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.
- GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA Versus ADNANULLAH2017 PLC(CS) 307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common judgment addresses a batch of appeals and petitions concerning the regularization of contract and project-based employees in various departments of the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The core legal question revolved around whether project-based contract employees whose schemes were subsequently brought under the regular Provincial Budget were entitled to regularization under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents were holding their posts on the crucial cut-off date and the projects in question had been absorbed into the regular Provincial Budget and converted into permanent departments or attached wings, their status as purely temporary project employees had ended. Consequently, they fell squarely within the beneficial ambit of Section 3 of the 2009 Act, which has an overriding effect. The key principle laid down is that contract and project employees whose positions are converted to the regular provincial budget and who satisfy the temporal and qualitative criteria of the regularisation legislation are entitled to regularisation, and the government cannot discriminate or cherry-pick among similarly situated employees.
Questions settled- Are contract employees working on development projects entitled to regularization when their projects are brought under the regular Provincial Budget?
- Does the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009 have an overriding effect over inconsistent laws or rules?
- Can the provincial government adopt a policy of cherry-picking to regularize employees of certain projects while terminating similarly placed employees of other absorbed projects?
- Does the termination of project employees remain valid after the scheme in which they are employed is converted into a regular departmental office?
- KHAN TOTI Versus GOVERNMENT OF NWFP through Secretary Finance2017 PLC(CS) 266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed by ministerial staff of the District Judiciary challenging a High Court judgment that directed them to approach the Provincial Service Tribunal regarding the denial of specific financial benefits. The core legal question was whether the ministerial staff of the District Judiciary are 'civil servants' subject to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Service Tribunal, or if they remain under the administrative control of the Judiciary, and whether the denial of benefits constituted unconstitutional discrimination. The Supreme Court held that the judiciary is constitutionally separated from the executive, and the ministerial staff of the District Judiciary are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Service Tribunal. The Court further ruled that the denial of financial benefits to the petitioners, while granted to similarly situated employees, constituted clear discrimination in violation of Article 25 of the Constitution. The Court established that the judiciary maintains administrative and financial independence over its staff, and discriminatory treatment in service benefits is impermissible. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, ordering the restoration of benefits and prohibiting further deductions from the petitioners' salaries or pensions.
Questions settled- Are the ministerial staff of the District Judiciary considered civil servants subject to the jurisdiction of the Provincial Service Tribunal?
- Does the denial of financial benefits to a specific class of employees, while granted to others, constitute a violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Does the separation of the judiciary from the executive under Article 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan preclude the Provincial Service Tribunal from exercising jurisdiction over the ministerial staff of the District Judiciary?
- Can the Supreme Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan to grant relief in service matters involving discriminatory treatment?
- IQBAL HUSSAIN Versus GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN TELECOM REGION-II2017 PLC(CS) 1280 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-08-15Read full judgment →
- KHALID MEHMOOD AFZAL Versus MUSHTAQ SUKHERA, IG POLICE2017 PLC(CS) 1242 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter emanates from previous judgments of the Supreme Court declaring out-of-turn promotions unconstitutional and directing the streamlining of service structures. The Inspector General of Police, Punjab, conducted an extensive review of individual police officers' cases regarding out-of-turn promotions and issued speaking orders, which were later subjected to divergent views by the Home Department of Punjab and the Advocate General concerning the interpretation of protective clauses in the Shahid Pervaiz case. The core legal question was whether out-of-turn promotions granted pursuant to orders of the High Court or Service Tribunals were protected under paragraphs 111 and 143 of the Shahid Pervaiz judgment. The Supreme Court held that the view of the Inspector General of Police was correct, ruling that the High Court lacked constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 to entertain service matters barred by Article 212, that prior dismissals on limitation grounds did not constitute decisions on merits or attract res judicata, and that the IG's review of the promotion cases was lawful and must be implemented. The Court laid down the principle that service disputes regarding terms and conditions must follow the exclusive statutory hierarchy under Article 212 of the Constitution rather than constitutional petitions.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain petitions relating to out-of-turn promotions in view of the bar contained in Article 212?
- Does the dismissal of a petition by the Supreme Court solely on the ground of limitation constitute a decision on merits attracting the doctrine of res judicata or Article 189?
