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.

• Habib-UN-Nisa Versus Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi1998 SCMR 599 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-22
  child custodyminoramicable settlementwelfare of minorfamily lawcustody dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a custody dispute concerning a seven-year-old minor boy. The lower courts, including the Guardian Judge and the Additional District Judge, had previously awarded custody to the father, a decision which was subsequently upheld by the Lahore High Court. Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the core legal question concerned the welfare of the minor and the appropriate custodial arrangement. However, the Court did not adjudicate the merits of the case. Instead, the parties, through the assistance of their respective counsel, reached an amicable settlement regarding the custody of the minor. The Supreme Court, having reviewed the terms of the settlement, determined that the agreement was in the best interest and welfare of the minor. Consequently, the Court converted the petition for leave to appeal into an appeal by consent of the parties and disposed of the matter in accordance with the terms of the settlement. The judgment underscores the principle that amicable resolution, particularly in family disputes involving the welfare of minors, is highly encouraged and legally sanctioned when found to be in the child's best interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can a petition for leave to appeal be converted into an appeal by consent of the parties to facilitate a settlement?
  • Is an amicable settlement regarding child custody enforceable if the Court finds it to be in the welfare of the minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz Versus State1998 SCMR 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-03
  leave to appealmurderdelayed judgmentocular evidencemedical evidenceco-accused acquittalre-appraisal of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which upheld the petitioner's conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and his sentence of life imprisonment. The prosecution case was that the petitioner stabbed the deceased with a dagger following a broken engagement. The trial court convicted the petitioner but acquitted his co-accused, a decision upheld by the High Court. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's counsel argued that the High Court's judgment was vitiated as it was announced eight months after arguments were heard, that the acquittal of the co-accused undermined the prosecution's narrative, and that the medical evidence was inconsistent with the ocular account. The Supreme Court, in the interest of the safe administration of criminal justice, granted leave to appeal to re-appraise the evidence in light of the delay in the announcement of the judgment, the effect of the co-accused's acquittal, and the alleged medical discrepancies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an inordinate delay of eight months in announcing a judgment after hearing arguments vitiates the judgment or entitles the accused to the benefit of doubt?
  • Whether the acquittal of a co-accused, who allegedly facilitated the crime, automatically falsifies the prosecution's case against the principal accused?
  • Whether material discrepancies between the ocular account and the medical evidence regarding the nature of injuries cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Bilqees Bibi Versus Additional Commissioner (Revenue)/Notified Officer, Gujranwala1998 SCMR 502 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-17
  leave to appealallotment of landsettlement commissionerinformer rightsnecessary partiesright of audiencefraudulent allotment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld an order of the Settlement Commissioner regarding the disputed allotment of land originally challenged on grounds of fraud by informers. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioners, claiming as legal heirs of the original informers and asserting a right to be heard and to claim transfer of the disputed land, were improperly condemned unheard following a remand by the Supreme Court. The court held that, given the peculiar circumstances regarding the status and position of the informers and the contentions that the petitioners were necessary parties entitled to a hearing, a case for leave to appeal is made out. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioners and ordered that the interim relief granted to them shall continue in the interim.

  Questions settled

  • Are the legal heirs of an original informer considered necessary parties entitled to a hearing upon the remand of a land settlement matter?
  • Does the failure to issue effective notice and provide an opportunity of being heard to persons claiming a right to the transfer of disputed land vitiate the Settlement Commissioner's proceedings?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted to determine the exact legal status and position of informers in protracted land settlement litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah Versus Fazal Baqi1998 SCMR 455 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-17
  leave to appeallandlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantcantonment rent restrictioneviction petitiondisplaced persons transferdenial of title
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court in First Appeal from Order No.6 of 1993, which set aside an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller. The petitioner, Rehmatullah, had filed an eviction application under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against the respondents on the grounds of default in rent and personal requirement, which the respondents contested by denying the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Rent Controller found the relationship established and ordered eviction without framing issues on merits, but the High Court reversed this, holding that the petitioner's claim was doubtful and that he should seek remedy in a civil court. The core legal question concerns the existence of the statutory relationship of landlord and tenant following the transfer of the disputed premises under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, and whether a civil court declaration of title is required. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these contentions, holding that the points raised required formal determination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the statutory relationship of landlord and tenant comes into existence when premises are transferred under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Is it necessary for a landlord to approach a civil court for a declaration of title before seeking eviction under the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 when the tenant denies the relationship?
  • Can a Rent Controller order eviction without framing issues on merits when the relationship of landlord and tenant is disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tajrian Versus Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1998 SCMR 446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
• Secretary to Government of the Punjab Versus Bashir Akhtar Sahi1998 SCMR 434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-18Read full judgment →
• Fakhera T. Abbasi, S.O. Finance Division, Islamabad Versus Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad1998 SCMR 432 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-03
  senioritydeputationOffice Management Groupappointment by transfercivil servicepromotionservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, who were Research Officers (B-17) transferred on deputation to the Office Management Group (O.M.G.), challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that denied them seniority from the dates they initially joined the O.M.G. The core legal question was whether civil servants appointed by transfer to the O.M.G. after serving on deputation are entitled to seniority from the date of their initial deputation or from the date of their subsequent appointment by transfer. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, finding that the petitioners' case was supported by established precedent. The Court held that, in the absence of specific rules framed under the Civil Servants Act for determining seniority, reliance must be placed on official memoranda. Applying the principle established in Muhammad Zafar Khan v. Secretary, Establishment Division, the Court affirmed that officers in pay scales 17 or 18 who joined the Federal Secretariat on deputation and were subsequently appointed by transfer to the O.M.G. are entitled to seniority from the date they joined the Federal Secretariat on deputation, rather than the date of their appointment by transfer.

