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. 232594 judgments in total.
- COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, BOMBAY CITY-I Versus BHALCHAMORA D. JOKHAKAR1980 PTD 375 · Bombay High Court · 1976-08-06Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus NEW LIFE CONSTRUCTION CO.1980 PTD 347 · Bombay High Court · 1976-07-12Read full judgment →
- POHOOMAL BROTHERS (SILK SHOP) Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY1980 PTD 168 · Bombay High Court · 1964-04-03Read full judgment →
- BOMBAY CYCLE & MOTOR AGENCY LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, BOMBAY CITY I1980 PTD 115 · Bombay High Court · 1964-04-30Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CITY I, BOMBAY Versus KORES (INDIA) (PRIVATE) LTD.1972 PTD 221 · Bombay High Court · 1968-11-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. SANA HUSNAIN Versus The STATE2015 PTD 2292 · Board of Revenue, Punjab · 2014-10-29Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE ZONE-I, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, QUETTA Versus KHALID HUSSAIN2025 PTD 936 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-03-21Read full judgment →
- BONANZA GARMENT INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED, KARACHI Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, QUETTA2025 PTD 842 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-12-19Read full judgment →
- COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, through Additional Collector of Customs, MCC Gawadar, Custom, Gaddani Versus MEHBOOB STEEL PIPE INDUSTRY2025 PTD 1562 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-06-23Read full judgment →
- SARDAR MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ TAREEN Versus The COMMISSIONER-IR, ZONE I, RTO, QUETTA2024 PTD 1584 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-16Read full judgment →
- The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOM COLLECTORATE, QUETTA Versus ABDUL RAHIM2022 PTD 1634 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-29Read full judgment →
- HABIBULLAH Versus State2022 PTD 1311 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-04-25Read full judgment →
- The COLLECTOR CUSTOMS Versus ABDUL ZAHIR2021 PTD 1732 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-10-23Read full judgment →
- The COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, QUETTA Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD2020 PTD 1821 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-03-31Read full judgment →
- INSPECTOR GENERAL, FRONTIER CORPS Versus ZAIN ALI2017 PTD 1858 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-12-10Read full judgment →
- FAZAL BARI Versus MODEL CUSTOM COLLECTOR, CUSTOM HOUSE, QUETTA2014 PTD 1847 · Balochistan High Court · 2014-05-05Read full judgment →
- F. B. PATEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, WEST PAKISTAN1982 PTD 289 · Balochistan High Court · 1982-07-07Read full judgment →
- ADDEPALLY NAGESWARA RAO Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX A.P.1988 PTD 702 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1969-09-16Read full judgment →
- MADANMOHAN RAO Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, A.P.III, HYDERABAD1986 PTD 690 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- MESSRS K.C.P. LTD. Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL CIRCLE, VIJAYAWADA1986 PTD 627 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1982-07-16Read full judgment →
- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD Versus NALLI VENKATRAMANA1986 PTD 260 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
- JAYALAKSHMI CLOTH STORES Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, GUDIVADA AND OTHERS1982 PTD 73 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1979-06-20Read full judgment →
- PANDAH SATTI RAJU AND OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF GIFT TAX, A. P.1981 PTD 7 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1974-12-03Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, A. P. Versus TRUSTEES OF H. E. H. THE NIZAM'S RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENT TRUST1981 PTD 12 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1975-04-15Read full judgment →
- MAHALAKSHMI RICE & OIL MILL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1980 PTD 289 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1964-03-03Read full judgment →
- NOONE CHINA SESHAIAH Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER AND OTHERS1980 PTD 287 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1963-09-25Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ AHMED KHAN Versus CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY, A. P.1973 PTD 329 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1968-11-20Read full judgment →
- SIR Mir OSMAN ALI KHAN BAHADUR, H.E.HTHE NIZAM OF HYDERABAD Versus INCOME-TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE II, HYDERABAD1973 PTD 283 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1969-03-07Read full judgment →
- ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY Versus Nawab Sir Mir OSMAN ALI KHAN1972 PTD 156 · Andhra Paradesh High Court · 1964-07-02Read full judgment →
- RAJENDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX2001 PTD 1620 · Allahabad High Court · 1999-09-24Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus NAND LAL JAGDISH PRASAD1999 PTD 1379 · Allahabad High Court · 1996-08-09Read full judgment →
- MOTOR AND GENERAL SALES (P.) LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1998 PTD 3713 · Allahabad High Court · 1996-07-01Read full judgment →
- SHIV SHAKTI RUBBER AND CHEMICALS WORKS Versus INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL1997 PTD 1196 · Allahabad High Court · 1995-01-05Read full judgment →
- MOTILAL PADAMPAT UDYOG LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1992 PTD 1079 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-08-24Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus KAMLA TOWN TRUST1992 PTD 1078 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-08-22Read full judgment →
- SURENDRA PRAKASH Versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX1992 PTD 1071 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-08-23Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus SURAJI DEVI KUNJI LAL JAIPURIA CHARITABLE TRUST1992 PTD 1068 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-09-10Read full judgment →
- MEHMOOD HALIM Versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX1992 PTD 1040 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-07-31Read full judgment →
- MUNNA LAL AND SONS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1992 PTD 1038 · Allahabad High Court · 1990-09-12Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX Versus SURESH KUMAR KAUSHIK ALIAS CHAKKARPANI1992 PTD 1026 · Allahabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- SETH BROTHERS, PARTNERSHIP FIRM Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U.P., LUCKNOW1988 PTD 409 · Allahabad High Court · 1964-08-27Read full judgment →
- INCOME-TAX REFERENCE NO. 174 OF 1971, DECIDED ON 8TH AUGUST, 1973. Versus INCOME-TAX REFERENCE NO. 174 OF 1971, DECIDED ON 8TH AUGUST, 1973.1986 PTD 70 · Allahabad High Court · 1973-08-08Read full judgment →
- PRAKASH NARAIN Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND WEALTH TAX1985 PTD 61 · Allahabad High Court · 1980-10-24Read full judgment →
- SUBHASH CHANDRA SARVESH KUMAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER1982 PTD 53 · Allahabad High Court · 1980-03-06Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus HIMALAYA DRUG CO.1982 PTD 394 · Allahabad High Court · 1982-03-05Read full judgment →
- HAJI LAL MUHAMMAD BIRI WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1982 PTD 329 · Allahabad High Court · 1981-01-15Read full judgment →
- GAJANAND SUTWALA Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1982 PTD 311 · Allahabad High Court · 1981-11-13Read full judgment →
- K. D. PANDEY Versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, LUCKNOW1981 PTD 17 · Allahabad High Court · 1977-04-08Read full judgment →
- RAM KUMAR PHARMACEUTICAL WORKS Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1981 PTD 112 · Allahabad High Court · 1978-07-12Read full judgment →
- ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus CHATUR SINGH TARAGI1980 PTD 91 · Allahabad High Court · 1975-09-25Read full judgment →
- SETH BANARSI DAS GUPTA Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1980 PTD 351 · Allahabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus MATHURA PRASAD HARDWAR PRASAD DEORIA1980 PTD 277 · Allahabad High Court · 1963-11-11Read full judgment →
- RAM NATH RAM PRASAD Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX.1980 PTD 222 · Allahabad High CourtRead full judgment →
- L. RAM NARAIN GARG Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX1980 PTD 217 · Allahabad High Court · 1963-12-18Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus BABU RAM CHANDRA BHAN1973 PTD 264 · Allahabad High Court · 1968-10-17Read full judgment →
- OUDH COCOGEM AND PROVISION STORES Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, U. P.1971 PTD 247 · Allahabad High Court · 1968-01-05Read full judgment →
- EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus AHMED ABDUL GANI TEXTILE MILLS, KARACHI1970 PLC(CS) 675 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-05-30Read full judgment →
- ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD ASLAM AND 18 OTHERS1970 PLC(CS) 576 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-05-12Read full judgment →
- ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE Versus GENERAL SECRETARY, ROAD TRANSPORT1970 PLC(CS) 569 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD Versus NAWAZ1970 PLC(CS) 499 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-05-01Read full judgment →
- COLONY TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED, LAHORE Versus ZUHAIR SIDDIQUI1970 PLC(CS) 489 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-05-12Read full judgment →
- THE GENERAL SECRETARY, RAILWAY WORKERS' UNION, QUETTA Versus THE REGISTRAR, TRADE UNIONS, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1970 PLC(CS) 485 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-05-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQ Versus WEST PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL COURT1970 PLC(CS) 483 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MESSERS PAKISTAN BATTERY MANUFACTURING COMPANY, KARACHI Versus PAKISTAN BATTERY WORKERS' UNION1970 PLC(CS) 481 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SOOMAR Versus THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT1970 PLC(CS) 478 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- TRANSPORT SERVICE, SUKKUR Versus ALI MOHAMMAD1970 PLC(CS) 477 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-05-01Read full judgment →