- Are out-of-turn promotions granted by judicial fora protected under paragraphs 111 and 143 of the Shahid Pervaiz case when such fora lacked original jurisdiction?
- Whether the Inspector General of Police has the authority to review and withdraw illegal out-of-turn promotions following the declarations made by the Supreme Court?
- Dr. FARHAT ABBAS Versus Dr. MEHMOOD-UL-HASSAN2017 PLC(CS) 1218 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the validity of the promotion of an Assistant Professor to the position of Associate Professor of Cardiology in a medical institution. The core legal question was whether a candidate possessing a general FCPS qualification in Medicine, rather than a specialized FCPS in Cardiology, was eligible for promotion under the Regulations for the Appointment of Faculty Professorial Staff/Examiners/Principals/Deans/Administrative Staff in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical and Dental Institutions of Pakistan, 2011. The respondents challenged the promotion and the vires of Regulation 19 of the 2011 Regulations. The Supreme Court held that Regulation 19 explicitly permits candidates with general postgraduate qualifications (FCPS, MD, MS in General Medicine or Surgery) to be appointed as Assistant Professors in sub-specialties and subsequently promoted to Associate Professor, provided they possess the requisite teaching experience. The Court determined that the regulation was not ultra vires the parent statute and that the appellant, being senior and qualified under the regulations, was validly promoted. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the respondents' writ petitions, upholding the promotion.
Questions settled- Does Regulation 19 of the Regulations for the Appointment of Faculty Professorial Staff/Examiners/Principals/Deans/Administrative Staff in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical and Dental Institutions of Pakistan, 2011 allow for the promotion of a general medicine specialist to an Associate Professor of Cardiology?
- Can a candidate with a general postgraduate qualification in Medicine be promoted to an Associate Professor in a sub-specialty if they have attained the post of Assistant Professor in that sub-specialty?
- Is Regulation 19 of the Regulations for the Appointment of Faculty Professorial Staff/Examiners/Principals/Deans/Administrative Staff in Undergraduate and Postgraduate Medical and Dental Institutions of Pakistan, 2011 ultra vires the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962?
- RASHID ALI CHANNA Versus MUHAMMAD JUNAID FAROOQUI2017 PLC(CS) 1187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Civil review petitions were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging its earlier judgment rendered under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in Suo Motu Case No. 18 of 2016, which struck down the selection process of the Combined Competitive Examination (CCE)-2013 due to systemic illegalities and disqualification of the Chairman and Members of the Sindh Public Service Commission. The petitioners argued, inter alia, that disputed questions of fact barred original jurisdiction, that de facto doctrine protected their appointments, and that they were condemned unheard. The Supreme Court dismissed all review petitions, holding that the scope of review is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient cause, which was not demonstrated. The Court held that when an entire selection process is contaminated by pervasive non-transparency, nepotism, and statutory deviations under the Sindh Public Service Commission Act 1989, the whole process must be annulled rather than probing on a candidate-by-candidate basis. Furthermore, the de facto doctrine cannot validate tainted and illegal selection procedures.
Questions settled- Does the possibility of drawing an alternative factual conclusion provide a valid ground for the Supreme Court to exercise its review jurisdiction?
- Can the de facto doctrine be applied to save public service appointments when the selection process itself is marred by systemic illegalities and lack of transparency?
- Is the Supreme Court required to probe irregularities on an individualized, case-by-case basis when the entire competitive examination process conducted by a Public Service Commission is fundamentally flawed?
- SAIF ULLAH Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, POSTAL SERVICES, FAISALABAD2017 PLC(CS) 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2016-03-08Read full judgment →
- AMEER SOLANGI Versus WAPDA2016 PLC(CS) 406 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-08-05Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA Versus MUHAMMAD JAVED2015 PLC(CS) 962 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns service appeals filed by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa against a Service Tribunal judgment that had questioned the government's authority to amend service rules. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to interfere with the government's policy decision to amend promotion quotas, specifically reducing the quota for diploma-holder Sub-Engineers to accommodate degree-holders. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the government to reconsider validly enacted policy amendments and by halting promotions. The Court ruled that the government holds the exclusive authority to frame and amend service rules to enhance qualifications for higher posts. It established that promotion is not a vested right, and policy decisions regarding the criteria for advancement fall within the executive domain. Absent demonstrable mala fides or specific legal violations, such policy amendments are not justiciable. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment, affirming that the judiciary cannot assume the role of a policy-maker or interfere in the executive's prerogative to update service structures.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to interfere with the government's policy decision to amend promotion quotas in service rules?