  Questions settled

  • Are civil servants appointed by transfer to the Office Management Group entitled to seniority from the date of their initial deputation?
  • Does the absence of specific rules under the Civil Servants Act 1973 allow for reliance on official memoranda to determine seniority?
  • Should promotion to Grade-18 in a parent department be treated as the cut-off date for determining seniority in the Office Management Group?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of N.-W.F.P. Versus Federation of Pakistan1998 SCMR 36 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Nasir Zaman Versus Mehr Salabat, Additional Sessions Judge, Arifwala1998 SCMR 287 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-29
  transfer of casecomplaint casechallan caseconsolidation of casesapprehension of biasleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against an order of the Lahore High Court which withdrew a complaint case from one Additional Sessions Judge and entrusted it, along with the corresponding challan case, to another Additional Sessions Judge at Arifwala. The petitioner contended that the transfer was improper because the parties and witnesses resided closer to the original court, and expressed apprehension of bias as the transferee judge had previously granted bail to some of the accused. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court's exercise of discretion in transferring and consolidating both the complaint and challan cases before the same judge did not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. The Court observed that if the petitioner was aggrieved by the bail orders, the appropriate remedy was to challenge those orders directly before the High Court. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the consolidation and transfer of both a complaint case and a challan case to the same Additional Sessions Judge constitutes an illegality or impropriety?
  • Can a transfer order be set aside solely on the ground that the transferee judge previously granted bail to some of the accused in the matter?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a party aggrieved by a bail order passed by a trial court during the pendency of a transfer application?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Versus Muhammad Abbas1998 SCMR 284 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus State1998 SCMR 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-11
  interested witnessbenefit of doubtcapital punishmentocular testimonycorroborationblood feudballistic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether a conviction for a capital offence can be sustained based solely on the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses when the alleged recovery of the weapon is not supported by a positive ballistic report and other corroborative evidence is lacking. The Supreme Court held that where prosecution witnesses are closely related to the deceased and have a history of blood feuds with the accused, their testimony is 'interested' and requires independent, unimpeachable corroboration to sustain a conviction. The Court clarified that while motive and medical evidence are relevant, they cannot serve as independent corroboration of identity or complicity when the primary ocular testimony is itself suspect due to enmity. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, ruling that the prosecution failed to establish the appellant's participation beyond reasonable doubt, and granted the appellant the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital offence be sustained solely on the testimony of interested and inimical witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Does motive serve as sufficient corroboration for the testimony of interested witnesses in a criminal trial?
  • Can medical evidence alone establish the identity or complicity of an accused in a crime?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a recovery weapon when the ballistic expert report is negative?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Versus State1998 SCMR 277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-03
  criminal appealleave to appealsafe administration of justicecorroborationrecovery evidencefirearm expert reportfalsely implicated
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal against their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mukhtar Ahmed. The trial court had convicted the petitioners while acquitting four co-accused, noting that the latter were falsely implicated. The core legal question is whether the petitioners' conviction can be sustained given the trial court's findings regarding the falsity of the prosecution's case against the co-accused and the reliability of the corroborative evidence. Specifically, the petitioners challenge the reliance on forensic evidence concerning firearm empties, arguing that the recovery process was compromised by contradictory testimony from the complainant regarding the origin of the empties and the police officer's handling of the weapons. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether, in the interest of the safe administration of criminal justice, the conviction remains legally sound in light of these evidentiary discrepancies and the lack of reliable corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction can be safely maintained when the trial court has found that co-accused were falsely implicated?
  • Does contradictory testimony regarding the recovery of firearm empties invalidate the forensic expert's report as corroborative evidence?
  • Is it safe to convict an accused based on firearm evidence when the police have handled the weapons in a manner that casts doubt on the integrity of the recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain Shah Versus Shah Muhammad1998 SCMR 2755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-28
  pre-emption suitimprovement of statusland exchangemutationdoctrine of sinkerrevenue recordpossession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a pre-emption suit filed by the appellants claiming a superior right to purchase land. The respondents (vendees) defended the suit by asserting they had improved their status through a land exchange transaction prior to the suit's institution, thereby negating the appellants' superior right. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The High Court subsequently restored the dismissal, prompting this appeal. The Supreme Court addressed whether the exchange was genuine and completed before the suit. The Court held that a vendee is entitled to improve their status prior to the institution of a pre-emption suit. Crucially, the Court established that a land exchange transaction is deemed completed on the date it is effected and possession is transferred, rather than the date the mutation is formally attested in revenue records. Finding the exchange genuine and completed before the suit, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the respondents had successfully improved their status, thus defeating the appellants' claim.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vendee improve their status to defeat a pre-emption claim before the institution of the suit?
  • Is a land exchange transaction deemed completed on the date it is effected or on the date the mutation is formally attested?
  • Does the doctrine of sinker apply to a vendee who improves their status prior to the filing of a pre-emption suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Versus Allah Ditta1998 SCMR 2749 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-08
  State landGrow More Food Schemeproprietary rightsrevenue recordKhasra GirdawariBoard of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court regarding competing claims for the allotment and conferment of proprietary rights in State land originally allotted under the Grow More Food Scheme. The core legal question concerned the validity of revenue entries in favor of a deceased allottee's heirs and whether the contesting respondent was rightfully entitled to proprietary rights over the disputed land, given prior final administrative adjudications against the appellants. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, restoring the directive that possession of the land be taken over by the State until the entitlement of the contesting respondent is properly determined on merits in accordance with earlier binding revenue orders. The key principle laid down is that heirs of a deceased allottee who have failed to challenge adverse final findings regarding their non-entitlement to land cannot subsequently re-open settled matters through incompetent collateral proceedings, but administrative authorities must ensure proper inquiry into the active claims of remaining parties before final grants of proprietary rights.

  Questions settled

  • Whether heirs of a deceased allottee can re-open a settled adverse finding regarding land entitlement after it has attained finality?
  • Does the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to substituting its own findings for those of specialized revenue courts and tribunals?
  • Whether proprietary rights in State land can be validly conferred without conducting a requisite inquiry into the claimant's entitlement?
  Read full judgment →
• Daraz Khan Versus Muzaffar Khan1998 SCMR 2735 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Zameer Hussain Versus Mujeeb-Ur-Rehman1998 SCMR 2733 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Murtaza Versus Muhammad Mujtaba Khan,1998 SCMR 2730 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
• Noor Bibi Versus Settlement Commissioner1998 SCMR 273 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-03Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad Versus Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi1998 SCMR 2721 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-10Read full judgment →
• Jafar Ali Versus State1998 SCMR 2669 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-29
  last seen evidencecircumstantial evidencecapital punishmentjudicial confessionmurderrapecriminal appealamnesty order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a conviction for the abduction, rape, and murder of a one-year-old infant. The core legal question was whether a conviction for a capital offense, specifically murder, can be sustained solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, particularly the 'last seen' doctrine, in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence, holding that while 'last seen' evidence is not sufficient in isolation, it becomes a reliable basis for conviction when corroborated by other interlinked circumstantial evidence—such as motive, incriminating recoveries, and the proximity of time—that leaves no reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The Court emphasized that in cases involving heinous crimes where the accused has exclusive knowledge of the incident, the burden shifts to the accused to provide a reasonable explanation for the victim's demise. The principle laid down is that the judicial approach to evidence must be dynamic, ensuring that criminals do not escape justice due to technicalities when the circumstantial chain is complete and unbroken.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for a capital offense be sustained solely on the basis of 'last seen' evidence?
  • Does the remand of a case by an appellate court and a subsequent fresh conviction after a general amnesty date preclude the accused from claiming the benefit of that amnesty?
  • Is a judicial confession rendered inadmissible solely because the magistrate inadvertently wrote that it was taken under oath, despite the magistrate clarifying that no oath was administered?
  • What is the evidentiary value of 'last seen' evidence when the accused fails to provide a reasonable explanation for the victim's death?
  Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Versus Rent Controller, Peshawar1998 SCMR 2656 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-03
  evictiondefault in rentsublettingpartnershipexclusive possessionrent restrictiontenantlandlord
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord against the legal representatives of a deceased tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and unlawful subletting through a partnership agreement. The Rent Controller ordered eviction on both grounds, but the appellate court reversed the order, which decision was upheld by the High Court in a constitutional petition. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine the application of the second proviso to section 13(2)(vi) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 concerning rent default admissions, and whether entering into a partnership constituted subletting under section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the same Ordinance. The Court held that the tenant had unconditionally admitted liability to pay rent in the written statement on the first date of hearing, satisfying the statutory proviso to avoid eviction for default. Furthermore, the Court held that the mere formation of a partnership and induction of a partner does not ipso facto constitute subletting unless the tenancy rights are transferred and the tenant divests himself of exclusive legal possession. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unconditional admission of liability to pay rent in a written statement satisfies the second proviso to section 13(2)(vi) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 to avoid eviction?
  • Does the mere creation of a partnership and the induction of a partner into a business carried on in a rented premises amount to subletting under section 13(2)(ii)(a) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • What constitutes a transfer of leasehold rights or divestation of legal possession so as to constitute unlawful subletting?
  • How does a lease or sub-lease differ from a licence in the context of rent restriction laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Boota Versus Chairman, Pakistan Postal Services Corporation, Islamabad1998 SCMR 2652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-10
  service appealseniority listlimitationdepartmental representationremandFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's service appeal against a seniority list on the grounds of limitation. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal could dismiss an appeal as time-barred when the department had entertained and processed the appellant's representation rather than rejecting it on limitation grounds. The Supreme Court held that where a department has not dismissed a departmental representation on the ground of limitation, the Service Tribunal is not justified in non-suiting the appellant on that basis. The Court affirmed the principle that if a departmental authority considers a representation on its merits, the Tribunal should likewise adjudicate the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a decision on the merits, while leaving open the respondents' arguments regarding the impact of subsequent seniority lists for the Tribunal's consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal on the ground of limitation if the department did not reject the underlying representation on that same ground?
  • Is a Service Tribunal required to decide an appeal on its merits if the departmental authority has already processed the representation on its merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam Zeb Khan Versus Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad1998 SCMR 2616 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Versus Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore1998 SCMR 2601 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-26
  service tribunaldepartmental appealexhaustion of remediesservice appealremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal by leave against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal. The core legal question was whether a service appeal filed before the Tribunal prior to exhausting the departmental remedy of filing a departmental appeal is competent. The Supreme Court held that the majority view of the Tribunal was correct in holding that the appeal was not competent as it was filed before the departmental appeal. The key principle laid down is that a service tribunal appeal filed prematurely without first exhausting departmental remedies is incompetent.