- ANWAR ALI Versus THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD1970 PLC(CS) 476 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-04-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JALIL Versus THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, HYDERABAD1970 PLC(CS) 451 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-04-30Read full judgment →
- C. C. MALKIK Versus MESSRS PREMIER INSURANCE Co. (PAK.) LTD., KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS1970 PLC(CS) 447 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED Versus THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT1970 PLC(CS) 444 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-01-24Read full judgment →
- MESSRS PROGRESSIVE PAPERS LTD AND 6 OTHERS Versus THE SECOND WAGE BOARD FOR WORKING JOURNALISTS, GOVERNMENT OF WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND ANOTHER1970 PLC(CS) 440 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-02-25Read full judgment →
- SHALIMAR SILK MILLS' MAZDOOR UNION Versus SHALIMAR SILK MILLS LTD., KARACHI1970 PLC(CS) 437 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-02-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL KHAN Versus THE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, LAHORE1970 PLC(CS) 433 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-01-06Read full judgment →
- AMIRUDDIN Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LYALLPUIIR1970 PLC(CS) 430 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- SHAHANSHAH HUSAIN Versus THE DISTRICT MANAGER, GOVERNMENT1970 PLC(CS) 427 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-03-28Read full judgment →
- MESSRS STAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. Versus THE STAR TEXTILE MILLS WORKERS' UNION,1970 PLC(CS) 423 · West Pakistan Industrial Appellate Tribunal · 1970-04-07Read full judgment →
- The CHIEF COMMISSIONER REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, BAHAWALPUR Versus SHAHEEN YOUSAF2025 PLC(CS) 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-16Read full judgment →
- AHMED OWAIS PEERZADA, CHIEF COMMISSIONER (RTD) FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD Versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE PRIME MINISTER, PRIME MINISTER'S SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD2025 PLC(CS) 821 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-14Read full judgment →
- The PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi Versus ABID ALI JATOI2025 PLC(CS) 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance Division Versus ABDUL RASHEED MEMON2025 PLC(CS) 583 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-12-20Read full judgment →
- GUL ZARIF KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar2025 PLC(CS) 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-05Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD Versus MUHAMMAD AHMED KHAN2025 PLC(CS) 510 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus DEPUTY DISTRICT FOOD, MULTAN2025 PLC(CS) 1607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-16Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF SINDH Versus AMANULLAH2025 PLC(CS) 1593 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil appeals filed by the Province of Sindh against High Court orders that directed the appointment of respondents to non-technical vacancies (BPS-01 to BPS-04). The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in disposing of these petitions by applying a previous order mutatis mutandis without allowing the government to file comments or considering the distinct factual circumstances of each recruitment process. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases for fresh adjudication on merits. The Court held that the High Court failed to verify whether the facts of the instant cases were commensurate with the prior order, noting that mutatis mutandis requires making necessary adjustments to fit new circumstances rather than blindly applying precedents to distinct factual scenarios. The Court emphasized that while the High Court possesses extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 199, it cannot resolve complex disputed facts without evidence or procedural fairness. Consequently, the High Court must independently assess each case, ensuring parties have adequate opportunity to present their respective positions, including relevant advertisements and appointment documentation.
Questions settled- Can the High Court apply a previous judgment to a new case mutatis mutandis without verifying if the facts and circumstances are identical?
- Is the High Court empowered to resolve complex disputed questions of fact in its writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Does the doctrine of mutatis mutandis permit the application of a prior order to a new case without considering the specific terms and conditions of the recruitment processes involved?
