treating directory instructions as mandatory, and ignoring the High Court's decision. The Court established that where a countersigning officer expresses inability to record remarks, the reporting officer's adverse remarks hold good, and that failing to give written warnings prior to adverse entries is not a mandatory requirement under the applicable instructions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court can grant leave to appeal under Article 212(3) against an order of the Service Tribunal concerning an Annual Confidential Report?
  • What is the legal effect when a countersigning officer records no remarks on an Annual Confidential Report containing adverse entries?
  • Whether the requirement of underlining adverse remarks in red ink by a countersigning officer is mandatory?
  • Does the omission of a Service Tribunal to consider material factors and High Court committee decisions raise a question of law of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Lahore Development Authority vs W.2. Studios and others1999 SCMR 1576 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-29
  land acquisitionstatutory noticeacquisition proceedingsadministrative lawdue processLahore Development Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had set aside land acquisition proceedings initiated by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) due to the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 6(1) of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973. The core legal question concerned the validity of acquisition proceedings conducted without the requisite statutory notice. During the appellate proceedings, it was submitted that a fresh notice under Section 6(1) of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 had been served upon the respondent, and the matter was currently pending before the Land Acquisition Collector. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeal with directions for the Land Acquisition Collector to consider all objections filed by the respondent and the replies submitted by the LDA, along with any other available legal pleas. The Court mandated that the proceedings be concluded within three months from the receipt of the order, effectively rendering the original dispute moot by directing the parties to proceed through the newly initiated statutory process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a notice under Section 6(1) of the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 render land acquisition proceedings by the Lahore Development Authority without lawful authority?
  • Can land acquisition proceedings be regularized by the service of a fresh notice under the Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act, 1973 after a court has set aside initial proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Kishwar Perween and others vs Rashida Bibi and 5 others1999 SCMR 2379 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-31
  election petitionlocal government electionsstay orderelection tribunalSupreme Court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions converted into appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning local government elections. The core legal question involves the restraint on holding the election of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman pending the final adjudication of an election petition before the Election Tribunal. The court held that the High Court stay order is vacated subject to the observation that the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner shall not hold the election of the Chairman or Vice-Chairman until the election petition pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Okara, cum-Election Tribunal for Town Committee, Renala Khurd, is finally decided in accordance with the High Court's order by the specified deadline of 15th of January, 1999. The key principle established relates to balancing the execution of election proceedings with the expeditious final resolution of pending election disputes before designated tribunals.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court vacate a High Court stay order while permitting a conditional restraint on holding local government elections?
  • Whether the election of a Chairman or Vice-Chairman should remain suspended pending the final decision of a pending election petition before an Election Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore and 4 others1999 SCMR 2868 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-22
  judgment implementationexecution of Supreme Court ordersconstitutional obligationabsconsionbail cancellationpolice inaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition seeking the implementation of a previous judgment of the Court wherein bail granted to a respondent was cancelled and non-bailable warrants were issued for his arrest. The core legal question concerns the appropriate forum and mechanism for enforcing and executing judgments, orders, or decrees of the Supreme Court when executive authorities fail to execute warrants and provide protection. The Court held that while it is the constitutional duty of government functionaries to protect life and liberty and aid the Supreme Court under Article 190 of the Constitution, a specific provision exists under Article 187(2) of the Constitution for the enforcement of any direction, order, or decree of the Supreme Court by the concerned High Court. The petition was accordingly disposed of, observing that the petitioner may approach the High Court for speedy and effective implementation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court is the appropriate forum for the direct execution of its orders or if the concerned High Court should be approached under Article 187(2) of the Constitution?
  • What is the constitutional duty of executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan regarding the aid of the Supreme Court under Article 190?
  • Does an accused who has escaped from custody and remained a proclaimed offender forfeit the benefit of the third proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Khushi Muhammad and 2 others vs The Province of the Punjab through Secretary to Government of the Punjab and 2 others1999 SCMR 1633 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-11
  Kala Base evicteesproprietary rightsres judicataconstructive res judicatasitting tenantsestoppelpast and closed transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter concerns the entitlement of 'Kala Base evictees' to proprietary rights in state lands, specifically interpreting the term 'sitting tenants' from a 1975 Cabinet decision. The core legal question was whether the Board of Revenue could unilaterally modify a policy decision that had already been adjudicated up to the Supreme Court, and whether 'sitting tenants' necessitated personal self-cultivation. The Supreme Court held that the Board of Revenue lacked the authority to reopen a past and closed transaction that had attained finality through previous litigation. The Court affirmed that the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata bar the re-agitation of settled issues. Furthermore, the Court held that sub-tenants are estopped under the law from challenging the title of the tenant under whom they claim. It was clarified that 'sitting tenants' encompasses both physical and constructive possession, and benefits intended for specific evictees cannot be extended to non-evictees. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the finality of the earlier judicial determinations regarding the rights of the Kala Base evictees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a subordinate administrative body unilaterally modify a policy decision that has attained finality through previous judicial adjudication?
  • Does the principle of constructive res judicata apply to issues that could have been raised in previous litigation but were not?
  • Is a sub-tenant estopped from questioning the title of the tenant under whom they claim possession?
  • Does the term 'sitting tenants' in a government policy decision necessarily imply personal self-cultivation, or does it include constructive possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Anwar, Assistant Director Education (Retd) vs Chief1999 SCMR 1790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-18
  service matterlachestime-barred claimwrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionpromotionback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Peshawar High Court judgment dismissing a writ petition filed by a retired Assistant Director of Education. The petitioner sought to ante-date his promotion to B.P.S. 17 and B.P.S. 18, claiming benefits from 1971 rather than 1974. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner’s claims were time-barred due to inordinate delay and whether the High Court correctly identified the petitioner's negligence in pursuing his remedies. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, finding that the petitioner failed to object to his pay scale for nearly a decade and repeatedly filed belated representations. The Court held that a petitioner cannot revive a time-barred claim through repeated, stale representations or by withdrawing earlier writ petitions to seek redress elsewhere when the underlying cause of action is stale. The judgment reinforces the principle that laches and negligence in pursuing administrative remedies disentitle a litigant from invoking the extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, particularly regarding service matters involving disputed facts and alleged forged documents.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petitioner revive a time-barred service claim by filing repeated representations?
  • Does the withdrawal of a writ petition with permission to seek redress elsewhere allow a petitioner to circumvent the limitation period for a stale claim?
  • Is a constitutional petition competent for matters relating to terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar vs The State1999 SCMR 2428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-04
  criminal appealocular evidencemedical evidenceinimical witnessesmurder convictionappreciation of evidencesentence reduction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a High Court judgment that upheld the appellant's conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether alleged contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, the deceased's empty stomach, and the existence of prior enmity between the parties rendered the prosecution's case unreliable. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that minor discrepancies in witness testimony during a shocking occurrence do not invalidate the prosecution's case, as witnesses cannot be expected to narrate events with mathematical exactitude. The Court further held that a single gunshot can cause multiple injuries and that the testimony of related or inimical witnesses is admissible without corroboration if it possesses intrinsic worth and inspires confidence. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the deceased's empty stomach did not contradict the prosecution's timeline regarding the labourers' movements. The judgment reinforces the principle that courts must sift the grain from the chaff to determine guilt beyond reasonable doubt, even when some co-accused are acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number of injuries automatically invalidate the prosecution's case?
  • Can the testimony of inimical or related witnesses be relied upon without independent corroboration?
  • Does the acquittal of co-accused persons necessarily reflect upon the conviction of the remaining accused?
  • Is a medical finding of an empty stomach sufficient to disprove the prosecution's timeline of events?
  Read full judgment →
• Khursheed K. A. Marker and 3 others vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima and others1999 PLD Supreme Court 54 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-09-29
  evictiondefault in rentfirst date of hearingprevious defaultstatutory reprieveurban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions assailing concurrent findings of the High Court and the Rent Controller dismissing eviction applications filed by landlords against tenants on the ground of default in rent payments. The core legal question revolves around the interpretation of the proviso to section 13(2)(i) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, applicable to Baluchistan and N.-W.F.P., which allows for the rejection of an eviction application if a tenant admits liability on the first date of hearing, provided the tenant has not made such default on any previous occasion. The Supreme Court held that the provision is designed to stifle litigation and provide reprieve to tenants with a clean past, obligating the landlord to expressly and specifically plead a previous default when bringing the application or immediately when the tenant admits default. The Court laid down that landlords cannot remain silent and raise vague allegations of default, and that being too slow to agitate the plea of previous default before the Controller is fatal to their case, thus upholding the concurrent orders dismissing the eviction applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord is obligated to expressly plead a previous default when seeking eviction on the ground of default under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • At what stage must a tenant admit liability to avail the statutory reprieve under section 13(2)(i) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does the failure of a landlord to promptly raise and identify a previous default before the Rent Controller preclude them from raising it subsequently?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Yar through Legal Heirs and 10 others vs Ghulam Muhammad and another1999 SCMR 1808 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-31
  pre-emptionheritability of right to suelegal representativesPunjab Pre-emption Actpending suitwaiver
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses whether the right of pre-emption under statutory law is heritable upon the death of a pre-emptor during the pendency of a suit. The core legal question involves determining whether legal representatives pursuing a pre-emptor's pending suit must independently possess a superior pre-emptive right against the vendee, or if they merely succeed to the deceased's superior right. The Court held that under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913, once a pre-emption suit is duly instituted, the right to sue is heritable and survives in favour of all legal heirs of the deceased pre-emptor, irrespective of whether the individual heirs independently possessed a superior pre-emptive right or had previously waived their personal claims. The key principle laid down is that upon a pre-emptor's death during a pending suit, the heirs prosecute the vested right of the original pre-emptor, and their prior personal qualifications or lack thereof do not enter the equation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right of pre-emption is heritable upon the death of a pre-emptor during the pendency of a pre-emption suit under the Punjab Pre-emption Act, 1913?
  • Do the legal representatives of a deceased pre-emptor need to independently possess a preferential right against the vendee to continue a pending pre-emption suit?