  Questions settled

  • Is a service tribunal appeal competent when filed before the departmental appeal?
  • Does filing a departmental appeal after instituting an appeal before the Service Tribunal cure the initial defect of incompetence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Siddique Versus Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Excise and Taxation Department, Lahore1998 SCMR 2594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-26
  civil servicedisciplinary proceedingsminor penaltywithholding of incrementproperty tax assessmentservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's appeal against a minor penalty of withholding one annual increment for a period of one year. The disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 were initiated against the appellant, an Excise and Taxation Officer, for reducing the property tax assessment of a flour mill from Rs. 11,000 to Rs. 6,000 per annum. The appellant contended that the reduction was justified based on Supreme Court precedent regarding the basis of assessment under the West Pakistan Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that it could not examine the correctness of the tax assessment itself, as that was a matter for the statutory forums provided under the relevant tax law. Since the appellant failed to point out any procedural or legal infirmity in the disciplinary action taken against him, the Court found no grounds to interfere and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court in a service appeal examine the correctness of a tax assessment decision made by a civil servant under a tax statute?
  • What is the scope of interference by the Supreme Court in disciplinary actions against civil servants where no procedural or legal infirmity is shown?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Ullah Versus Shabbir Ahmad Chughtai1998 SCMR 259 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Versus Shamim Kamal1998 SCMR 2571 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-22
  pensionary benefitsretrospective operationvested rightsremoval from serviceservice rules amendmentexecutive power
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal, filed by the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) with leave of the Supreme Court, challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment directing the appellant to settle the pensionary benefits of the respondent. The respondent had been removed from service under Section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 on October 21, 1982. WAPDA contended that because the respondent was removed after the June 28, 1982 amendment to Rule 7(iv) of the Pakistan WAPDA Pension Rules 1977, which explicitly excluded employees removed under Section 17(1-A) from pensionary benefits, he was not entitled to any pension. The respondent argued that his right to pension was a vested right under the rules in force at the time of his appointment, which could not be retrospectively altered. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the executive cannot alter service rules to retrospectively deprive employees of vested rights. The Court reaffirmed that the 1982 amendment could not apply retrospectively to divest employees of accrued pensionary benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can executive or statutory rule-making authorities amend service rules with retrospective effect to deprive employees of vested rights?
  • Whether an employee removed under Section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 is entitled to pensionary benefits if the rules at the time of their appointment allowed for such benefits?
  • Does Section 18 of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 grant WAPDA the authority to alter service rules with retrospective operation?
  Read full judgment →
• Wahid Beg Versus Deputy Chief of Naval Staff (Training and Personnel) Naval Headquarters, Islamabad1998 SCMR 2558 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
• General Manager (Operation), WAPDA Versus Javaid Aziz Qureshi Sh. Masud Akhtar , Gul Zarin Kiani, Advocate Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan1998 SCMR 2553 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-22
  service tribunalmisconductcorruptionsubstitution of punishmentcompulsory retirementdismissal from serviceWAPDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses cross-appeals arising from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had partly allowed an appeal by a WAPDA employee against his dismissal for corruption and misconduct by converting the punishment into compulsory retirement. The core legal questions pertained to the extent of the Service Tribunal's powers to modify penalties under section 5(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and whether such substitution of punishment is justified when charges of corruption are established. The Supreme Court held that while the Service Tribunal possesses the power to modify orders, altering a penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement in corruption cases without cogent reasons or a finding of arbitrariness by the departmental authority constitutes an improper exercise of judicial discretion. The ratio laid down is that in cases involving proven corruption, leniency in the form of reduced penalties or pensionary benefits should not ordinarily be granted, as it undermines deterrence against corruption. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal of WAPDA, restored the original penalty of dismissal, and dismissed the employee's appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the power to vary or modify departmental penalties under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Is the Service Tribunal justified in substituting a penalty of dismissal with compulsory retirement in cases involving proven charges of corruption?
  • Can an appellate or review forum reduce a penalty without recording cogent reasons or a finding of arbitrariness against the departmental authority?
  • Whether an employee's long period of service entitles them to leniency when dismissed on charges of corruption?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Chaudhry Versus Secretary, Establishment, Islamabad1998 SCMR 2544 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-19
  civil servicesenioritysupersessionpromotionadverse remarksexpunctionESTACODEretrospective seniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellant's appeal seeking restoration of his original seniority in B-18. The appellant, an Income Tax Officer, was twice superseded for promotion to B-18 by the Departmental Promotion Committee (D.P.C.) in 1985 and 1986 due to average and indifferent performance evaluations. Although the appellant subsequently succeeded in having his adverse remarks for the year 1983 expunged by the Service Tribunal, his subsequent representation for retrospective seniority was rejected. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether the expunctuon of adverse remarks automatically entitled the appellant to regain his original seniority. The Court held that under Section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the ESTACODE, a civil servant who is consciously superseded by a D.P.C. after consideration of their service record cannot regain original seniority upon subsequent promotion, unless the supersession orders themselves are set aside or reversed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant who has been consciously superseded by a Departmental Promotion Committee can regain their original seniority upon subsequent promotion?
  • Does the subsequent expunction of adverse remarks automatically invalidate past supersessions if those supersession orders themselves have not been challenged or set aside?
  • Under what circumstances can a departmental promotee claim seniority from the date their juniors were promoted rather than the date of their own regular promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Beg Versus Government of N.-W.F.P.1998 SCMR 2466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-10
  service lawregularization of servicegraded payservice tribunalremandcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals filed by S.E.T. (Science) teachers who were initially appointed on fixed pay in 1987 and subsequently sought both graded pay and regularization of their service following the upgrading of their posts to B-16. While the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal granted the appellants graded pay from the date they acquired the requisite educational qualifications, it failed to adjudicate upon their claim for regularization under Section 3 of the N.W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regularization of Service) Act, 1988. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Service Tribunal erred in omitting to decide the issue of regularization. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had not adverted to the statutory provisions regarding regularization. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals and remanded the cases to the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal with a specific direction to decide the entitlement of the appellants to be regularized in terms of the aforementioned Act. The principle laid down is that a Service Tribunal must adjudicate upon all grievances raised by an appellant, particularly those grounded in specific statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Service Tribunal required to adjudicate upon all claims raised by an appellant, including claims for regularization under the N.W.F.P. Civil Servants (Regularisation of Service) Act, 1988?
  • Can a case be remanded to a Service Tribunal if it fails to address a specific statutory claim regarding the regularization of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan Versus State1998 SCMR 2465 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-03
  review petitioncondonation of delayQisasTazirleave to appealmurderPakistan Penal Code
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought a review of a judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 7-6-1995, which had dismissed his petition for leave to appeal against his conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and the alteration of his death sentence to imprisonment for life by the High Court. The review petition faced a delay of 451 days, which the Court condoned after accepting the explanation regarding office objections and refiling. On merits, the petitioner contended that the deceased was survived by a minor daughter who was her Wali and also a descendant of the petitioner, making him not liable to Qisas under section 306 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and punishable only under section 308(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Finding prima facie support for this contention, the Court recalled the earlier judgment, condoned the delay, and granted leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in filing a review petition can be condoned when caused by office objections and administrative processing?
  • Is a father exempt from Qisas under section 306 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the victim's Wali is his own descendant?
  • What is the applicable punishment under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when a person is not liable to Qisas because the Wali is a descendant?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain Kazmi Versus Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1998 SCMR 2446 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-02
  service appealBPS-16gazetted statuscorrigendumservice rightsadministrative notificationClass-II officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant's claim by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the cancellation of a notification that had previously gazetted his status as an Electronic Assistant in BPS-16. The core legal question was whether the issuance of a corrigendum cancelling the earlier notification adversely affected the appellant's service rights, particularly his status as a Class-II officer. The Supreme Court held that the appeal should be dismissed, as the respondents confirmed that the corrigendum was merely a rectification of an administrative error and did not negatively impact the appellant's pay, allowances, pension, or seniority. Furthermore, the Court accepted the government's assurance that the appellant retained his status as a Class-II officer, which had been equated with BPS-16 following the abolition of the gazetted/non-gazetted classification in 1973. The principle laid down is that administrative corrections to official notifications do not provide grounds for legal grievance if the employee’s substantive service benefits and status remain preserved and unaffected by such rectification.