- Is it a violation of due process for the High Court to dispose of a constitutional petition without granting the respondent an opportunity to file comments?
- ISHTIAQ ANWAR Versus The INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SINDH2025 PLC(CS) 1580 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-25Read full judgment →
- Malik MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus COMMISSIONER SARGODHA DIVISION2025 PLC(CS) 1500 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dismissing an appeal against the petitioner's dismissal from service for fraud and embezzlement under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006. The core legal question is whether a major penalty of dismissal from service can be imposed without conducting a regular inquiry or affording an opportunity of being heard in violation of natural justice. The Supreme Court held that the department failed to prove service of show cause notices or conduct a proper regular inquiry, and that the order of dismissal passed pursuant to a defective inquiry was unsustainable. The ratio decidendi is that imposing a major penalty of dismissal without a fair regular inquiry and an opportunity of being heard violates the principles of natural justice and statutory provisions. The Court set aside the impugned judgments, ordered reinstatement, and remanded the matter for a de novo inquiry under the relevant statute.
Questions settled- Can a major penalty of dismissal from service be imposed upon a civil servant without conducting a regular inquiry?
- Whether failure to provide an opportunity of being heard vitiates departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- Does an acquittal in a criminal case have a bearing on departmental proceedings?
- Is an inquiry sustainable when the departmental authority fails to establish service of show cause notices?
- MUHAMMAD NIAZ KHAN Versus R.P.O. SHEIKHUPURA REGION AT LAHORE2025 PLC(CS) 1477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-12Read full judgment →
- FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE Versus NOUREEN AHMED2025 PLC(CS) 1440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) regarding the seniority of a civil servant. The respondent, an officer of the Pakistan Customs Services, challenged the Federal Board of Revenue's (FBR) revised seniority list, which relegated her position based on the Occupational Group and Services (Probation, Training and Seniority) Rules, 1990. The core legal question was whether the FBR could retrospectively apply amended rules to alter the seniority of officers who had already completed probation and received promotions based on an earlier gradation list. The Supreme Court held that once seniority is determined and promotion is granted, it cannot be altered subsequently by retrospective application of rules. The Court affirmed that the benefit of a judgment on a point of law relating to terms of service should be extended to all similarly placed civil servants, even if they were not parties to the specific litigation, to ensure equality and good governance. The petition was dismissed, upholding the FST's order for implementation.
Questions settled- Can a department retrospectively apply amended seniority rules to alter the seniority of civil servants who have already completed probation and received promotions?
- Is a judgment on a point of law regarding terms of service applicable to similarly placed civil servants who were not parties to the litigation?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to execute its own decisions under the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Can a seniority list be altered after the basis for promotion has already been established and acted upon?
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through President, Karachi Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ2025 PLC(CS) 1384 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, National Bank of Pakistan, challenged the concurrent findings of lower courts that had ordered the reinstatement of two employees whose services were terminated following disciplinary proceedings. The Bank contended that the relationship between the parties was governed by the principle of master and servant, arguing that under established law, an aggrieved employee may seek damages for wrongful termination but cannot be granted specific performance in the form of reinstatement. The Supreme Court noted that this principle, rooted in the 1961 judgment of Malik and Haq v. Muhammad Shamsul Islam Chowdhury, has been applied for decades. However, the Court observed that the modern economic landscape, characterized by large corporations and complex employment structures, differs significantly from the era when this precedent was established. Finding that the rigid application of the master and servant rule may no longer be fit for purpose or congruent with modern equitable requirements, the Court granted leave to appeal to re-examine the validity and continued applicability of the Shamsul Islam Chowdhury doctrine, referring the matter to a larger bench for consideration.
Questions settled- Whether the principle established in Malik and Haq v. Muhammad Shamsul Islam Chowdhury regarding the master and servant relationship remains fit for purpose in the modern economic context?
- Does the rule restricting an aggrieved employee to a claim for damages, rather than reinstatement, require modification or replacement by the Supreme Court?
- Can a five-member bench decision of the Supreme Court be reconsidered by a larger bench to address potential ossification of legal principles?
- DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), CHARSADDA Versus SONIA BEGUM2025 PLC(CS) 1337 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These review petitions challenged a prior Supreme Court judgment that upheld the denial of Primary School Teacher appointments based on domicile discrepancies. The core legal question was whether the petitioners demonstrated grounds for review under Article 188 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, or if the petitions were merely attempts to re-litigate settled issues. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that they were frivolous and vexatious. It reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is not an appellate remedy or an opportunity for re-hearing; it is a limited power strictly confined to correcting patent, self-evident errors or addressing new, previously undiscoverable evidence. The Court emphasized that "error apparent on the face of the record" must be self-evident and not require extensive debate. Furthermore, the Court established that imposing meaningful costs is a necessary judicial tool to deter the abuse of process, preserve judicial resources, and uphold the finality of proceedings. The judgment reiterated that domicile certificates, rather than CNIC addresses, remain the definitive proof of permanent residence for employment purposes.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court's review jurisdiction under Article 188 of the Constitution permit the re-hearing of a case on its merits?
- What constitutes an 'error apparent on the face of the record' sufficient to justify a review petition?
- Can the Supreme Court impose costs on litigants who file frivolous or vexatious review petitions?
- Is a CNIC address or a domicile certificate the primary determinant of permanent residence for the purpose of government employment in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa?
- ASAD HUSSAIN Versus The CONTROLLER GENERAL OF ACCOUNTS FEDERAL CO-OPERATIVE BUILDING, SECTOR G-5/2, ISLAMABAD2025 PLC(CS) 1318 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
- FAHEEM ARSHAD Versus MANZOOR-UL-HAQ2025 PLC(CS) 1296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-30Read full judgment →
- Syed ZAKIR HUSSAIN Versus State2025 PLC(CS) 1266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These criminal petitions, converted into appeals, arose from an order of the High Court of Sindh setting aside remand orders passed by the petitioner, who served as the Presiding Officer and Administrative Judge of an Anti-Terrorism Court, and issuing directions in paragraph 14 of its order that invited administrative action against him without affording him an opportunity of hearing. The core legal questions involved whether superior courts can pass strictures or adverse remarks against judicial officers of the subordinate judiciary without notice and violating natural justice, and whether transfer applications under the 26th Constitutional Amendment were warranted. The Supreme Court held that the transfer applications were misconceived and dismissed them, and further held that passing disparaging remarks and strictures against judicial officers without confronting them or affording an opportunity to submit comments violates the principles of natural justice and due process. The Court laid down that superior courts must exercise great restraint, avoid intemperate language, and if judicial conduct requires examination, the matter must be referred confidentially to the Chief Justice on the administrative side rather than casting public stigmas through judicial judgments. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the strictures in paragraph 14 of the High Court's order were expunged.
Questions settled- Whether superior courts can pass adverse remarks or strictures against judicial officers of the subordinate judiciary without providing them an opportunity of hearing?
- Does the right to a fair trial and due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution extend to judicial officers facing allegations or strictures?
- What is the proper legal mechanism for a High Court to address perceived judicial misconduct or impropriety by a subordinate judge?
- Whether a matter arising from criminal revision applications against remand orders falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Benches under Article 191A of the Constitution?
- ZAHIDA PARVEEN Versus GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Secretary Elementary and Secondary Education, Civil Secretariat, Peshawar2025 PLC(CS) 1034 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-03-17Read full judgment →
- SHAHBAZ LATIF Versus DIG, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, LAHORE2025 PLC(CS) 1022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
- AATIKA HINA MUSHTAQ Versus SECRETARY SPECIAL EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, SPECIAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT LAHORE2025 PLC(CS) 1004 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2025-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service matter concerns the deferment of the petitioner’s promotion from Physical Education Teacher (BS-09) to Lecturer Physical Education (BS-17) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The DPC deferred the promotion, citing the need for amendments to the Special Education Department (Directorate of Special Education) Service Rules, 2006. The petitioner’s appeals were dismissed by the Department and the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the DPC could lawfully withhold promotion based on anticipated rule amendments. The Supreme Court held that the DPC lacks the authority to question or refuse the enforcement of existing rules. It ruled that the DPC must process promotions based on the law as it currently exists. The Court emphasized that while a civil servant has no vested right to promotion, they possess an enforceable right to be considered for promotion in accordance with the law. Arbitrary deferral of this consideration violates the constitutional right to a dignified livelihood. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and directed the DPC to decide the petitioner's promotion on merits within one month.