  • Does the element of waiver by individual heirs affect their capacity to pursue the deceased pre-emptor's pending pre-emption claim?
  • Are all legal heirs of a deceased pre-emptor entitled to be impleaded upon the death of the plaintiff during the pendency of a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs Habib Ullah1999 SCMR 1800 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-04
  pre-emptionbenami transactioncollateralshipsuperior right of pre-emptionsecond appealpedigree tabletenancy right
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a regular second appeal regarding a pre-emption suit. The pre-emptor-appellant instituted a suit to pre-empt a registered sale of land, claiming superior rights as a collateral of the vendors and as a co-sharer, while the respondent-vendee contested the suit asserting a superior tenancy right and alleging that the suit was filed benami for the benefit of local Patwaris. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, but both the First Appellate Court and the High Court reversed the decision, finding that the appellant failed to establish his collateralship through admissible evidence and that the suit was indeed brought benami for third parties. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that findings on questions of fact regarding family relationship, tenancy, and benami transactions based on proper appreciation of evidence cannot be interfered with in second appeal. The Court reaffirmed that oral evidence of relationship must comply with statutory requirements of admissibility and that benami nature of a pre-emption suit is generally inferred from surrounding circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether oral evidence reciting pedigree tables without laying proper foundation is admissible to prove relationship under Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact regarding collateralship and tenancy in a pre-emption suit be upset by the Supreme Court in an appeal arising from a second appeal?
  • Whether a pre-emption suit can be dismissed on the ground that it has been brought benami for the benefit of third parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Muhammad Yousaf vs Federal Government through Secretary, Ministry of Kashmir Affairs and Northern Areas and others1999 SCMR 1516 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-27
  fraudforgeryrecalled judgmentnon-party locus standifinal judgmentallotment of landdisplaced personsremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of three appeals arising from a Lahore High Court order that allowed applications under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.), recalling a prior writ petition judgment on the grounds of fraud and forgery. The appellant, claiming to be a displaced person from Jammu and Kashmir, asserted allotment and proprietary rights over the disputed land. Conversely, the private respondents, who were not parties to the original writ petition, alleged that the appellant's allotment and revenue documents were fabricated. The Supreme Court examined two key legal questions: whether a non-party to a proceeding can file an application under Section 12(2) C.P.C., and which forum constitutes the 'final' court for such an application. The Court held that the term 'person' in Section 12(2) C.P.C. permits affected non-parties to file such applications. It also held that if the Supreme Court merely refuses leave to appeal, the final judgment remains that of the High Court. Ultimately, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and remanded the case to the Chief Settlement Commissioner to determine factual questions of allotment and possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a person who was not a party to the original proceedings can file an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, if their rights are adversely affected by the judgment?
  • Which court is considered to have passed the 'final order' under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, when the Supreme Court merely dismisses a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment?
  • Can a High Court entertain an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to recall its own judgment in a writ petition on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad and others vs The State1999 SCMR 1818 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-02
  judicial confessionretracted confessionmurderdeath sentenceconfession on oathcriminal corroborationillicit relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentences of the appellants, Khan Muhammad and Mst. Kanizan, for the murders of the appellant's wife and five children under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The Additional Sessions Judge convicted both appellants, and the Lahore High Court dismissed their appeal while confirming the death sentences. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the judicial confessions made by the appellants were voluntary, legally recorded, and admissible despite allegations of being recorded on oath and following a delay in police custody. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the judicial confessions were voluntary, properly recorded in compliance with section 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without the administration of oath, and sufficiently corroborated by blood-stained recoveries and motive. The key principles laid down are that a conviction can be sustained on a retracted judicial confession if it is proved voluntary and compliant with legal formalities, and that a mere routine clerical expression in a confession record does not invalidate it when no foundational challenge was made during the cross-examination of the recording magistrate.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of a retracted judicial confession if it is recorded in accordance with law?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession while the accused is in police custody render the confession involuntary and nugatory?
  • Is a judicial confession rendered inadmissible merely due to the presence of a routine clerical expression suggesting it was recorded on oath, when no such objection was raised during the cross-examination of the recording magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Nawaz vs The State1999 SCMR 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-23
  murderqisas and diyatwaiver of qisasdeath sentence alterationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Khalid Nawaz, under section 302(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Rehmat Ali. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the sentence of death as Qisas could be enforced and maintained despite the fact that the mother of the deceased, being an adult Wali, had waived her right of Qisas during the trial. The Supreme Court held that the waiver of the right of Qisas by one of the legal heirs (Wali) precludes the execution of the death sentence as Qisas, altering the sentence of death to fourteen years' rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alongside the payment of Diyat to the mother of the deceased. The key principle laid down is that an adult Wali can legally waive the right of Qisas, which affects the quantum and nature of punishment under the penal code.

  Questions settled

  • Can the death sentence as Qisas be enforced if one of the legal heirs waives the right of Qisas?
  • What is the legal effect of a waiver of Qisas by an adult Wali of the deceased under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the High Court can maintain a death sentence without noticing a statement regarding the waiver of Qisas made before the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mehmood vs Collector of Customs, Customs House, Lahore1999 SCMR 1881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-01
  constitutional petitionalternative remedyjurisdiction of High CourtCustoms ActFederal Investigation Agency (FIA)show-cause noticeextension of timeseizure of currency
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Supreme Court of Pakistan addresses a petition filed against the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court concerning the seizure of a large sum of Pakistani currency from the petitioner at an airport by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) and subsequent proceedings under the Customs Act, 1969, and the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The core legal questions involved the competency of the FIA to act under the Customs Act, the validity of show-cause notices, and the legality of extending the time for issuing such notices under section 168(2) of the Customs Act in the presence of an adequate alternative statutory remedy. The Supreme Court held that the High Court ought to have dismissed the constitutional petition solely on the ground of maintainability due to the availability of an alternative adequate remedy before the Customs Appellate Tribunal and a subsequent appeal to the High Court under section 196 of the Customs Act. The Court further observed that the FIA possesses lawful powers of search, arrest, and seizure under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974, which graft onto the Customs Act. The key principle laid down is that where a statute provides an exclusive appellate or revisional forum terminating in the High Court itself, the High Court must exercise extreme judicial restraint and decline to entertain constitutional petitions under Article 199 unless the impugned order is patently without jurisdiction or void.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution when an adequate alternative statutory remedy, such as an appeal to an Appellate Tribunal and thereafter to the High Court, is available?
  • Does the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) have the legal competence to exercise powers of search, arrest, and seizure under the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Is it mandatory for the Collector of Customs to record reasons in writing while extending the time for issuing a show-cause notice under section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does an extension of time under section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, require a prior notice and hearing to the affected party?
  Read full judgment →
• Karam Dad vs Ghulam Qasim and 3 others1999 SCMR 2783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-06
  leave to appealcommutation of sentencedeath penaltybenefit of doubtacquittalmurder referencemitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a Lahore High Court judgment concerning the conviction of Ghulam Qasim and Falak Sher for the murder of Raza Muhammad, and the acquittal of other co-accused. The trial court had sentenced Ghulam Qasim to death and Falak Sher to life imprisonment. The High Court maintained these convictions but commuted Ghulam Qasim's death sentence to life imprisonment without providing specific mitigating circumstances, while upholding the acquittals of the other accused. The petitioner challenged the reduction of Ghulam Qasim's sentence, the quantum of Falak Sher's sentence, and the acquittal of Liyar. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to provide valid reasons for commuting the death sentence of Ghulam Qasim despite finding the evidence against him unimpeachable. Conversely, the Court found the acquittal of Liyar justified due to discrepancies between the weapon used and the nature of the injury, and upheld the lesser penalty for Falak Sher as his injury was not on a vital part. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal solely to examine the legality of the lesser penalty awarded to Ghulam Qasim, while declining leave regarding the other respondents.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court commute a death sentence to life imprisonment without providing specific mitigating circumstances?
  • Is an acquittal based on a discrepancy between the alleged weapon used and the medical evidence regarding the injury sustained valid?
  • Does the fact that an injury was not on a vital part of the body justify a lesser penalty in a murder case?
  Read full judgment →
• Justice Sajjad Ali Shah vs Malik Asad Ali and 5 others1999 SCMR 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-14
  civil reviewconstitutional conventionappointment of Chief Justicescope of reviewindependence of judiciaryde facto exercise of power
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil review petitions sought a review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment declaring the appointment of the petitioner as the Chief Justice of Pakistan unconstitutional. The core legal questions revolved around whether constitutional conventions can be enforced under a written Constitution, the scope of review proceedings, and whether the direction to notify the senior most judge as the Chief Justice usurped the President's appointing powers. The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, holding that review cannot serve as a rehearing of a decided case, that conscious and deliberate decisions on points of law cannot be reopened merely because another view is possible, and that the established constitutional convention requiring the appointment of the senior most judge is binding. The key principles laid down are that established constitutional conventions operating within a written Constitution have binding force, and that review proceedings are strictly confined to self-evident errors apparent on the face of the record rather than re-arguing points already deliberated and repelled.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional convention be enforced through a court of law under a written Constitution?
  • Does a review petition permit the re-hearing of a case where the court has taken a conscious and deliberate decision on a point of law?
  • Did the direction by the Supreme Court to notify the senior most judge as the Chief Justice amount to a usurpation of the President's power under Article 177 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Joint Admission Committee, Khyber Medical College through Chairman, Peshawar and anothers vs Jamila Yaqoob1999 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  medical college admissionage limitconstitutional jurisdictionacademic hardshipinterim ordersdiscretionary reliefstudent admission
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that directed the admission of a student to a medical college despite her exceeding the maximum age limit prescribed by the prospectus. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its constitutional jurisdiction in overriding the age eligibility criteria set out in the prospectus for the academic year 1994-95. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's interpretation was legally incorrect, as the rule clearly stipulated a maximum age of 25, which the student had exceeded. However, the Court declined to set aside the judgment or disturb the student's admission due to the peculiar circumstances: she was a disabled student (polio victim) already in her fourth year of studies, and removing her would serve no useful purpose. The Court established that while courts should not override clear admission rules, they may exercise discretion in exceptional circumstances to avoid academic hardship. Crucially, the Court cautioned High Courts against granting interim orders for provisional admission in educational matters, advising instead for expedited final hearings to prevent irreversible academic loss.