  Questions settled

  • Does the cancellation of a gazette notification regarding a service upgrade constitute an actionable grievance if substantive benefits remain unaffected?
  • Are employees in National Pay Scale 16 entitled to the status formerly enjoyed by Class-II officers?
  • Can the government issue a corrigendum to rectify an administrative error in a gazette notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afan Ullah Versus Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore1998 SCMR 2440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq Versus Sultan Mahmood Akbar1998 SCMR 2428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• Central Board of Revenue Versus Shakeel Brothers1998 SCMR 237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-06-08
  customs dutytariff classificationconstitutional jurisdictionretrospective applicationimport policyfodder crusherswarehousing of goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against High Court judgments regarding the classification of imported "Fodder Crushers" under the Pakistan Customs Tariff. The core legal questions were whether the High Court, while exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction, could conduct a factual inquiry to determine the correct tariff classification of imported goods, and whether the Finance Ordinance, 1983, could be applied retrospectively to goods imported and warehoused prior to its enactment. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was competent to inquire into the factual classification of goods because the determination of legal rights required the interpretation of statutory tariff headings. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Finance Ordinance, 1983, which generalized the classification of fodder-processing machinery, could not be applied retrospectively to cases where bills of entry were filed or goods were warehoused under the previous legal regime. The key principle laid down is that fiscal amendments cannot operate retrospectively to affect pending disputes regarding the classification and duty liability of goods warehoused under earlier statutory provisions. The appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to conduct a factual inquiry regarding the classification of imported goods under the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
  • Does the Finance Ordinance, 1983, apply retrospectively to goods imported and warehoused prior to its enactment?
  • Are fodder crushers classifiable as chaff cutters under the Pakistan Customs Tariff headings applicable in 1982?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem-II, Stenographer Versus Federation of Pakistan1998 SCMR 2367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-18Read full judgment →
• Liaqat Ali Versus Secretary, Government of Punjab1998 SCMR 236 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Versus State1998 SCMR 2354 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Central Cotton Mills Limited Versus Atlas Bot Lease Co. Limited1998 SCMR 2352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-28
  compromise decreeBanking Tribunals Ordinanceconstitutional jurisdictionalternative remedySection 12(2) CPCfraudulent decreeleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Constitution Petition by the High Court of Sindh. The original suit was filed by a leasing company against Central Cotton Mills and others under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1981, for recovery of funds and possession of leased equipment. The suit was decreed based on a compromise agreement. Subsequently, the defendants filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alleging the compromise was obtained through fraud and lack of authorization. The Banking Tribunal dismissed this application, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent Constitution Petition in limine. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the petitioners had an adequate alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1981. The Court held that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked when a specific statutory remedy exists. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a compromise decree cannot be challenged through a constitutional petition when statutory appellate procedures are available to address grievances regarding the validity of such decrees.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be invoked when an adequate alternative remedy is provided under a special law?
  • Is a compromise decree subject to challenge via a constitutional petition?
  • Does the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1981 provide an appellate remedy against the dismissal of an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mitha Khan Versus Nafees Begum1998 SCMR 2342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-05Read full judgment →
• Javed Nawab Versus Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Quetta1998 SCMR 2337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Khanimullah Versus Chairman, WAPDA1998 SCMR 2318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid Versus Sirajuddin1998 SCMR 2296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
• Shahnaz Akhtar, Associate Professor Versus Government of N.-W.F.P. , K.G. Sabir1998 SCMR 2254 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-11
  civil servantpromotionacting charge appointmentvested rightqualification rulesregularisationseniority
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan was filed by an Associate Professor against the dismissal of her service tribunal appeal seeking regularisation of her promotion from an earlier date and seniority over certain respondents. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant's regularisation to the higher post of Associate Professor in BPS-19 was governed by the qualification rules in force at the time of her initial acting charge appointment or by the new qualification rules introduced subsequently, which required the publication of research papers. The Supreme Court held that a civil servant has no vested right in promotion rules or the terms and conditions of a higher post, and that eligibility for promotion and regularisation must be determined in accordance with the rules applicable at the time the person becomes qualified for promotion. The Court ruled that the new qualification rules applied to the appellant, meaning acting charge appointment did not confer a vested right to regular promotion under superseded criteria. However, the Court observed that fairness required adjusting the regularisation date to coincide with the time the appellant fulfilled the new research paper requirement. The appeal was dismissed with observations regarding the adjusted date.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil servant have a vested right to be promoted under the rules that existed at the time of their initial acting charge appointment?
  • Are the terms and conditions relatable to prospects of promotion part of the service conditions of the lower post or the higher post?
  • Does an acting charge appointment confer any vested right for regular promotion to the post held on acting charge basis under Rule 9 of the North West Frontier Province Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1989?
  • Which qualification rules apply when determining the eligibility of a civil servant for regular promotion to a higher post following a change in rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque Versus Government of Pakistan1998 SCMR 2237 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-12
  civil servicepromotionsupersessiondefermentannual confidential reportlimitationcause of actionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the promotion of a civil servant who was repeatedly superseded for promotion to BPS-19 due to an incomplete Annual Confidential Report (ACR) dossier. The appellant challenged his supersession in 1983, 1985, and 1987. While the 1987 supersession was converted to deferment by the competent authority, the appellant's requests for similar relief regarding 1983 and 1985 were denied by the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal questions were whether the appellant’s previous challenges were barred by finality or limitation, and whether the conversion of the 1987 supersession created a fresh cause of action for the 1985 claim. The Supreme Court held that the 1983 challenge was barred by the finality of a prior Tribunal judgment. However, regarding 1985, the Court held that the subsequent administrative decision in 1987 provided a fresh cause of action, rendering the appeal timely. The Court established that where an administrative authority re-evaluates a record, it may create a new cause of action, allowing for the reconsideration of prior supersessions if they share the same underlying factual basis.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conversion of a later supersession to deferment create a fresh cause of action for challenging an earlier supersession based on the same grounds?
  • Can a civil servant challenge a supersession in court if a previous appeal regarding the same period was dismissed and attained finality?
  • Are Annual Confidential Reports written by retired officers valid for the purpose of promotion consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamim Akhtar Versus Maqsood Ahmed1998 SCMR 2227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
• Farrukh J. Gulzar Versus Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore1998 SCMR 2222 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ramzan Versus Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1998 SCMR 2216 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  service lawadvance incrementspremature incrementsappointing authoritydepartmental selection boardpay fixationservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This service appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that denied the appellant's claim for five advance increments upon his appointment as an Assistant Administrative Officer (B-17). The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to these increments based on the departmental Selection Board's recommendation, despite the appointing authority's refusal. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was maintainable and not time-barred, but on merits, the claim failed. The Court ruled that under the governing Finance Division Memorandum, premature increments are conditional upon the unavailability of suitable candidates at the minimum pay scale. Since the record showed that multiple qualified candidates were willing to accept the appointment at the initial B-17 scale, the essential prerequisite for granting advance increments was absent. The Court affirmed that the appointing authority acted within its discretion in rejecting the increments, as the authority's decision was not arbitrary, biased, or mala fide. The principle laid down is that recommendations for advance increments are subject to the appointing authority's approval and strict adherence to the condition that no suitable candidates are available at the minimum pay scale.