- Can a civil servant claim a vested right to a specific promotion quota established by previous service rules?
- Is the government's decision to amend service rules to prioritize higher educational qualifications for promotion justiciable in the absence of mala fides?
- Can a Service Tribunal direct the government to reconsider policy amendments regarding service rules?
- SUO MOTU CASE NO.24 OF 2010 Versus2015 PLC(CS) 73 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-12-06Read full judgment →
- JAMSHAID GULZAR Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2015 PLC(CS) 505 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals filed by the former Chairman and Members of the Federal Public Service Commission challenging the Federal Public Service Commission (Amendment) Act, 2006, which retrospectively reduced their fixed five-year tenure to three years. The core legal question was whether the legislature possesses the competence to enact legislation that retrospectively curtails the tenure of statutory appointees, thereby affecting their vested rights, and whether such legislation is valid despite allegations of mala fide. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the legislature has plenary power to enact laws with retrospective effect provided there is clear intendment. The Court found that the language of Act V of 2006 explicitly mandated retrospective application, thereby overriding any previously accrued vested rights of the appellants. The judgment affirms that when a legislature acts within its constitutional competence, the motives behind the legislation are irrelevant, and the 'pith and substance' of the enactment prevails over the form. Consequently, the statutory protection of the appellants' original tenure was effectively superseded by the subsequent valid legislative amendment.
Questions settled- Can the legislature retrospectively curtail the tenure of statutory appointees through an amendment?
- Does the doctrine of mala fide apply to legislation enacted by a competent legislature?
- Can vested rights be taken away by a statute that explicitly provides for retrospective application?
- Does the 'pith and substance' of an enactment determine its legislative validity regardless of its form?
- MUHAMMAD ASIF CHATHA Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE2015 PLC(CS) 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-11-25Read full judgment →
- ARSHAD ALI TABASSUM Versus The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE2015 PLC(CS) 419 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-07-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the non-appointment of the petitioner as an Additional District and Sessions Judge, despite his success in the written examination. The petitioner alleged that the Interviewing Committee acted with malice due to his previous termination as a Civil Judge on misconduct charges. The core legal question was whether the Court could interfere with the selection process and substitute the Committee's assessment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner failed to secure the mandatory 50% marks in the interview, a prerequisite for appointment under the established criteria. The Court emphasized that it lacks the authority to substitute its opinion for that of an expert Interview Committee based on bald allegations of malice. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the Committee was influenced by the petitioner's past disciplinary record. The Court affirmed that judicial review is not warranted when a candidate fails to meet objective eligibility criteria, and administrative decisions regarding selection merit deference absent proof of illegality or proven bias.
Questions settled- Can a court substitute its opinion for that of an expert Interview Committee in a selection process?
- Is a candidate who fails to secure the minimum prescribed marks in an interview eligible for appointment as an Additional District and Sessions Judge?
- Does an allegation of malice regarding past misconduct suffice to challenge the results of a selection committee?
- INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB Versus TARIQ MAHMOOD2015 PLC(CS) 366 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-04-25Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Versus AAMIR JUNAID2015 PLC(CS) 315 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal with leave of the court arises from a recruitment process for BPS-1 to 5 and 7 in District Chiniot, where respondents' appointments were cancelled approximately one and a half months later due to alleged non-transparency and fraud. The respondents challenged their termination through a writ petition before the High Court, which set aside the termination letters and directed the department to re-process the cases through a constituted committee to examine individual eligibility, apply the rule of locus poenitentiae, and reinstate eligible candidates without back benefits. The core legal question involved the validity of the High Court's remand and scrutiny mechanism following the cancellation of appointments due to alleged irregularities in the selection process. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's order was valid and left it to the department to fairly scrutinize the employees' eligibility while applying the rule of locus poenitentiae. The key principle laid down is that departments may properly be directed to re-examine irregular recruitment processes through a fair committee mechanism to separate eligible candidates from ineligible ones.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court can direct a department to re-process and scrutinize recruitment cases after setting aside termination orders?