  Questions settled

  • Does a court have the discretion to allow a student to continue their studies despite failing to meet the age eligibility criteria for admission?
  • Should High Courts grant interim orders for provisional admission in professional colleges pending the final decision of a writ petition?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to decline to disturb a student's admission based on the passage of time and academic progress, even if the initial admission was not strictly in accordance with the rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Jewan Bukhsh through Legal Heirs and others vs Fazal Ahmed through Legal Heirs and others1999 SCMR 1549 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-04
  land partitionrevenue authoritiesdeclaration suitleave to appealultra viresPunjab Land Revenue Actabatement of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Regular Second Appeal and affirmed the First Appellate Court's decision to reverse the trial court's decree in a suit for declaration regarding land partition. The core legal questions concern whether the partition proceedings conducted by the Assistant Collector were ultra vires and illegal, specifically regarding the petitioners' exclusion from proceedings despite their interest in the land, and whether the courts below erred in their interpretation of the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887. The petitioners contend that the Revenue Authorities' orders were void and thus challengeable under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that the High Court incorrectly applied the principle of abatement. The Supreme Court, having heard arguments regarding the alleged illegal reduction of the petitioners' holdings and the validity of the revenue orders, granted leave to appeal. The Court held that the issues raised regarding the legality of the partition and the maintainability of the suit warranted further examination, directing that the interim relief maintaining the petitioners' possession continue pending the final appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil court entertain a suit challenging the validity of orders passed by Revenue Authorities under the Punjab Land Revenue Act 1887?
  • Does the failure to include interested parties in partition proceedings render the resulting partition order ultra vires?
  • Under what circumstances can a suit for declaration be maintained against partition proceedings conducted by revenue officers?
  Read full judgment →
• Jehanzeb and others vs Muhammad Abbas and others1999 SCMR 2182 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-02
  partition of propertyunregistered partition deedcollateral purposesjoint holdingcivil revisionfindings of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from an order of the Peshawar High Court dismissing civil revisions filed against the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding a suit for possession by partition of a residential house and a Hujra. The core legal question centered on whether an unregistered private partition deed, not signed by the appellants or their father, was binding and whether a suit for partition of part of the joint holding was competent in the absence of a valid partition. The Supreme Court held that the unregistered partition deed could be looked into for collateral purposes, that the appellants failed to produce the original copy to substantiate their claim of non-signature, and that no justification existed to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming that partial partition based on a proved collateral arrangement is sustainable where findings of fact are unexceptionable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unregistered private partition deed can be looked into for collateral purposes?
  • Is a suit for partition of part of a joint holding competent in the absence of a comprehensive valid partition?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts be interfered with without sufficient justification?
  Read full judgment →
• Jawaid Iqbal vs Khawaja Muhmmad Arif1999 SCMR 13 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-06
  rent controller qualificationde facto doctrineSindh Rented Premises Ordinancesenior civil judgeeviction orderstatutory construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from concurrent orders of eviction passed by the Rent Controller and the High Court of Sindh. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was duly qualified under Section 4(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, having been directly inducted as a Senior Civil Judge without serving three years as a Civil Judge or First Class Magistrate. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the objection was merely technical. The Court reasoned that a direct appointee to the higher grade of Senior Civil Judge substantially satisfies the underlying service requirement, and further applied the de facto doctrine to validate the acts of the judicial officer done bona fide in the public interest. The key principles laid down are that beneficial rules of statutory construction apply to technical qualification requirements for public officers, and that the de facto doctrine protects acts performed by public functionaries in good faith from collateral challenge.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a direct appointee as a Senior Civil Judge fulfills the qualification requirement of Section 4(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can the de facto doctrine be invoked to validate an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller whose appointment is challenged on technical grounds?
  • Are the official acts of a judicial officer performing functions in the ordinary course open to collateral challenge for want of legal authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal and 9 others vs Employees' Oldage Benefit Institution, Government of Pakistan and 7 others1999 SCMR 1707 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-14
  specific performanceconstitutional petitionapprobation and reprobationland acquisitionrejection of plainteviction proceedingsabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over a bungalow involving the Employees' Old Age Benefit Institution (EOBI) and subsequent purchasers, Javed Iqbal and others. EOBI filed a suit for specific performance regarding the property, while simultaneously initiating compulsory acquisition proceedings. The defendants sought rejection of the plaint based on the pendency of acquisition proceedings and initiated eviction proceedings against EOBI. The Civil Court rejected the plaint, and the Commissioner ordered the acquisition proceedings held in abeyance. The High Court, via a Constitutional Petition, set aside these actions, finding the defendants were adopting inconsistent and mutually destructive positions. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that while Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 generally discourages interference with subordinate court orders where alternate remedies exist, the High Court may intervene when the pursuit of normal remedies would result in an abuse of process or retard the interest of justice. The Court further directed that while eviction proceedings could continue, the final order must be stayed pending the outcome of the civil suit and acquisition proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise Constitutional jurisdiction when normal appellate remedies are available but inadequate to address multiple, interconnected proceedings?
  • Does the principle of approbation and reprobation prevent a party from seeking rejection of a plaint based on acquisition proceedings they simultaneously sought to halt?
  • Is a Commissioner justified in staying land acquisition proceedings solely due to the pendency of a civil suit regarding the same property?
  • Should eviction proceedings be stayed pending the final outcome of a civil suit for specific performance concerning the same premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs A. Razzak1999 SCMR 2924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-04-06
  ejectment proceedingswillful defaultrent deposittransfer of ownershiplandlord-tenant disputeSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside an ejectment order against a tenant. The landlord had sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and unauthorized additions/alterations to the premises. The High Court had reversed the Rent Controller's decision, finding that the tenant had not committed willful default, as rent was deposited in court after the landlord failed to provide satisfactory proof of ownership following a notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Furthermore, the High Court found the Rent Controller lacked authority to appoint a Commissioner to inspect the premises. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, ruling that a tenant's request for proof of ownership upon receiving a notice of transfer of property is not unjustified. The Court held that the tenant's subsequent deposit of rent in court demonstrated bona fides, negating the claim of willful default. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the tenant's conduct did not constitute default under the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Is a tenant justified in requesting proof of ownership from a new landlord before paying rent after receiving a notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a Rent Controller have the authority to appoint a Commissioner to inspect premises under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a tenant's deposit of rent in court after a dispute regarding ownership constitute willful default?
  Read full judgment →
• Jam Riaz Ahmad vs Director Food, Punjab, Lahore and another1999 SCMR 1135 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-10
  civil servantefficiency and discipline rulesdismissal from servicewheat shortageregular inquiryright of defenseremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court challenged the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's appeal against his dismissal from service and an order for recovery of a heavy amount following a shortage of wheat stored under his charge. The core legal question revolved around whether the departmental authority could lawfully punish the civil servant and order recovery without conducting a proper regular inquiry, recording evidence of witnesses, or affording an opportunity to produce defense evidence, in disregard of mandatory rules and established judicial guidelines. The Supreme Court did not delve into the merits of the case but set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as the departmental order, remanding the matter for a fresh inquiry by a newly appointed inquiry officer. The key principle laid down is that disciplinary proceedings resulting in major penalties and financial recovery against a civil servant must strictly adhere to the prescribed procedural rules, including the recording of evidence and granting opportunity for defense, and authorities cannot arbitrarily substitute concurrent exonerations with personal surmises.

  Questions settled

  • Can a departmental authority impose a major penalty and financial recovery on a civil servant without recording evidence of witnesses in proof of charges?
  • Whether an authority can ignore concurrent findings and recommendations of inquiry officers exonerating an accused employee without valid legal basis?
  • Is it mandatory to provide an opportunity to produce evidence in defense during disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Jaleb Khan and 9 others vs Mst. Subhani and another1999 SCMR 2502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-02
  inheritancecollateralspedigree-tableproof of relationshipopinion as to relationshipcivil court jurisdictionsettlement lawsdisplaced persons
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose out of a suit for declaration filed by the legal heirs of a deceased displaced person, challenging a mutation that allowed a 3/8 share in the estate to the appellants as collaterals. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the First Appellate Court decreed it, finding that the appellants failed to prove their relationship to the deceased. The High Court affirmed this decision in revision. Before the Supreme Court, the core questions were whether the civil court had jurisdiction to decide the matter of inheritance under settlement laws, and whether the appellants proved their collateral relationship under Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The Supreme Court held that the civil court had jurisdiction since the suit was instituted after 24-12-1964. It further held that under Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, proof of relationship requires evidence of opinion expressed by conduct of persons having special means of knowledge, which the incomplete pedigree-table and oral evidence failed to establish. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding inheritance of a displaced person's estate instituted after 24-12-1964?
  • What mode of proof is required under Article 64 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 to establish a legal relationship between parties?
  • Can an incomplete pedigree-table, unsupported by evidence of opinion expressed by conduct, be sufficient to prove collateral relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Jaffar Shah and another vs Mian Yahya Shah and another1999 SCMR 20 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-06
  eviction petitiondefault in payment of rentsublettinglandlord testimonylump sum rentburden of proofpartnership in tenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by tenants against the order of the High Court affirming their eviction ordered by the Rent Controller under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963. The eviction was sought by the landlord on grounds of default in monthly rent payment and unauthorized subletting. The primary legal issues were whether the landlord's failure to personally testify was fatal to the eviction petition, whether a practice of accepting accumulated rent in lump sum negated wilful default, and whether inducting co-occupants as alleged partners without landlord consent amounted to subletting. The Supreme Court held that personal appearance of a landlord in the witness box is not a sine qua non where the onus shifts to the tenant to prove timely payment and authorized occupancy. The Court further ruled that alleged practice or acceptance of accumulated rent does not condone statutory default, nor does associating a partner without written consent of the landlord validate co-occupancy. Finding no merit, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is the personal appearance of a landlord in the witness box mandatory to establish grounds of default and subletting?