  Questions settled

  • Are recommendations for advance increments by a departmental Selection Board binding on the appointing authority?
  • Is the grant of premature increments under Finance Division rules conditional upon the unavailability of suitable candidates at the minimum pay scale?
  • Does the appointing authority have the discretion to reject recommendations for advance increments if the necessary conditions under the rules are not met?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sarwar Khan Versus Government of Pakistan1998 SCMR 2197 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-18
  land acquisitionenhanced compensationrepresentative capacityexecution of decreeCode of Civil Procedurereferee court
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from execution proceedings initiated by landowners seeking enhanced compensation for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal question was whether the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, particularly Order I, Rule 8 regarding representative suits, applied to applications made to the Collector under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, and whether non-petitioning affectees included in a representative capacity were entitled to the benefit of enhanced compensation. The Supreme Court held that applications made under section 18 to the Collector are designed to be placed before the referee Court, and consequently, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure apply under section 53, enabling representative proceedings. The Court laid down the principle that procedural mechanisms like Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. and Order XLI, Rule 33, C.P.C. operate to extend the benefits of compensation enhancement to all similarly situated affectees duly represented in the proceedings, and executing courts cannot go behind final acquisition orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the procedure prescribed under Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. was applicable to proceedings arising under Land Acquisition Act?
  • Whether a reference to the Court under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act by some claimants can be deemed to be made on behalf of all affectees so as to entitle them to enhanced compensation?
  • Can an executing court deny the benefit of enhanced compensation to landowners who were part of representative proceedings that attained finality?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shahid Versus State1998 SCMR 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-18
  criminal bailleave to appealattempted murdertentative assessmentdelay in FIR
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his pre-trial bail application by the High Court of Sindh in a criminal case registered under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, including the lack of independent eye-witnesses, absence of any injuries sustained by the complainant, and delayed lodging of the First Information Report. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to the appellant. The Court held that on a tentative assessment of the evidence collected by the police, where no injuries were caused and independent witnesses were lacking despite a daytime occurrence, a fit case for the grant of bail was made out.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner is entitled to bail when no injuries are sustained and no independent eye-witnesses are cited in a daytime incident?
  • Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report justify the grant of bail in an attempted murder case?
  • When can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and grant bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Director of Education (Schools), Lahore Region, Lahore Versus Muhammad Abbas1998 SCMR 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-24
  service tribunaltermination of servicetemporary appointmentregular appointmentcivil servantback benefitsleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which allowed the respondent's service appeal, set aside his termination from service, and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The respondent had been appointed as an Elementary School Teacher on the recommendation of the District Education Recruitment Committee, but his services were subsequently terminated via a one-month notice on the ground that his appointment was temporary. The core legal question was whether the services of a teacher appointed through the prescribed selection committee could be summarily terminated on the basis of a temporary appointment clause. The Supreme Court held that the service rules do not envisage the concept of a 'purely temporary basis' and that the appointment, having been made in the prescribed manner, was regular under the law, rendering summary termination unlawful. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that stipulations of purely temporary employment not recognized by the applicable service rules cannot be used to justify summary termination of civil servants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service rules recognize the concept of a purely temporary appointment for civil servants?
  • Can the services of an employee appointed through the prescribed recruitment committee be terminated summarily on one month's notice?
  • Whether an appointment made on the recommendation of a recruitment committee constitutes a regular appointment under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
  Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority Versus Javed Iqbal1998 SCMR 2136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-17
  service appealmisconducthabitual negligenceFederal Service TribunalremandWAPDAdisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter concerns a service appeal against the dismissal of an employee by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) following a fire incident that caused property damage. The core legal question is whether the Federal Service Tribunal correctly evaluated the evidence and the definition of 'misconduct' under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, when setting aside the dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the inquiry report and the specific legal requirements for establishing misconduct, which necessitates proof of habitual negligence or wilful damage. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that an appellate tribunal must comprehensively review the evidence and inquiry findings, and that 'misconduct' under the relevant rules requires demonstrating habitual negligence or wilful intent, rather than merely an isolated accidental occurrence.

  Questions settled

  • Does a single incident of accidental loss of property constitute 'misconduct' under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
  • Is an appellate tribunal required to consider the inquiry report and evidence in its entirety when deciding a service appeal?
  • What constitutes 'misconduct' regarding negligence under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
  Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan, Lahore Versus Muhammad Akhtar1998 SCMR 2109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah Versus Government of Pakistan1998 SCMR 2079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus Finance Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1998 SCMR 2077 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus Federation of Pakistan1998 SCMR 2073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-06
  pro bono publicolocus standiactive serviceField General Court Martialwrit jurisdictionArmy Act 1952aggrieved party
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed writ petitions filed by convicts tried by a Field General Court Martial. The petitioner, acting pro bono publico, argued that the convicts were not on 'active service' under the Army Act, 1952, and thus the trial was illegal. The Supreme Court addressed two primary issues: the locus standi of a pro bono petitioner in a criminal conviction case and the interpretation of 'active service' under the Army Act, 1952. The Court held that the petitioner lacked standing under Article 199 of the Constitution, as the principle of pro bono publico cannot be invoked to challenge the individual conviction of another person where the petitioner has no personal interest. On merits, the Court affirmed that under Section 7(1) of the Army Act, 1952, the Federal Government possesses the authority to deem persons subject to the Act as being on 'active service' via notification, regardless of the general definition provided in Section 8. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person file a writ petition as pro bono publico to challenge the conviction of another individual?
  • Does the Federal Government have the power to deem persons subject to the Army Act 1952 as being on active service via notification?
  • Is a petitioner who lacks personal interest in a criminal conviction an 'aggrieved party' under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines, Karachi Versus Hanif Amin1998 SCMR 2066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31
  back benefitsservice lawsuspension periodreinstatementPIAC employeesservice regulationsexoneration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which granted a Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) pilot full back benefits for his suspension period. The respondent, a Captain, had been removed from service following criminal charges of gold smuggling, for which he was subsequently acquitted. Although the PIAC reinstated him, it denied him back pay for the intervening period. The core legal question was whether an employee reinstated after suspension and exoneration is entitled to full pay for the suspension period under the governing regulations. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that under Article 83 of the PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, an employee who is suspended and subsequently reinstated without dismissal or demotion is entitled to be treated as on duty. The Court held that since the respondent was exonerated on merits and reinstated with restored seniority, he was entitled to full pay for the suspension period, subject to adjustments for amounts already drawn. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.