Questions settled- Does a Departmental Promotion Committee have the authority to defer a promotion pending the amendment of existing service rules?
- Does a civil servant have an enforceable right to be considered for promotion?
- Can a Departmental Promotion Committee refuse to enforce existing service rules on the basis that they require amendment?
- Is the right to be considered for promotion a component of the constitutional right to livelihood?
- The PUNJAB EMPLOYEES SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION, LAHORE Versus JAVED IQBAL2024 PLC(CS) 677 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2024-01-18Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus SAJJAD ALI KAKAKHEL2024 PLC(CS) 276 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-09-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had directed the National Bank of Pakistan to consider the respondent for notional promotion despite his prior retirement. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to order proforma promotion in the absence of any enabling provision in the service rules, and whether the respondent’s claim was barred by laches given his retirement and acceptance of service benefits. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s interference was unsustainable as the service rules of the National Bank of Pakistan contained no provision for proforma promotion. Furthermore, the Court observed that the respondent had been superseded in 2010, yet failed to challenge this action within a reasonable time, rendering the petition barred by laches. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, establishing the principle that judicial intervention in service matters regarding promotion is impermissible where the relevant service rules do not provide for such relief and where the claim is significantly delayed following the employee's retirement.
Questions settled- Can a High Court order proforma promotion for an employee when the relevant service rules do not provide for such a remedy?
- Does a constitutional petition challenging supersession suffer from laches when filed years after the event and after the employee's retirement?
- Is a court empowered to grant notional promotion to a retired employee who has already received all service benefits?
- FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION through Chairman, Islamabad Versus SHIRAZ MANZOOR2024 PLC(CS) 18 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition, emanating from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, addresses the validity of recruitment rules framed for the post of Reader in the Tribunal. The Federal Public Service Commission sought leave against the Tribunal's decision that allowed respondents' appeals and directed modification of the rules to make promotion the exclusive mode of appointment. The core legal question was whether the statutory rules prescribing a quota for initial appointment alongside promotion violated the Civil Servants Act, 1973, by altering terms and conditions to the disadvantage of existing employees. The Supreme Court held that civil servants have no vested right to promotion or to a particular eligibility criteria, and the competent authority possesses the exclusive domain to frame recruitment policies and determine appointment modes to enhance service efficiency. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, establishing the principle that recruitment policy formulation falls within the executive prerogative of the competent authority and cannot be interfered with by tribunals unless it violates the law or infringes an accrued vested right.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right in promotion or in the continuation of existing eligibility criteria for promotion?
- Can a service tribunal legally substitute a recruitment policy or rule framed by the competent authority with its own views?
- Whether the competent authority is empowered to prescribe criteria and conditions relating to eligibility for promotion and initial appointment without infringing vested rights?
- ZAFARAN KHAN Versus NIZAM ULLAH2023 PLC(CS) 972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2023-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court addresses whether the Peshawar High Court validly exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan to annul the public office appointments of the appellants due to a procedural irregularity. The appellants were appointed in 2013 as Junior Clinical Technicians and Junior PHC Technicians in District Lower Dir during a period of insurgency, where vacancies were advertised locally via notices pasted at conspicuous places rather than published in newspapers. The Supreme Court held that the atypical circumstances of insurgency, coupled with the bona fide lapse of the department and the lack of any backdoor entry or mala fides, provided sufficient cause to condone the procedural irregularity. The Court ruled that employees who have rendered satisfactory service for over a decade should not be penalized or deprived of their livelihood and fundamental right to work for a departmental omission. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court judgment was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether failure to publish a job advertisement in newspapers, in the face of local advertisement during an insurgency, renders public appointments void?
- Can employees be penalized or deprived of their livelihood for a procedural fault committed by the employing government department?
- Whether the High Court ought to exercise discretionary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to annul appointments where no mala fides or backdoor entry is established?