  • Does the practice of accepting accumulated rent in lump sum condone statutory default in payment of rent?
  • Does inducting an alleged partner into demised premises without the consent of the landlord constitute unauthorized subletting?
  Read full judgment →
• Izhar Ahmed Khan and anothers vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and others1999 SCMR 2557 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-20
  permanent workmantemporary workmanlabor lawindustrial employmentnature of workprobationary periodwrongful termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the employment status of workers initially engaged as temporary staff by the Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan. The appellants, hired as Delivery Assistants, contended that despite being labeled temporary, they were employed against permanent posts for periods exceeding nine months, thereby qualifying as 'permanent workmen' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question was whether the nature of the work and the duration of employment, rather than the designation in the appointment letter, determined the appellants' status as permanent employees. The Supreme Court held that the definition of a permanent workman is determined by the nature of the work and its duration. Since the evidence established the appellants were working against permanent posts for over nine months, they satisfied the statutory criteria for permanent status. The Court emphasized that the nature of the work is the primary test, and employers cannot circumvent labor laws by artificially breaking service periods to maintain a 'temporary' designation for work that is inherently permanent in nature.

  Questions settled

  • What criteria determine whether a worker is classified as a 'permanent workman' versus a 'temporary workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the designation of 'temporary' in an appointment letter override the actual nature of the work performed when determining an employee's status?
  • Can an employer circumvent the status of a permanent workman by terminating and re-employing staff with short breaks to keep the service period under nine months?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmed Hashmi and anothers vs General Manager, Pakistan1999 SCMR 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-19
  service tribunaldifference of opinionjurisdiction of chairmanservice appealnatural justiceright to hearingdepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against the dismissal of service appeals by the Chairman of the Federal Service Tribunal. The appellants, employees of Pakistan Railways, were removed from service following an inquiry into a fatal accident. Two members of the Service Tribunal differed in their opinions regarding the appropriate penalty for one appellant, while concurring on the other. Consequently, the Chairman dismissed both appeals without hearing the parties, despite a lack of disagreement regarding one appellant. The core legal question was whether the Chairman acted within his jurisdiction under the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973, by dismissing both appeals in their entirety without hearing the parties, despite the concurrence of the initial bench members on one of the cases. The Supreme Court held that the Chairman acted illegally and without jurisdiction. The Court established that where members of a tribunal bench concur on a specific issue, that portion of the judgment becomes final, and the Chairman cannot reopen or dismiss matters upon which there was no difference of opinion. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the necessity of affording parties a hearing before the third member when a difference of opinion arises.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Chairman of the Federal Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal in its entirety when members of the bench have already reached a unanimous decision on part of the case?
  • Is the Chairman of the Federal Service Tribunal required to hear the parties before deciding a case referred to him due to a difference of opinion between bench members?
  • Does a difference of opinion between tribunal members regarding one appellant justify the reopening of a matter where the members had already concurred on another appellant?
  Read full judgment →
• Institute of Chartered Accountants of, Pakistan, Karachi And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  chartered accountantsexamination attemptssubordinate legislationbye-lawsvested rightseducational standardsjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of ten civil appeals arising from a common judgment of the High Court of Sindh regarding the validity of a notification issued by the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan restricting the number of attempts a student could make to clear the Intermediate and Final Chartered Accountancy examinations. The core legal questions involved whether the Council was competent to restrict examination attempts through an administrative notification under Bye-Law 118 of the Chartered Accountants Bye-Laws, 1983, without resorting to the formal rule-making procedure under Section 27 of the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961, and whether such restrictions applied retrospectively to existing students. The Supreme Court held that the restriction of examination attempts relates to the standard of training and education and can only be validly imposed by framing a bye-law in accordance with Section 27 of the Ordinance, which requires previous publication and the approval of the Federal Government. Consequently, the Court held that the impugned notification issued without following these statutory requirements was invalid as an unauthorized executive act, while affirming that students do not possess a vested right to be exempt from prospective academic standard modifications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants can restrict the number of examination attempts for students through an administrative notification under Bye-Law 118 rather than by framing a formal bye-law under Section 27 of the Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961?
  • Do students enrolled in a professional course have a vested right to be governed by the examination rules and unlimited attempts that existed at the time of their initial registration?
  • To what extent can the High Court interfere with academic policy decisions of the Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspectorgeneral of Police, Punjab, Lahore vs Ghulam Muhammad1999 SCMR 2509 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-21
  service lawseniority as a vested rightpromotionPunjab Civil Servants ActService Tribunal jurisdictioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a challenge by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had directed the promotion of the respondent to various ranks based on the promotion dates of his juniors. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to issue direct orders for the promotion of a civil servant and whether seniority constitutes a vested right for civil servants in Punjab. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing its prior jurisprudence, particularly the cases of Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar and Dr. Sabir Zameer Siddiqui, held that unlike other provincial and federal civil service laws, the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, does not expressly subordinate seniority to rules, thereby establishing that seniority remains a vested right for civil servants in Punjab. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and restored the Tribunal's order, affirming that the Tribunal acted within the scope of the law applicable to Punjab civil servants regarding the protection of their service rights.

  Questions settled

  • Is seniority a vested right for civil servants in the Punjab province?
  • Does the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974 subordinate the right of seniority to rules prescribed for determining seniority?
  • Can the Service Tribunal issue directions regarding the promotion of a civil servant in Punjab?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspectorgeneral of Police, Lahore vs Qayyum Nawaz Khan1999 SCMR 1594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-10
  service lawante-dated confirmationpolice servicediscriminationservice tribunalpromotionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had granted the respondent, a police officer, confirmation as an Inspector effective from 1-7-1986. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in granting this relief, particularly regarding the interpretation of Police Rule 13.20 and the allegation of discrimination against the respondent compared to other officers who received ante-dated confirmations. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the respondent had a satisfactory service record and that the denial of his confirmation was discriminatory, as other officers had received similar benefits despite the amendment to Police Rule 13.20. The Court held that the Tribunal’s decision was consistent with the law and that no question of public importance warranted interference under Article 212(2) of the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petition was time-barred. The key principle established is that administrative authorities cannot discriminate against an employee by denying benefits, such as ante-dated confirmation, when such benefits are consistently granted to similarly situated employees under comparable circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative authority deny a service benefit to an employee when similar benefits have been granted to other employees in comparable circumstances?
  • Does the amendment of Police Rule 13.20 act as an absolute bar to ante-dated confirmation for police officers?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(2) of the Constitution maintainable if it is time-barred and lacks a question of public importance?
  Read full judgment →
• Inspector-General of Police, Lahore vs Qayyum Nawaz Khan1999 PLC (C.S.) 1381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-10
  service lawante-dated confirmationout of turn promotiondiscriminationpolice rulesservice tribunallimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had directed the Inspector-General of Police to confirm the respondent as an Inspector with effect from 1-7-1986. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in granting this relief, specifically regarding the applicability of Police Rule 13.20 and the issue of discrimination against the respondent compared to other officers who received ante-dated confirmations. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, finding that the respondent had a satisfactory service record and that the denial of his confirmation constituted discrimination, as other officers had received similar benefits despite the existence of the same rules. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision was consistent with the law and that no question of public importance warranted interference under Article 212(2) of the Constitution. The key principle laid down is that administrative authorities cannot discriminate against an employee by denying benefits such as ante-dated confirmation when such benefits have been granted to similarly situated employees, provided the request falls within the parameters of the applicable service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can an administrative authority deny a service benefit to an employee if similar benefits have been granted to other similarly situated employees?
  • Does the amendment of Police Rule 13.20 absolutely bar ante-dated confirmation for police officers?
  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable under Article 212(2) of the Constitution if no question of public importance is involved?
  Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan Through Its Deputy ChiefK.L.R. 1999 Revenue Cases 100 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-22
  equitable mortgageostensible ownerlis pendensgood faithrecovery of loantransfer of propertymortgaged property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a High Court judgment concerning the applicability of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to a mortgaged property. The appellant, Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, challenged a decision that protected a purchaser of mortgaged land under the doctrine of the ostensible owner. The core legal questions were whether a mortgagor remains an ostensible owner and whether a transfer made during pending litigation is valid. The Supreme Court held that Section 41 is inapplicable because a mortgagor, having deposited title deeds, is not an ostensible owner, and the mortgagee provided no consent. Furthermore, the Court held that the transaction was voidable under the doctrine of lis pendens pursuant to Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, as the property was under attachment during pending recovery proceedings. The Court established that a purchaser pendente lite is bound by the litigation's outcome, and the failure to verify title deeds precludes a claim of good faith. Consequently, the High Court’s judgment was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a mortgagor who has deposited title deeds be considered an ostensible owner under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to a bona fide purchaser of property during pending litigation?
  • Is a transferee entitled to protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 if they failed to verify the original title deeds?
  Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan through Deputy Chief1999 SCMR 2874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-22
  equitable mortgagetransfer by ostensible ownerdoctrine of lis pendensbona fide purchasermortgage recoveryattachment of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court regarding the applicability of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act to a mortgaged property. The core legal question was whether a subsequent purchaser of a mortgaged property can claim the benefit of Section 41 relating to transfers by ostensible owners without the consent of the mortgagee bank and during the pendency of recovery proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in applying Section 41 because the mortgagor was not an ostensible owner with the express or implied consent of the mortgagee, the title deeds were deposited with the bank, and the purchaser failed to act in good faith by not verifying the title documents. Furthermore, the transaction was hit by the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act as recovery proceedings and attachment were already pending. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the High Court's judgment set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the benefit of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act can be claimed in the case of a mortgaged property where title deeds are deposited with the mortgagee?
  • Can a transferee be considered to have acted in good faith under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act without verifying the original title documents?
  • Does the doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act apply to a transfer of property made while recovery proceedings and court attachment are pending?