  Questions settled

  • Is an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation entitled to full pay for the period of suspension if they are reinstated without dismissal or demotion?
  • Does the acquittal of an employee by a court of law on criminal charges entitle them to back benefits upon reinstatement under the P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985?
  Read full judgment →
• General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore Versus Muhammad Hussain1998 SCMR 2062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-29Read full judgment →
• Khalid Javaid Khalid Versus Ijaz Ahmed1998 SCMR 2061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-30Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Education, Government of Punjab, Lahore Versus Shazia Abbas1998 SCMR 2056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-07
  leave to appealservice tribunal jurisdictionwrit petitionconstitutional bartermination of servicecivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court regarding the termination of the respondent's service as a P.T.C. Teacher on a temporary basis. The core legal question is whether the termination of service of a government teacher can be challenged before the Service Tribunal or if a writ petition is maintainable before the High Court in view of the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act or whether the High Court properly exercised writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in service matters relating to civil servants?
  • Does the termination of a temporary teacher's service fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against the dismissal of a constitutional petition relating to terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Khan Versus Government of N.-W.F.P.1998 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-10-17
  civil judgescontract appointmentregularisationindependence of judiciarywrit of mandamuspublic service commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Constitution petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had refused to direct the Provincial Government to regularize the contractual appointments of the petitioners as Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates. The petitioners contended that the recommendation of the High Court Chief Justice for their regularization was binding and integral to the independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that contractual appointment confers no legal right to regular appointment, and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce a claim contrary to statutory requirements. The Court established that appointments to posts in Basic Pay Scale 16 to 20 must strictly adhere to the prescriptions of the law, including selection through the Public Service Commission, and that the principle of the independence of the judiciary does not place the judiciary above the law nor permit recommendations that violate statutory provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contractual appointment as a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate confer a legal right to seek regularisation?
  • Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the Government to regularise appointments in violation of prescribed statutory rules?
  • Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary permit recommendations for judicial appointments that contravene existing laws?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Asghar Ali Versus Secretary to the Government of Pakistan Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Islamabad1998 SCMR 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-10
  service appealpension benefitsaudit objectionsdaily allowancegovernment liabilityadministrative delaytime-barred claims
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, a former Cypher Assistant in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, challenged the withholding of his pension following audit objections regarding the payment of a Daily Allowance for his posting at The Hague. The core legal question was whether the government could lawfully deny pension benefits and reclaim previously paid allowances on the basis that the original claim was time-barred, despite the delay being attributable to the government's own administrative inaction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Service Tribunal's order. The Court held that the audit objections were entirely frivolous, noting that the government was responsible for the delayed payment of the allowance. Consequently, the Court directed the Ministry of Finance to forthwith finalize the appellant's pension case. The judgment establishes the principle that a government department cannot penalize a public servant by withholding pension or reclaiming legitimate allowances based on audit objections arising from delays caused by the government's own administrative failures, particularly when the servant is not at fault for the procedural lapse.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government withhold a public servant's pension based on audit objections regarding a delayed payment that resulted from the government's own administrative delay?
  • Is a government employee entitled to a Daily Allowance in lieu of Foreign Allowance and House Rent Allowance upon arrival at a new foreign mission?
  • Can audit authorities declare a claim time-barred when the delay in processing the payment was caused by the government's own administrative inaction?
  Read full judgment →
• Iftikhar Hussain Shah Versus Government of Pakistan1998 SCMR 2009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-02
  promotionseniority-cum-fitnesscivil servicedepartmental promotion committeeadministrative discretionfederal service tribunalservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals concern the refusal of the Federal Investigation Agency to promote the appellants to BPS-17, despite their seniority. The appellants challenged the Federal Service Tribunal’s dismissal of their appeals, which had been based on the department’s claim that no vacancies existed. The core legal question was whether the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) acted lawfully in ignoring the appellants while promoting junior officers. The Supreme Court held that the DPC’s proceedings were an "eyewash" because they failed to adhere to the principle of seniority-cum-fitness and did not provide reasons for bypassing the appellants. The Court emphasized that a statutory body must perform its duties faithfully, honestly, and diligently, and cannot merely assert a lack of vacancies to avoid a proper, reasoned assessment of candidates. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, directing the respondents to re-examine the appellants' cases in juxtaposition with the promoted officers to determine their merits for promotion. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative bodies must provide a transparent, merit-based justification when exercising discretionary promotion powers.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Departmental Promotion Committee justify ignoring a senior candidate for promotion solely by claiming a lack of vacancies?
  • Is a Departmental Promotion Committee required to provide reasons when ignoring a senior candidate for promotion in favor of a junior one?
  • What is the scope of judicial review regarding the proceedings of a Departmental Promotion Committee?
  Read full judgment →
• Wares Khan Versus Inspector-General of Police, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar1998 SCMR 2003 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-25
  compulsory retirementservice appealdepartmental inquirynatural justicemisreading of evidencereinstatementback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant's service appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal. The appellant, a police investigating officer, was compulsorily retired following departmental proceedings for allegedly making false statements, misdescribing evidence, and damaging the reputation of a senior police officer (a D.I.-G.) during a high-profile murder trial. The appellant contended that he was denied a personal hearing, that the departmental appeal was summarily rejected without considering material grounds, and that the punishment was excessive. The Supreme Court observed that the departmental proceedings lacked transparency, the appellate authority failed to address substantive grounds, and the Service Tribunal decided the matter prematurely without awaiting the final verdict of the Supreme Appellate Court in the criminal case. Finding that the appellant had no malice, that the errors were mere slips, and that the proceedings suffered from material irregularities, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the retirement order, and reinstated the appellant with all back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a departmental appeal can be summarily rejected by the appellate authority without addressing material grounds of substance raised by the employee?
  • Does the failure of a Service Tribunal to await the final verdict of the appellate criminal court before deciding a related service appeal constitute a premature and unsustainable decision?
  • Can an extreme penalty of compulsory retirement be sustained where the alleged misconduct is shown to be a mere slip without any established malice?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Javaid Ghouri Versus Lecturer/Demonstrator, Blood Transfusion Service, Punjab, Lahore1998 SCMR 1990 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-05
  civil serviceunauthorized absenceremoval from serviceregular inquirymedical certificatesecond medical opinion
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the removal of the appellant, a Junior Clerk, from service under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 on the charge of unauthorized absence from duty. After being granted nine days of casual leave, the appellant repeatedly applied for extensions on medical grounds supported by certificates from private practitioners, but failed to resume duty or ascertain the fate of his applications. The authorized officer dispensed with a regular inquiry under Rule 6.3 of the Rules and proceeded to remove him. The Service Tribunal upheld the removal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a regular inquiry was properly dispensed with as sufficient documentary evidence of the charge was available on record. The Court ruled that under the Revised Leave Rules 1981, the competent authority is entitled to seek a second medical opinion, and the appellant's failure to make himself available for medical examination or to track his leave applications justified his removal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an authorized officer can dispense with a regular inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 if sufficient documentary evidence is already available on record?
  • Is a civil servant obligated to ascertain the fate of their applications for extension of leave?
  • Does the competent authority have the power to seek a second medical opinion regarding an employee's ailment under the Revised Leave Rules 1981?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Haider Versus Federation of Pakistan1998 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-02
  constitutional crisisjudicial independencecontempt of court13th Amendmentinterim orderseparation of powerssecurity of judiciary
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an interim order passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan amidst a constitutional crisis characterized by a breakdown of governance and direct interference with the judiciary. The core legal question addressed was whether the Court could intervene to protect its own integrity and the constitutional order when faced with systematic attempts to undermine the Chief Justice, including rowdyism within the Court premises, mob attacks on the Court building, and the failure of the executive to provide security. The Court held that in these extraordinary circumstances, where the judiciary was being made an object of mockery and its security compromised, it was compelled to act. Consequently, the Court ordered the suspension of the operation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court possesses the inherent authority to pass interim orders to preserve the constitutional machinery and ensure the safety and independence of the judiciary when the executive branch fails to uphold its constitutional obligations and actively obstructs the administration of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court suspend a constitutional amendment as an interim measure during a constitutional crisis?
  • Does the Supreme Court have the authority to request security from the Army when the executive fails to protect the judiciary?
  • Is the Chief Justice the sole authority empowered to constitute Benches of the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman Versus State1998 SCMR 1778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-15
  rash and negligent drivingpost-mortem examinationocular evidencemedical evidencecausationcriminal liabilitydeath by accident
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rash and negligent driving resulting in death. The core legal question was whether the absence of a post-mortem examination of the deceased renders a conviction for such an offence legally unsustainable. The Supreme Court held that the absence of a post-mortem report is not fatal to the prosecution’s case, provided that the cause of death and the accused's culpability are established through other reliable evidence. The Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that medical evidence serves merely as corroboration rather than substantive proof. It laid down the principle that courts are competent to rely on ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence to determine the cause of death when such evidence is convincing and unimpeachable. Consequently, the failure to conduct a post-mortem does not automatically exonerate an accused if the immediate, proximate, and direct causal link between the rash act and the death is independently proven. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is the absence of a post-mortem examination fatal to a prosecution case for rash and negligent driving resulting in death?
  • Can a court rely on ocular testimony to establish the cause of death in the absence of medical evidence?
  • Does medical evidence constitute substantive proof or merely corroborative evidence in criminal trials?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf Versus State1998 SCMR 1764 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-09
  quantum of sentencedeath sentencelife imprisonmentunproved motivemitigating circumstancecapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a petition for leave to appeal where leave was granted solely to consider the quantum of sentence. The appellant had been convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death by the trial court, which was subsequently confirmed by the Lahore High Court. The prosecution's alleged motive was that the appellant brought women of bad character to his house, which was objected to by the deceased. However, during trial, the prosecution witnesses failed to support or prove this motive, rendering it shrouded in mystery. The Supreme Court held that where a specific motive is alleged in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) but the prosecution fails to establish it at trial through cogent evidence, capital punishment is not warranted. Applying this established principle, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, converting the appellant's death sentence to life imprisonment and extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a death sentence is warranted when the specific motive alleged by the prosecution in the F.I.R. is not proved by cogent evidence at trial?
  • What is the legal effect on the quantum of sentence when the events immediately preceding the occurrence remain shrouded in mystery?
  • Can a court award capital punishment under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the prosecution witnesses fail to support the motive set up in the F.I.R.?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhunzada Behrawar Saeed, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan Versus Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Chief Justice of Pakistan1998 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-28Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mir Versus Lala Khan1998 SCMR 1607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-12
  grave and sudden provocationculpable homicide amounting to murderconversion of sentencemurderappellate interferencejudicial confessionlife imprisonment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal, arising from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, concerns the conversion of a murder conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304, Part I, on the grounds of grave and sudden provocation. The respondent had opened fire with two pistols at a shop, killing one Akhtar Muhammad and injuring the complainant, Jalat Khan, allegedly due to humiliation over past offences against the respondent's wife. The trial court had convicted the respondent under section 302 and sentenced him to death. The High Court converted the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, finding the respondent acted under continued mental agony. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, examined the evidence and judicial confession, and held that the respondent acted with premeditation after deliberation following morning prayers, negating the existence of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court restored the conviction under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but considering the peculiar circumstances including the unconfirmed death sentence and the background motive, declined to restore the death penalty, instead imposing life imprisonment alongside the concurrent section 307 sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether premeditated firing at a victim following a period of reflection constitutes grave and sudden provocation sufficient to reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
  • Can continued mental agony and societal shame in a tribal society over a past wrong justify the reduction of a murder charge under section 302 to section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code should automatically attract the death penalty upon being restored by the appellate court, or if lesser punishment of life imprisonment can be awarded based on peculiar circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA Versus Karamat Ali Bajwa1998 SCMR 1559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-03
  service lawwillful absencedisciplinary proceedingsquantum of punishmentservice tribunalWAPDA employeesarbitrary exercise of discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the dismissal of a WAPDA employee for six months of willful absence to a lesser penalty of stoppage of increment. The core legal questions were whether Rule 5-A of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, applied to prolonged willful absence and whether the Tribunal’s reduction of the penalty was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that Rule 5-A is inapplicable to cases of extended willful absence, as it is intended for minor infractions like lateness or malingering. Furthermore, the Court ruled that while the Service Tribunal possesses broad powers under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to modify penalties, such discretion must be exercised reasonably and supported by cogent reasons. The Court determined that the Tribunal’s characterization of dismissal as "harsh" for six months of unauthorized absence was arbitrary and lacked a reasonable basis. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, affirming that the original penalty of dismissal was appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Does Rule 5-A of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, apply to cases of prolonged willful absence from duty?
  • Is the Service Tribunal's power to modify penalties under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, absolute or subject to the test of reasonableness?
  • Can a Service Tribunal reduce a penalty of dismissal to a minor punishment without providing cogent and reasonable grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Maa Din Versus State1998 SCMR 1528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-24Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ali Khoja Versus Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.1998 SCMR 1452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-11
  maintainabilityconstitutional petitiondenationalized bankservice terminationwrit jurisdictionmaster and servantfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed a Constitution petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's services as Senior Executive Vice-President of the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., a denationalized and privatized banking institution. The core legal question was whether a Constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was maintainable against a denationalized commercial bank and whether its employee could invoke writ jurisdiction for service grievances. The Supreme Court held that the respondent bank, being a denationalized entity currently under private management, did not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199. The Court affirmed that service disputes of employees of privatized institutions cannot be equated with the enforcement of fundamental rights and that disputed questions of fact cannot be investigated in constitutional proceedings. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against a denationalized and privatized commercial bank regarding service termination?
  • Does the termination of service of an employee in a denationalized financial institution give rise to the enforcement of fundamental rights?
  • Whether disputed questions of fact requiring detailed investigation can be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
  • When does an autonomous or denationalized corporation perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province?
  Read full judgment →
• Amjad Hussain Versus Secretary, Finance Division, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad1998 SCMR 1442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-04
  pay protectioncivil servantservice tribunalfundamental rulessalary fixation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for the fixation and protection of his salary under Fundamental Rule 22, clause A(i). The core legal question was whether an employee moving from an autonomous body created by the Government to a post in the Federal Government is entitled to pay protection as a civil servant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant retained his status as a civil servant and was entitled to invoke Fundamental Rule 22(A)(i) for the protection of the salary he was drawing in his parent department, noting that the Government cannot deny rightful salary on technical grounds like limitation. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the respondents were directed to re-fix the appellant's salary.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee moving from a government-created body to the Federal Government is entitled to pay protection under Fundamental Rule 22?
  • Can the Government deny the rightful salary of a civil servant on technical grounds such as limitation?
  • Do employees of a body created by the Government through a resolution retain their status as civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• M.Y. Electronics Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Government of Pakistan Abdul Hameed Qureshi, M. Sardar Khan, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Fakhurddin G. Ibrahim, Ejaz M. Khan,1998 SCMR 1404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-11
  promissory estoppelcustoms duty exemptionvested rightslegitimate expectationsales taxGadoon Amazai Industrial Estatestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns 29 civil appeals challenging the government's withdrawal of tax and duty exemptions granted to industrial units established in the Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate (GAIE). The core legal questions were whether the government could unilaterally withdraw these exemptions, whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation prevented such withdrawal, and whether Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, protected the government's action. The Court held that the government is empowered to withdraw exemptions, and Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, effectively nullifies claims of vested rights based on contracts or letters of credit established before withdrawal, as it mandates that the rate of duty includes amounts payable upon the withdrawal of exemptions. However, the Court distinguished sales tax, ruling that Section 31-A does not apply to the Sales Tax Act, 1951, meaning vested rights regarding sales tax exemptions remain protected. The key principles laid down are that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against statutory provisions, and that while the government may withdraw exemptions, it should ideally honor its commitments for a reasonable period to support industrial development in backward areas.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, apply to the withdrawal of sales tax exemptions?
  • Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked against a statutory provision like Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the withdrawal of a tax exemption notification retrospectively affect contracts or letters of credit established prior to the withdrawal?
  • Does the power to grant an exemption under the Customs Act, 1969, inherently include the power to withdraw it?
  Read full judgment →
• Moinuddin Ahmad Versus Chairman, F.P.S.C., Islamabad1998 SCMR 1389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
• Town Committee, Gakhar Mandi, Gujranwala Versus Authority under the Payment of Wages Act1998 SCMR 1382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmad Versus Collector, Central Excise and Sales Tax, Multan1998 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-19
  service tribunalunauthorized absencedisciplinary proceedingsremoval from servicefull-fledged inquiryleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the majority judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his removal from service. The petitioner, appointed as a Sepoy in 1985, remained absent from duty without authorization from 19-11-1985 and approached the department for re-entry after a lapse of approximately eight years. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, resulting in his removal from service after a show-cause notice and reply. The core legal question was whether a full-fledged departmental inquiry was mandatory in cases of unauthorized absence where facts were undisputed. The Supreme Court held that where unauthorized absence from duty is established on record and the facts are simple and undisputed, there is no requirement to hold a full-fledged inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that a full-fledged inquiry is unnecessary to resolve controverted facts when the foundational fact of long-term unauthorized absence is undisputed and the employee fails to substantiate claims of attempting to report for duty.