  • Is a purchase made during the pendency of litigation subject to the final result of the proceedings regardless of whether the purchaser is acting in good faith?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmad Malik vs Secretary M/O Railway And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Labour & Service Cases 132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-07-06
  service lawhigher postpay and allowancespromotion quotaSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed by Imtiaz Ahmad Malik against the Secretary, Ministry of Railways and others, concerning the entitlement of an employee to the pay and allowances of a higher grade. The core legal question was whether an employee who served on a higher post (B-17) is entitled to the corresponding pay and allowances of that grade, even if promotion to that grade was restricted by quota. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held, based on precedent, that the petitioner is entitled to the pay and benefits of the B-17 post for the period he worked against it, subject to the deduction of any special pay already received. The Court converted the petition into an appeal and modified the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal accordingly. The key principle laid down is that an employee performing duties on a higher post is entitled to the financial benefits of that post for the duration of such service.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee serving on a higher post entitled to the pay and allowances of that grade notwithstanding promotion restrictions?
  • Whether an employee working against a higher post is entitled to financial benefits minus any special pay already received?
  Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1999 SCMR 2830 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-20
  murderquantum of sentencedeath sentenceocular evidenceinjured witnesscollective actcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a conviction for murder and attempted murder. The appellants were convicted by the trial court for the murder of Inayatullah and causing injuries to others, with the High Court maintaining the convictions of the appellants while acquitting two co-accused. Before the Supreme Court, the appellants did not challenge their convictions, limiting the scope of the appeal to the quantum of sentence. The Supreme Court observed that the ocular testimony of the injured witnesses was reliable and fully supported the prosecution's case. However, regarding sentencing, the Court noted that the two acquitted co-accused had also inflicted fatal or near-fatal injuries on the deceased, indicating a collective act. Despite the acquittal of those co-accused—which the State did not challenge—the Court held that the primary appellant's death sentence was disproportionate given the collective nature of the violence. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal regarding conviction but modified the death sentence of the primary appellant to imprisonment for life.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court convert a death sentence to life imprisonment if the evidence shows the crime was a collective act involving acquitted co-accused?
  • Is the testimony of an injured witness considered reliable in a murder trial?
  • Does the failure of the State to challenge an acquittal prevent the Supreme Court from considering the role of acquitted persons when determining the sentence of the remaining convicts?
  Read full judgment →
• Ijaz Hussain Suleri vs The Registrar and another1999 SCMR 2381 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-01-21
  Intra Court AppealmaintainabilityUniversity employeesstatutory rulesvested righttransfer orderpromotionlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against an order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court dismissing an Intra-Court Appeal (I.C.A.) as non-maintainable. The core legal questions involved whether an I.C.A. was barred under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, and whether University employees could maintain a Constitutional Petition regarding transfer, promotion, and implementation of service orders. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's order and dismissed the petition on merits as well as limitation. The Court held that the I.C.A. was not maintainable under the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, because the original order was susceptible to revision under section 11-A of the Universities of Punjab Act, 1973. The Court further affirmed that University employees do not hold statutory posts governed by statutory rules to maintain a Constitutional Petition, civil servants/employees have no vested right to a particular post or location of transfer, and promotion based on seniority-cum-fitness is not a vested right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Intra-Court Appeal is maintainable under section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, where a revisional remedy is provided under section 11-A of the Universities of Punjab Act, 1973?
  • Whether employees of Universities are holders of statutory posts whose terms and conditions are governed by statutory rules for maintaining a Constitutional Petition?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to hold a post at a particular station or to be promoted to a post filled on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Saeed vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education1999 SCMR 177 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-01
  disciplinary proceedingseducational malpracticedue processconstitutional jurisdictionpresumption of regularitystudent disqualificationmala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a High Court order that dismissed a constitutional petition against the disqualification of a student by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education for malpractice during an examination. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by a lack of due process, specifically the denial of a fair hearing, or by mala fides. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the disciplinary authorities had provided the petitioner with sufficient opportunity to be heard and that the findings were based on a proper evaluation of evidence. The Court affirmed that where disciplinary proceedings are conducted fairly and the student is given an opportunity to present their defense, the findings of educational authorities are entitled to a presumption of regularity. Consequently, such administrative decisions are not subject to interference under constitutional jurisdiction absent proof of mala fides or perversity. The Court further noted that the past academic record of a student is irrelevant to the determination of guilt in disciplinary matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an educational institution's disciplinary action is subject to judicial review under constitutional jurisdiction if the student was afforded a fair opportunity to be heard?
  • Does the presumption of regularity apply to the disciplinary proceedings conducted by educational boards?
  • Is a student's past academic record a relevant factor in determining guilt during disciplinary proceedings for examination malpractice?
  • Can a court interfere with the factual findings of a disciplinary committee in the absence of proven mala fides?
  Read full judgment →
• House Building Finance Corporation through .Managing Director, Karachi and anothers vs Inayatullah Shaikh1999 SCMR 311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-20
  termination of servicemaster and servantnatural justicestatutory regulationscompetent authoritytermination simpliciterservice regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court judgment that set aside the termination of the respondent's services by the House Building Finance Corporation. The core legal question was whether the Corporation could terminate an employee under Regulation 11 of the House Building Finance Corporation Service Regulations, 1957, without conducting an inquiry under Regulation 26, and whether the termination order signed by the General Manager was valid. The Supreme Court held that Regulation 11 and Regulation 26 provide distinct, independent powers. Consequently, an authority may terminate services under Regulation 11 without an inquiry, provided the action is taken in good faith, without discrimination, and in the interest of the Corporation. Principles of natural justice do not apply to such termination simpliciter. However, the Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to demonstrate that the Managing Director, the competent authority, had actually passed the order, as the General Manager lacked the authority to issue it. The Court affirmed that the repository of power must exercise it strictly in accordance with the governing regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer terminate an employee under Regulation 11 of the House Building Finance Corporation Service Regulations, 1957, without holding an inquiry under Regulation 26?
  • Does the principle of natural justice apply to the termination of services under Regulation 11 of the House Building Finance Corporation Service Regulations, 1957?
  • Is a termination order valid if it is signed by an official who lacks the delegated authority to pass such an order?
  Read full judgment →
• Hasnain Shah vs The State1999 SCMR 1937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-27
  murderprivate defencemitigation of sentencedeath sentence reducedchance encountercriminal appealsuppression of truth
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Lahore High Court maintaining the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Hasnain Shah, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased, alongside the conviction of a co-accused. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court was justified in refusing the plea of private defence and whether the appellant had exceeded that right under the circumstances. The Supreme Court observed that both parties had suppressed material aspects of the occurrence, that the genesis of the fight was unclear, and that a chance encounter had occurred, while noting an unexplained injury on the appellant and the corroboration of the prosecution's account regarding a broken gun. The Court held that although the murder charge was proven, the appellant was entitled to mitigation of sentence due to the surrounding circumstances. Consequently, the Court maintained the conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 but altered the sentence from death to imprisonment for life, granting the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was right in refusing the plea of private defence of the appellant on the facts of the case?
  • Whether the appellant had exceeded the right of private defence under the circumstances?
  • Whether an unexplained injury on the accused and a chance encounter justify altering a death sentence to imprisonment for life?
  Read full judgment →
• Haral Textiles Limited vs Banqu E Indosuez Belgium, S.A. and others1999 SCMR 591 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-19
  irrevocable letter of creditbank guaranteead interim injunctionholder in due coursenegotiable instrumentscommercial autonomyfraud exception
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a dispute where the appellant sought to restrain payment under an irrevocable Letter of Credit, alleging that the machinery supplied by the respondent was defective. The trial court had granted an ad interim injunction, which the High Court subsequently set aside. The core legal question was whether a court is justified in restraining payment under an irrevocable Letter of Credit due to underlying contractual disputes between the buyer and seller. The Supreme Court held that an irrevocable Letter of Credit constitutes an absolute, independent obligation on the bank to pay, which is distinct from the underlying contract of sale. The Court affirmed that such instruments are the 'life-blood' of international commerce and must be honored without interference. Judicial intervention is restricted to exceptional cases involving clear, prima facie evidence of fraud or irretrievable injustice. Since the appellant failed to establish fraud or misconduct by the respondent bank—a holder in due course—the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that disputes regarding the quality of goods do not justify freezing payments under an irrevocable Letter of Credit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court restrain payment under an irrevocable Letter of Credit based solely on a dispute regarding the quality of goods between the buyer and seller?
  • Is an irrevocable Letter of Credit an independent obligation that remains unaffected by the underlying contract of sale?
  • Under what circumstances can a court interfere with the enforcement of an irrevocable Letter of Credit or bank guarantee?
  • Does a holder in due course of a Bill of Exchange drawn under a Letter of Credit have a superior right to payment regardless of disputes between the original parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs Muhammad Imran and others1999 SCMR 1115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-10
  bail cancellationcriminal petitiontrial expeditionoffence of zinakidnappingsodomy
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal seeks the cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Lahore High Court in a case registered under section 364-A and section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. During the hearing, the counsel for the respondent gave an undertaking that the respondent would not hamper the trial and would produce evidence on the next date of hearing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan disposed of the petition by dismissing it and refusing leave, while directing the trial court to conclude the trial within two months. The Court held that if the trial is not concluded within the stipulated timeframe, the petitioner is at liberty to seek bail cancellation before the trial court, which shall decide the matter uninfluenced by observations in the impugned order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted by the High Court should be cancelled when an undertaking is given to expedite the trial?
  • Can the trial court be directed to conclude criminal proceedings within a specified timeframe?
  • What remedy is available to a petitioner if a trial is not concluded within the timeframe directed by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Rozi Gul vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum and others1999 SCMR 1915 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-16
  pre-emptionsuperior right of pre-emptioncontiguous propertyconcurrent findingssupreme court appealex parte decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises from a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which partially allowed a revision petition and upheld the decree in favour of respondent No. 1 for possession of a property through pre-emption upon payment of Rs. 60,000. The core legal question concerned whether the concurrent findings regarding the respondent's superior right of pre-emption as a contiguous owner were sustainable, given the appellant's contentions regarding the lack of evidence and his alleged co-sharer status. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts, duly affirmed by the High Court based on a proper appraisal of the evidence, do not warrant interference by the apex court simply because an alternative view might be possible. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact supported by evidence in pre-emption matters.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding a pre-emptor's superior right of pre-emption?
  • Does ownership of contiguous property establish a superior right of pre-emption under the N.-W.F.P. Pre-emption Act 1950?
  • Can a new factual plea regarding co-sharer status, not raised before the lower courts or the High Court, be urged for the first time before the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Rana Nooruddin vs Sharafat Ali Nisar and 3 others1999 SCMR 2275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-04
  election disputeelection symbolre-pollingElection Authority jurisdictionlocal government electionelection petitionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside an order passed by the Election Authority regarding Electoral Unit No. 79, Zila Council, Kasur. The dispute originated when a candidate was initially assigned an incorrect election symbol, which was later changed. Following the election, the Election Authority, acting under section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, ordered re-polling, citing the Returning Officer's failure to allocate a valid symbol as a vitiating factor. The High Court subsequently declared this order to be without jurisdiction. The core legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the Election Authority possesses the jurisdiction to pass such an order or whether the matter falls exclusively within the purview of an Election Tribunal under the statutory framework. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the scope of the Election Authority's powers under section 17(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, specifically regarding its authority to intervene in election matters that might otherwise be subject to an election petition.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Election Authority have the jurisdiction to order re-polling under section 17 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979?
  • Does section 17(2) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance 1979 bar the Election Authority from inquiring into election matters that can be challenged before an Election Tribunal?
  • Can an election be vitiated by the failure of a Returning Officer to allocate a correct election symbol to a candidate?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Naseer Ahmed vs The Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi1999 SCMR 1121 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-30
  Service Tribunalback benefitscondonation of delayreinstatementleave to appealimplementation of order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's miscellaneous application seeking further benefits for an intervening period following his reinstatement. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal correctly declined to re-open the matter after the initial judgment—which ordered reinstatement and a determination of benefits—had already been implemented by the respondents, and whether the petitioner's subsequent application was time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal acted correctly in disposing of the miscellaneous application, as the original directions had been implemented, including payment for half of the intervening period. The Court further held that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient grounds for condonation of an 8-day delay in filing the petition, particularly since the impugned order was passed in the presence of the petitioner's counsel. The principle laid down is that a party cannot seek to re-litigate a matter through a miscellaneous application once the original tribunal order has been substantially implemented, and that a failure to explain the delay of each day precludes the condonation of time-barred petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party seek to re-open a decided appeal through a miscellaneous application after the original order has been implemented?
  • Is a plea for condonation of delay sufficient if it fails to explain the delay of each day?
  • Does the presence of a party's counsel during the announcement of an order negate a claim that the order was not communicated?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Aziz vs Government of Balochistan through Deputy1999 SCMR 16 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-11
  ex parte decreerevisional jurisdictionlimitationsuit against governmentproper partyprocedural defectsuo motu
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a High Court order that upheld the setting aside of an ex parte decree against the Government of Balochistan. The appellant had sued the Government through the Deputy Commissioner, Khuzdar, rather than the Province as required by law. Although the defendant's appeal against the ex parte decree was time-barred by 55 days, the High Court dismissed the appellant's revision, citing the failure to comply with mandatory provisions regarding the proper naming of the Government as a defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that while courts have a duty to address limitation issues even if not raised, the failure to sue the Government through the proper authority (the Province) is a fundamental defect that goes to the root of the matter. The Court ruled that the High Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, was empowered to notice such defects apparent on the face of the record to prevent prejudice, regardless of procedural lapses by the defendant in the lower appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a court required to address the issue of limitation even if the parties have waived it or failed to raise it?
  • Can a High Court in its revisional jurisdiction take notice of a fundamental defect in a suit, such as improper naming of the Government as a defendant, even if the lower appellate court overlooked it?
  • Does a suit filed against the Government through an improper authority constitute a defect that goes to the root of the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Haider Shah vs The State1999 SCMR 983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-30
  murderdeath sentencecommutation of sentenceprovocationcriminal appealmitigating circumstances
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerns the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Haider Shah, for the murder of Muhammad Ashraf. The incident arose from a dispute over the ownership of Sheesham trees situated on a boundary ridge, which was subject to ongoing proceedings before a Tehsildar. The prosecution alleged that the appellant shot the deceased after the complainant party began cutting branches of the disputed trees. The trial court convicted the appellant and imposed a death sentence, which was subsequently confirmed by the Lahore High Court. Upon granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court focused exclusively on the propriety of the death sentence. The Court held that the complainant party's act of cutting the disputed trees while the matter was pending before an arbitrator constituted significant provocation. Consequently, the Court determined that the ends of justice would be better served by commuting the death sentence to imprisonment for life, while maintaining a fine payable as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a civil dispute over property rights constitute a mitigating circumstance for the purpose of sentencing in a murder case?
  • Can the Supreme Court reduce a death sentence to imprisonment for life based on the provocation caused by the complainant party's actions?
  • Is a sentence of death appropriate when the underlying motive for the crime involves a pending property dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Noor Muhammad and others vs Ghulam Rasul and others1999 SCMR 705 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-22
  urban propertiesresidual propertytransfer of propertysettlement authoritiesevacuee propertylocus standires judicata
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the transfer of a disputed urban plot in Chiniot. The core legal question was whether the disputed plot could be treated as residual property available for transfer as a separate unit, and whether the appellants had established any legal right or title to it as a common passage. The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish that the property was exclusively a public thoroughfare or that they possessed any locus standi to challenge its transfer, as previous litigation had already determined the property was available for disposal as evacuee property and the matter had become a past and closed transaction. The Court also held that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply as the issue had not been conclusively determined in earlier proceedings, and dismissed the appeal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plot disputed as a common passage can be treated as residual property available for transfer?
  • Does a person claiming only a right of user as a public thoroughfare have locus standi to challenge the transfer of evacuee property?
  • When does the doctrine of res judicata apply to property disputes adjudicated by settlement authorities?
  • Whether the transfer of property by the Deputy Administrator without notice to persons lacking legal title is vitiated?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Zaman vs The State1999 SCMR 1271 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-18
  post-arrest bailretrospective applicationControl of Narcotic Substances Act 1997Section 51 bar on bailSection 498 CrPCuncorroborated co-accused statementpresumption of innocencestatutory interpretationnarcotics smuggling
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a criminal petition for post-arrest bail filed by Gul Zaman, who was arrested in May 1997 after hashish was found concealed in a medicinal ball export consignment in Sharjah. The prosecution linked the petitioner to the offense based on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused and a freight payment cheque issued by a firm of which the petitioner was a director. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioner was triable under the Control of Narcotic Substances Ordinance, 1996 or the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and whether Section 51 of the 1997 Act completely barred the grant of bail. The Supreme Court held by a 2-1 majority that the applicable law is determined by the date of commission of the offense (March 11, 1996), making the 1996 Ordinance applicable. The Court further ruled that Section 51 of the 1997 Act does not total exclude bail under Sections 496, 497, and 498 Cr.P.C. except for offenses punishable with death, and where no tangible evidence connects the accused beyond mere suspicion, bail should be granted. The key principle laid down is that rights and procedures are governed by the law existing at the time of the offense's commission, and penal statutes limiting liberties must be strictly construed in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the law applicable to trial and bail is determined by the date of commission of the alleged offense?
  • Does Section 51 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 completely exclude the power of Courts to grant bail under Section 498 Cr.P.C.?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted to an accused when the prosecution relies solely on the uncorroborated statement of a co-accused and no incriminating recovery was made?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs The Force Commander and another1999 SCMR 2935 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-06-13
  Airports Security ForceFederal Service TribunalPakistan Army ActJurisdictionDisciplinary dischargeRetrospective applicationStatutory bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal to review disciplinary discharge orders passed against members of the Airports Security Force. The core legal question was whether the Federal Service Tribunal retained jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a discharge order passed under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, following the insertion of subsection (4) to section 7-A of the Airports Security Force Act, 1975, and whether this amendment applied retrospectively to the appellant's case. The Supreme Court held that the amendment, which explicitly bars any court or tribunal from varying or setting aside orders passed by authorized Airports Security Force officers under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, effectively ousted the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Court clarified that while previous judgments allowed for Tribunal intervention, the subsequent legislative amendment created a statutory bar. Because the appellant filed his appeal after the amendment became effective, the bar applied, rendering the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal legally sound and distinguishable from prior precedents where the amendment was not yet applicable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to review disciplinary orders passed against members of the Airports Security Force under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952?
  • Does the amendment adding subsection (4) to section 7-A of the Airports Security Force Act, 1975, bar the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal in disciplinary matters?
  • Can a statutory amendment barring judicial review be applied to an appeal filed after the amendment's enactment?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad and others vs The State1999 SCMR 2765 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-12-23
  inherent jurisdictionrecall of witnessescriminal revisionabuse of processreview of ordercross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from criminal proceedings wherein the petitioners, facing trial under sections 302, 307, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13 of the Arms Ordinance, sought the recall of prosecution witnesses for further cross-examination under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. After the trial court dismissed the application, the Sindh High Court initially allowed the petitioners' revision application. Subsequently, upon an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the complainant, another learned Judge of the High Court recalled the earlier revisional order on the ground that it was obtained through a distorted version of facts and an erroneous concession by the State counsel. The core legal question was whether the High Court could invoke its inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall or correct an erroneous order passed by a predecessor judge in revision. The Supreme Court held that the High Court possesses the inherent power to correct its own orders or recall an erroneous order to prevent an abuse of the process of the court, irrespective of specific statutory provisions. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can invoke section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to recall an erroneous order passed earlier by its predecessor?
  • Does the High Court possess the inherent power to correct its own orders?