  Questions settled

  • Is a full-fledged departmental inquiry mandatory in every case of disciplinary action involving unauthorized absence from duty?
  • Does an employee's unexplained long-term absence from service justify removal without recording extensive evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Versus Secretary, Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad1998 SCMR 1375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-21
  service appeallimitation periodres judicatanon-prosecutiondepartmental appealtermination of servicepremature appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation and the principle of res judicata. The petitioner, a trained graduate teacher, had his services terminated in 1980 for alleged unauthorized absence. Following a series of procedural delays, including a previous appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and a subsequent constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court that directed the department to decide the petitioner's review, the department rejected his claim in 1994. The petitioner then filed a fresh appeal before the Tribunal, which was again dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal erred in applying the doctrine of res judicata to an appeal previously dismissed for non-prosecution, and whether the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal should be calculated from the date of the final departmental decision, particularly when a prior appeal was filed prematurely. The Court seeks to clarify the procedural requirements for service appeals involving departmental remedies and the impact of non-prosecution orders on future litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution operate as res judicata against a subsequent appeal filed after the exhaustion of departmental remedies?
  • Can an appeal filed before the finalization of departmental proceedings be considered premature, and does its dismissal for non-prosecution bar a later appeal filed within time after the departmental decision?
  • From what date should the limitation period for a service appeal be calculated when a departmental review petition is pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Versus Inayat Shah1998 SCMR 1356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
• Khalid Rashid Shahbaz Versus Federation of Pakistan1998 SCMR 1330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-29
  service tribunalseniority listmerger of cadrescivil servantregularisationinformation grouppakistan national centre
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal concerning the merger and seniority of officers of the Pakistan National Centre within the Information Group. The core legal questions involve whether the officers of the Pakistan National Centre were validly merged or absorbed into the Information Group through administrative office memoranda, whether tentative seniority lists create enforceable rights, and the validity of the Prime Minister's directive regarding cadre separation. The Supreme Court held that the tentative seniority lists do not create legal rights, the purported merger lacked necessary legislative backing or competent regularisation, and the Prime Minister's decision to maintain separate cadres was valid. The Court concluded that employees cannot automatically become members of a distinct service group without a competent order and adherence to prescribed rules, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether tentative seniority lists create any legitimate legal basis or right for claiming a cause of action?
  • Can employees of an autonomous body or attached department automatically become members of a distinct service group without a specific, competent order and regularisation under prescribed rules?
  • Whether an administrative office memorandum lacking legislative backing can legally effect the merger of two distinct service cadres?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman Versus Nawab Khatoon1998 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
• Khalid Nadeem Versus Government of N.-W.F.P.1998 SCMR 1313 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Sajid Saeed Versus Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan1998 SCMR 1311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Bibi Najma Versus Abdul Rehman1998 SCMR 1304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-11
  arbitration awardrule of courtout-of-court arbitrationmutual consentdeclarationpermanent injunctionleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent against his brother (later represented by his legal heirs, the petitioners). The respondent claimed that the parties had referred their property disputes to private arbitration, resulting in an award in 1982 which was accepted, acted upon, and implemented by both brothers for several years without dispute. The petitioners contested the suit, arguing that the award was never acted upon, had not been made a rule of the court, and was therefore invalid. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed it, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Balochistan in revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition and refused leave, holding that while an unfiled award generally cannot be enforced, a party may sue or defend on the basis of an out-of-court arbitration award if it has been accepted and voluntarily acted upon by the parties by mutual consent. Such a suit does not run afoul of Section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1940.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party file a civil suit or raise a defense based on an arbitration award made out of court if that award has been accepted and acted upon by the parties?
  • Is a suit based on an implemented out-of-court arbitration award barred by Section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does an arbitration award require to be made a rule of the court to be relied upon if the parties have already voluntarily implemented its terms?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mushtaq Versus Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1998 SCMR 1296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-29Read full judgment →
• Constitutional Petition No. 248-Q of 1997: in Re Versus Constitutional Petition No. 248-Q of 1997: in Re1998 SCMR 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-27Read full judgment →
• Province of N.-W.F.P. Versus Momin Khan1998 SCMR 1253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseer Khan Versus Federal Government1998 SCMR 1235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
• Murad Bakhsh Versus Jehangir1998 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali Versus Federation of Pakistan1998 SCMR 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Siddique Qureshi Versus Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1998 SCMR 1166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
• Saghar Hussain Versus Asima Batool1998 SCMR 1151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afzal Versus State1998 SCMR 1141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-17
  dying declarationleave to appealmurderco-accused confessioncorroborationcriminal jurisprudence
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which partly accepted the petitioner's appeal by setting aside his conviction and sentence under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, while upholding his conviction and sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question involved the reliability of the deceased's dying declaration, the corroboration of evidence, and the legal use of a co-accused's judicial confession. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration, corroborated by eyewitness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and the judicial confession of a co-accused used for corroborative purposes, conclusively established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that a dying declaration inspiring confidence can safely form the basis of a conviction when corroborated by other independent evidence, and a co-accused's judicial confession may legally be used to corroborate the prosecution's case against another accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a dying declaration form the basis of a conviction when corroborated by independent evidence?
  • Whether the judicial confession of a co-accused can be used to corroborate the facts narrated in a dying declaration against an accused?
  • Does the failure of a witness to mention certain details render a dying declaration false?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Science and Technology, Islamabad1998 SCMR 1100 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Mujeeb Ahsan Versus Secretary, Establishment Division1998 SCMR 1098 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  leave to appealcivil serviceante-dated promotionseniorityFederal Service Tribunaldepartmental promotion committee
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an Assistant Works Manager/Chemical in the Pakistan Ordnance Factories, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his claim for ante-dated promotion to BPS-18 with effect from June 15, 1991, instead of December 3, 1992. The petitioner had previously succeeded in an appeal before the Tribunal, which directed the department to consider him for promotion in accordance with the rules. Although he was subsequently promoted, the promotion was made effective from a later date rather than the date his juniors and batchmates were promoted. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to determine the core legal question of whether a civil servant is entitled to ante-dated seniority from the date their juniors and batchmates were promoted after the Service Tribunal has declared them entitled to promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Is a civil servant entitled to ante-dated seniority from the date their juniors and batchmates were promoted after the Federal Service Tribunal has declared them entitled to promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Munawar Hussain Versus Additional District Judge, Jhelum1998 SCMR 1067 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  ejectment petitionrent restrictionclosing evidenceprocedural negligenceadjournmentlandlord and tenantwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of an eviction application filed by the petitioner against the respondents. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller acted lawfully in closing the petitioner's evidence and dismissing the ejectment petition after the petitioner repeatedly failed to produce evidence despite being granted numerous adjournments over a period exceeding one year. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller's decision was justified, noting that the petitioner exhibited extraordinary negligence by failing to produce witnesses or evidence despite multiple opportunities. The Court affirmed that while technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in rent proceedings, a court cannot be held hostage to a party's persistent failure to prosecute their case. The ratio established is that a Rent Controller possesses the inherent authority to close a party's evidence and dismiss a petition when that party consistently fails to produce evidence or diligently pursue the matter, notwithstanding the non-strict application of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Qanun-e-Shahadat in such proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller close a party's evidence for failure to produce it after multiple adjournments?
  • Is a Rent Controller required to strictly follow the Code of Civil Procedure in rent proceedings?
  • Does the failure to produce evidence in a rent case justify the dismissal of an ejectment petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mansha Versus State1998 SCMR 1035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-13
  leave to appealzinauncorroborated testimonyappraisal of evidencecriminal jurisprudencemedical corroboration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Mansha against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which maintained his conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment and thirty stripes, while acquitting him under section 16 of the same Ordinance. The core legal question revolves around whether the testimony of the prosecutrix, standing alone, was appraised correctly and in accordance with established judicial principles for the safe administration of justice, particularly given contentions regarding medical corroboration and contradictions in evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the appraisal of evidence and the reliability of the prosecutrix's statement require detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that where a conviction rests on the testimony of a single witness, the evidence must be meticulously scrutinized to ensure it withstands tests of consistency and reliability for safe administration of criminal justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 can be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix?
  • Does the medical evidence provide necessary corroboration in cases involving a married woman of questionable repute?
  • Whether contradictions and improbabilities in the statement of a prime witness warrant interference with concurrent findings of lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Versus State1998 SCMR 1016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-11
  qazfzinazina-bil-jabrgood faithexception to qazfhudood lawsfalse accusation
  Summary & questions settled

  These connected appeals arose from convictions under the Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for allegedly levelling false charges of zina against the complainant. The appellants were initially convicted by the trial court, and on appeal, the Federal Shariat Court converted the conviction from section 7 to section 11, sentencing them to imprisonment and stripes for qazf liable to tazir. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the nature of the accusations made by each appellant. The Court held that an initial complaint alleging zina-bil-jabr (rape) against a third party does not constitute qazf against the victim of the forced act, as zina with consent is a bilateral act whereas rape involves coercion. Regarding the other appellants who submitted affidavits to the police witnessing the act, the Court held that statements made in good faith to a lawful authority fall under the second exception to qazf, provided there is no judicial finding that the evidence was false. A mere summary dismissal or opinion by a police officer does not constitute a judicial finding. The appeals were consequently allowed and the appellants acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allegation of zina-bil-jabr against a male accused constitute the offence of qazf against the female victim who was allegedly compelled?
  • Can a police officer's summary dismissal or opinion during investigation be treated as a judicial finding of a false accusation for the purposes of the Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Are statements or affidavits submitted to investigating authorities protected under the second exception to the definition of qazf when made in good faith?
  • What constitutes 'good faith' under section 52 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the context of reporting allegations of zina to law enforcement agencies?
  Read full judgment →