  • Can prosecution witnesses be recalled for further cross-examination under section 540 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if sufficient opportunity has already been granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Khan vs The State1999 SCMR 304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-19
  abscondencecorroborationocular testimonyfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuscapital punishmentinterested witnesscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a murder conviction where the appellant, Gul Khan, challenged his death sentence for the murder of Mohabat Khan. The core legal question was whether the ocular testimony of eyewitnesses could be relied upon to convict the appellant, given that the same witnesses' testimony had been disbelieved regarding other co-accused who were acquitted, and whether abscondence serves as sufficient corroboration in such cases. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and death sentence. The Court held that the doctrine of 'falsus in uno falsus in omnibus' is not recognized in Pakistani jurisprudence; instead, courts must sift the grain from the chaff. The Court affirmed that while abscondence per se is not substantive evidence of guilt, it constitutes a valuable piece of corroborative evidence when the accused fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for a prolonged absence and when the conduct is coupled with other incriminating factors. The Court concluded that the ocular testimony was credible, corroborated by motive, medical evidence, and the appellant's prolonged abscondence and resistance to arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Does the acquittal of co-accused based on the same eyewitness testimony automatically render the testimony unreliable against the remaining accused?
  • Can abscondence be treated as a piece of corroborative evidence to support ocular testimony in a murder trial?
  • Is the testimony of an interested witness admissible without independent corroboration if it satisfies the judicial conscience?
  • Does the doctrine of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus apply in Pakistani criminal jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation and Power1999 SCMR 2260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-06
  condonation of delaylimitationservice tribunalleave to appealgovernment litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Government of the Punjab challenging a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, dated 6 February 1998. The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was whether a delay of 57 days in filing the petition for leave to appeal could be condoned based on internal administrative delays caused by differences of opinion between the petitioner Department and the Solicitor Department regarding the filing of the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the ground that it was time-barred. The Court held that internal departmental deliberations or differences of opinion do not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that the Government is not entitled to any preferential treatment or special consideration compared to ordinary citizens when applying the law of limitation. Consequently, the Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that the state must adhere to the same procedural timelines as any other litigant.

  Questions settled

  • Does an internal difference of opinion between government departments constitute a valid ground for condonation of delay?
  • Is the government entitled to preferential treatment regarding the law of limitation compared to ordinary citizens?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Industries and Mineral1999 SCMR 2063 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-03
  mining leaserock saltrelaxation of policyconstitutional jurisdictiondiscriminationdiscretionary reliefadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals against a judgment of the Lahore High Court that had accepted writ petitions filed by respondents seeking implementation of Chief Minister directives for the grant of rock salt mining leases in relaxation of government policy. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondents were subjected to unlawful discrimination by comparison to another allottee, and whether the High Court was justified under Article 199 of the Constitution in issuing directions for the issuance of mining concessions in the face of subsequent departmental rejections and statutory policy constraints. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in finding discrimination without examining the specific compassionate grounds of the comparator case or having the comparator joined as a party, and that the executive allotments bypassed statutory rules and were politically motivated. The ratio established is that discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 cannot be exercised to aid injustice, perpetuate illegality, or restore an advantage obtained in circumvention of prescribed statutory rules and established government policy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court was justified under Article 199 of the Constitution to issue directions for the issuance of mining licences based on an unverified claim of discrimination?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be exercised in aid of injustice or to help a party retain an advantage obtained in violation of prescribed rules?
  • Whether the executive authority has the competence to bypass established statutory rules and policies regarding mining concessions through direct administrative orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore vs Prof. Mrs. Jamida Malik1999 SCMR 861 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-05
  date of birthsuperannuationservice tribunalcivil servantlimitationestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby a civil servant's appeal for the correction of her date of birth at the fag end of her service career was accepted. The core legal question revolves around whether a civil servant can successfully seek the alteration of their date of birth recorded in service and educational records decades after entering service and near the age of superannuation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's judgment, holding that a civil servant cannot remain silent for over thirty years and abruptly seek a change in the date of birth near retirement without explaining the delay. The Court laid down that under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Financial Rules Volume-I, applications for the correction of a date of birth must be made within two years of entering service, and unexplained, inordinate delay coupled with acquiescence creates a legal bar of limitation and estoppel against such belated claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant can seek the correction of a date of birth recorded in service records after a prolonged delay of several decades?
  • Is an application for the correction of a date of birth bound by the two-year limitation period prescribed under Rule 7.3 of the Punjab Financial Rules Volume-I?
  • Does prolonged silence and acquiescence regarding a recorded date of birth estop a civil servant from challenging it near the age of superannuation?
  • Can a civil servant successfully alter their date of birth based on newly discovered municipal records after accepting the originally recorded date throughout their career?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Lahore vs Atta Ullah Qureshi and 2 others1999 SCMR 2262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and anothers1999 SCMR 1127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-08
  service lawpromotionupgradation of postfinancial implicationsHigh Court jurisdictionmootness
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment by the Lahore High Court, which had directed the promotion of the respondent to B.S. 19 on a regular basis, effective from 1986, and granted him move-over benefits to B.S. 20 from 1987. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court possessed the competence to order the upgradation of an appointment without the approval of the Provincial Government, particularly where such an order entailed financial implications. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the respondent had already retired from service in 1991. Furthermore, the Court observed that subsequent to the High Court's original order, the High Court had been conferred with the necessary powers to create or upgrade appointments as of 1995. Given these intervening factual and legal developments, the Supreme Court determined that it was not a fit case to examine the vires of the High Court's order. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and recalled the leave granting order, effectively declining to adjudicate the merits of the original dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to examine the vires of a High Court order regarding service promotion when the respondent has already retired?
  • Does the subsequent conferment of power upon the High Court to create or upgrade appointments render an appeal against a prior similar order moot?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 322 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-08
  service lawupgradation of postpromotionretirementsupreme court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal with leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which allowed a writ petition and declared the respondent promoted to BS-19 on a regular basis and entitled to move-over to BS-20, directing the issuance of a formal notification. The core legal question was whether the High Court was competent to upgrade any appointment without Provincial Government approval when financial complications were involved. The Supreme Court observed that the respondent had already retired from service and that the High Court had subsequently been conferred with the power to create or upgrade appointments in 1995. Holding that it was not a fit case to examine the vires of the High Court's order under the circumstances, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and recalled the leave granting order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is competent to upgrade an appointment without the approval of the Provincial Government when financial complications are involved?
  • Whether the Supreme Court will examine the vires of an impugned High Court order regarding promotion when the respondent has already retired and subsequent legal developments have occurred?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of the Punjab through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lahore vs Khadim Hussain1999 SCMR 1639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-05-20
  service tribunaldisciplinary proceedingscompulatory retirementdiscriminationinquiry reportgovernment servants
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by the Government of the Punjab arises from a judgment of the Service Tribunal which reduced the major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed on the respondent, a Sub-Engineer, to a minor penalty of withholding two increments on the ground of discrimination, as other co-accused officials involved in the sub-standard execution of a road project were largely exonerated. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in mitigating the punishment solely on the ground of disparate treatment among co-accused without addressing the broader inconsistencies in the departmental inquiry reports and the culpability of other officials. The Supreme Court held that while the Tribunal correctly identified discrimination, it erred by failing to revive proceedings against the other co-accused who bore similar responsibilities. The Court laid down the principle that in disciplinary matters involving multiple functionaries, authorities and tribunals must ensure consistent treatment and accountability rather than arbitrarily singling out a subordinate official while letting others escape scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal can reduce a major penalty solely on the ground of discrimination when co-accused officials are exonerated?
  • Does an inconsistency in successive departmental inquiry reports vitiate the disciplinary action taken against a civil servant?
  • Whether higher engineering supervisory staff can escape liability by transferring responsibility for technical defects to district administration?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan through Collectorate of Customs and another1999 SCMR 2268 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-09
  service tribunalleave to appealgrace markspromotionprinciple of consistencycustoms department
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, which allowed the respondent's appeal regarding promotion to the post of Inspector in the Customs Department. The core legal question was whether the respondent, who secured 42 marks instead of the required 50% in one paper, was entitled to grace marks based on the principle of consistency, given that grace marks were allowed to other candidates in the 1990 examination. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's impugned order suffered from no legal infirmity and that no question of law of public importance was involved. Consequently, the petition was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused, upholding the principle of consistency in departmental examinations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee failing to secure the minimum pass marks in a departmental examination is entitled to grace marks on the principle of consistency?
  • Does the grant of grace marks by a service tribunal raise a question of law of public importance under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through Collector/Land Acquisition Collector/Dy.1999 SCMR 43 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-08-13
  land acquisitioncompensation enhancementmarket valuecompulsory acquisition chargessimple interestcompound interestReferee JudgeN.-W.F.P. Amendment Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court order that maintained an enhancement of compensation for land acquired by the Government of N.W.F.P. The core legal questions were whether the Referee Judge correctly enhanced the compensation based on Patwari schedules and whether the award of 8% compound interest on the enhanced amount was legally permissible. The Supreme Court held that the enhancement of compensation and the 15% compulsory acquisition charges were justified, as the Referee Judge’s reliance on Patwari schedules did not violate the criteria set forth in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894. However, the Court found a legal error regarding the interest awarded. It held that under the Land Acquisition (N.-W.F.P. Amendment) Ordinance 1983, the law mandates simple interest at a rate of 6% per annum, not compound interest at 8%. Consequently, the Court upheld the compensation enhancement but modified the interest award to 6% simple interest from the date of possession until payment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Referee Judge rely on Patwari schedules to determine the market value of acquired land under the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
  • Is the award of compound interest on enhanced compensation permissible under the Land Acquisition (N.-W.F.P. Amendment) Ordinance 1983?
  • What is the applicable rate and nature of interest payable on enhanced compensation for land acquisition in N.-W.F.P.?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.W.F.P. through Chief Secretary and 2 others vs Rizwanullah, Registrar, Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1999 SCMR 2475 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-15
  Secretariat AllowanceUnified Pay Scalesconstitutional discriminationcivil servantspay and pensionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves civil petitions for leave to appeal arising from judgments of the Peshawar High Court, which had allowed writ petitions filed by employees of various judicial and quasi-judicial offices, including the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Office of the Advocate-General, Service Tribunal, Civil Courts, and Sessions Court, claiming entitlement to the Secretariat Allowance at the rate of 20 percent of basic pay. The core legal question was whether employees of non-secretariat offices and attached departments are entitled to the Secretariat Allowance previously granted exclusively to secretariat employees. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petitions, holding that denying such allowance to employees performing comparable duties without justifiable reasons amounts to unconstitutional discrimination in pay and pension. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that after the introduction of Unified Pay Scales, reverting to disparate categories of secretariat and non-secretariat employees without rational basis is discriminatory, and thus the respondent employees were rightly held entitled to the allowance from the date claimed.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees of non-secretariat offices and attached departments entitled to the Secretariat Allowance admissible to secretariat employees?
  • Does the creation of disparate categories of secretariat and non-secretariat employees for the purpose of allowances violate the principle against discrimination after the enforcement of Unified Pay Scales?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Chairman, C.T.T. Board (Chairman, PTCL), Islamabad1999 SCMR 1544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-09
  date of birth correctionVoluntary Separation SchemeVSS retirementservice lawbelated claimservice recordleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding correction of his date of birth. The petitioner had retired under a Voluntary Separation Scheme (V.S.S.) in April 1997. After his retirement, he sought to alter his date of birth in his service record from 1-1-1940 to 17-2-1945, claiming the existing entry was a clerical error and relying on a birth certificate obtained post-retirement based on an affidavit. The core question before the Supreme Court was whether an employee can seek correction of their recorded date of birth at a belated stage after voluntarily accepting retirement under V.S.S. The Supreme Court held that having served for over 25 years without challenging the date of birth, and having signed V.S.S. applications reflecting that same date, the petitioner's post-retirement effort to alter the record was an afterthought. Leave to appeal was refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant or public employee claim correction of their date of birth after voluntarily retiring from service?
  • Whether an entry of birth date in service records can be altered at a belated stage based on an affidavit or birth certificate obtained after retirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Chairman, C.T.T. Board (Chairman PTCL), Islamabad1999 PLC (C.S.) 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-09
  date of birth correctionservice recordvoluntary separation schemebelated claimservice appealacquiescence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the correction of his date of birth. The petitioner, a former employee of Carrier Telephone Industries, sought to change his recorded date of birth from 1-1-1940 to 17-2-1945, shortly after his retirement under a Voluntary Separation Scheme. The core legal question was whether a public servant is entitled to seek a correction of their date of birth in official service records after nearly twenty-five years of service and subsequent to retirement. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the request was an afterthought. The Court affirmed that where an employee has acquiesced to a recorded date of birth throughout their entire career and only seeks correction post-retirement based on belatedly procured documentation, such a request is meritless. The key principle laid down is that long-standing entries in service records, accepted by the employee for decades, cannot be challenged or altered at a belated stage after the cessation of employment.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public servant seek correction of their date of birth in service records after retirement?
  • Is a birth certificate based solely on an affidavit sufficient to alter long-standing official service records?
  • Does the failure to agitate a discrepancy in service records for over two decades bar a subsequent claim for correction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul represented by Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Hussain and 41999 SCMR 2004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-18
  abatement of appealoral saleadverse possessionspecific performanceprocedural technicalitiespart performancedeclaratory suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a land dispute where the appellant sought a declaration of ownership based on an alleged oral sale and, alternatively, adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding no valid transfer of title under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The High Court upheld this dismissal, noting that the transaction was not reduced to writing and thus failed to satisfy the requirements for a valid sale or the doctrine of part performance. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in exercising its discretion to set aside the abatement of the appeal following the death of the original appellant, despite procedural lapses in bringing legal heirs on record. The Supreme Court held that the High Court correctly avoided technicalities to decide the case on its merits, emphasizing that procedural rules should facilitate rather than thwart the administration of justice. The Court affirmed that the suit for declaration was not maintainable, as the proper remedy was a suit for specific performance, and upheld the High Court's decision to prioritize substantive justice over procedural abatement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for declaration of ownership is maintainable based on an oral sale agreement without a registered deed?
  • Can a court set aside the abatement of an appeal to decide a case on its merits despite procedural delays in substituting legal heirs?
  • Does the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 apply to an oral sale agreement that has not been reduced to writing?
  • Is a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 the appropriate remedy when a plaintiff claims ownership based on an agreement to sell?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and others vs Sh. Muhammad Ikram1999 SCMR 2261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-09
  ejectmentpersonal requirementconcurrent findingsleave to appeallandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioners' second appeal against their ejectment from the disputed commercial premises. The core legal question concerns whether the concurrent findings of fact regarding the landlord's personal requirement for his son to establish a business were sustainable and free from misreading of evidence. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by all the lower courts were unexceptionable and warranted no interference, as the petitioners failed to demonstrate any misreading or disregard of evidence on record. The petition was accordingly dismissed, with the petitioners granted one month's time to vacate the premises. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact in ejectment matters unless misreading or non-consideration of evidence is clearly established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether concurrent findings of fact regarding personal requirement can be interfered with without showing misreading of evidence?
  • Can a landlord seek ejectment of a rented property for the establishment of an independent business for his son?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rabbani vs Malik Ahmed Khan and 3 others1999 SCMR 1563 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rabbani vs Malik Ahmad Khan and others1999 SCMR 152 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-10-01
  election disputeconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitionelection petitionlocal government electionmaintainabilitynomination papers
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a Lahore High Court judgment that declared the petitioner’s election as a Councilor void and ordered a fresh election. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court exercising its constitutional jurisdiction in an election dispute where the petitioner had already been declared successful. The petitioner argued that the respondent was required to pursue an election petition under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, and the Punjab Local Councils (Election) Rules, 1979, rather than filing a writ petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that once an election notification is issued, the matter shifts from the stage of nomination paper disputes to the statutory election petition process. The Court suspended the impugned judgment, indicating that the existence of a specific statutory remedy for challenging an election generally precludes the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction. The principle established is that election disputes regarding returned candidates must be adjudicated through the prescribed statutory framework rather than through writ jurisdiction, especially after the election process has concluded.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to set aside an election result when an alternative remedy via an election petition exists?
  • Does the issuance of an election notification shift the legal remedy from challenging nomination papers to filing an election petition?
  • Is the rejection of nomination papers a valid ground for invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court after an election has concluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Baluch vs Liaqat Ali Baloch1999 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-20
  inter se seniorityplenary powersArticle 212 baraction in aid of Supreme Courtconstitutional petitionregularisationservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a service dispute concerning inter se seniority between two engineers in the Sindh Government. The appellant had previously challenged respondent No. 1's seniority before the Sindh Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court, but his petition was dismissed, confirming the respondent's seniority. Subsequently, the Provincial Government invoked section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, issuing notifications that granted the appellant retrospective regularisation and seniority over the respondent. The respondent successfully challenged these notifications before the Sindh High Court via a constitutional petition. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction under Article 199 in presence of the jurisdictional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether executive powers under section 24 could override a final Supreme Court determination. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal, holding that Article 212 did not bar the petition because the respondent primarily sought compliance with a final Supreme Court decision rather than a routine service adjudication. Furthermore, under Article 190, executive authorities must act in aid of the Supreme Court and cannot nullify or bypass judicial determinations through plenary statutory powers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdictional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution applies when a constitutional petition is filed to enforce a final judgment of the Supreme Court rather than to seek an original determination of service terms?
  • Can the Provincial Government invoke its plenary powers under Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 to bypass, modify, or nullify an inter se seniority determination finalized by the Supreme Court?
  • Does Article 190 of the Constitution prohibit executive authorities from issuing administrative notifications that contradict a conclusive judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazi vs M. Abdul Khaliq and others1999 SCMR 2308 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-03-12
  public appointmentsquota systempolitical recommendationsmerit-based recruitmentservice tribunalconstitutional lawfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which had allowed the respondent's appeal and reinstated him as a Laboratory Attendant after his services were terminated. The respondent's initial appointment had been made on the recommendation of a Member of the Provincial Assembly (M.P.A.), whereas the appellant claimed a preferential right to the post as a nominee of the donor of the land used for the school. The core legal question was whether appointments to public service made on the recommendation or quota of parliamentarians, or claimed via a donor's preferential right, are lawful, and whether the Tribunal erred in reinstating an appointee whose selection stemmed from such political recommendations. The Supreme Court held that appointments made on the allocation of quotas to Ministers, M.N.As, or M.P.As are illegal ab initio as they violate constitutional provisions requiring merit-based, transparent selection. Furthermore, the Court held that donors have no preferential right to public service appointments. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and directed the department to make the appointment on merit through open competition in accordance with the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Are appointments to public service made on the recommendation or quota of Ministers or Members of Assemblies legal?
  • Does the nominee of a land donor have a preferential right to public appointments?
  • Does the allocation of quotas to parliamentarians for recruitment violate the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• General Manager, the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. and another vs Muntazir Hussain Shah1999 SCMR 2484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-19
  suspension allowancebanking service rulespetition for leave to appealcooperative bankservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal is directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, which referred the respondent's case for payment of suspension allowance to the petitioner bank for expeditious decision. The petitioner bank contended that the respondent is not a government servant and is instead governed by the Banking Service Rules, 1986, under which he is being paid one-third of his basic pay plus full allowances, and that he is not entitled to government rules and regulations. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that it was unnecessary to record a finding on this plea, as the petitioner remained at liberty to raise all legal and factual points before the President of the Bank during the hearing pursuant to the High Court's order. The Court expressed confidence that such pleas would be considered justly, fairly, and in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the respondent. Consequently, the counsel for the petitioner did not press the petition, and the petition was disposed of accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of the Punjab Provincial Cooperative Bank Ltd. is entitled to suspension allowance under government rules and regulations?
  • Can a petitioner raise legal and factual pleas before the competent authority pursuant to a High Court remand order regarding a suspension allowance?
  • Whether a petition for leave to appeal is maintainable when the petitioner is granted liberty to agitate all grievances before the departmental authority?
  Read full judgment →