- Does the rule of locus poenitentiae apply to irregular appointments where eligible candidates have already assumed office?
- Can a department be directed to examine individual eligibility and reinstate qualified employees following the setting aside of en masse terminations?
- PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION EMPLOYEES TRUST (PTET) Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF2015 PLC(CS) 1417 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions filed by the Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (PTET) against judgments of the Islamabad and Peshawar High Courts, which had ruled in favor of former employees of the erstwhile Telegraph and Telephone (T&T) Department. The core legal question was whether these transferred employees, who were moved from the T&T Department to the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and subsequently to the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL), remained entitled to pension increases as announced by the Government of Pakistan. The Supreme Court held that the employees of the former T&T Department, upon their transfer, retained their original terms and conditions of service, which were protected by statutory guarantees under the Pakistan Telecommunication Act, 1991 and the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996. The Court affirmed that these pensionary benefits, being vested rights acquired through past service, could not be unilaterally altered to the employees' disadvantage. Consequently, the PTET is legally obligated to extend the same pension increases announced by the Federal Government to these specific transferred employees, as their entitlement is governed by their original service status rather than discretionary policy.
Questions settled- Are employees transferred from the T&T Department to the PTCL entitled to the same pension increases as those announced by the Federal Government for civil servants?
- Do the terms and conditions of service of T&T Department employees transferred to the PTCL constitute statutory rights that cannot be unilaterally altered?
- Does the Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust have the authority to deny pension increases to transferred employees that are otherwise granted by the Federal Government?
- Are the rules governing the service of former T&T Department employees transferred to the PTCL considered statutory rules?
- The DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR HUMAN DEVELOPMENT Versus AMBREEN ANSARI2015 PLC(CS) 1398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of Sindh, whereby the constitutional petition filed by the respondent challenging her termination from service was allowed. The respondent was appointed as a District General Manager in the National Commission for Human Development (NCHD), successfully completed her probation, and was later posted on deputation to the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP) with the NOC of NCHD. During her deputation, NCHD terminated her services without assigning reasons, notice, or inquiry. The core legal question was whether the termination of a confirmed employee in violation of statutory service rules and principles of natural justice was sustainable, and whether the constitutional petition was maintainable. The Supreme Court held that since the termination disregarded the mandatory procedure under Rule 12.02 of the NCHD Employees' Service Rules, 2006, and violated natural justice, the High Court rightly set it aside. The petition was dismissed and leave to appeal refused.
Questions settled- Whether the termination of a confirmed employee without show-cause notice or inquiry violates the principles of natural justice?
- Can an employee on deputation be terminated by the parent department without complying with service rules?
- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against the violation of service rules by a statutory body?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED2015 PLC(CS) 1313 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, ex-employees of United Bank Limited who retired prior to its privatization on 19-10-2002, filed a civil petition for leave to appeal against the High Court's dismissal of their constitutional petition seeking an increase in pension. The core legal question was whether the privatization agreement's clause 5.2 protected the pensionary benefits of employees who had retired before the privatization date, and whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 was maintainable against a privatized banking company lacking statutory rules. The Supreme Court held that clause 5.2 exclusively protected existing employees at the time of privatization for a limited period and did not cover pre-privatization retirees, and further confirmed that the respondent bank lacks statutory rules making a constitutional petition incompetent. The Court dismissed the petition, establishing that privatization agreements must be strictly interpreted according to their text and cannot be expanded on humanitarian grounds to cover persons not explicitly included.
Questions settled- Does clause 5.2 of the United Bank Limited privatization agreement protect the pensionary benefits of employees who retired prior to the privatization date?
- Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan be maintained against a private banking company that has no statutory rules?
- Are sympathy and high cost of living sufficient grounds to grant financial relief to retired employees without a legal or contractual basis?
- MUHAMMAD ANAYET GONDAL Versus The REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE , Razzaq A. Mirza2015 PLC(CS) 1299 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-01-14Read full judgment →
- Dr. RIFFAT KAMAL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2015 PLC(CS) 1231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-02-24Read full judgment →
- Dr. AZIM-UR-RAHIM KHAN MEO Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary2015 PLC(CS) 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2015-02-13Read full judgment →
- Syed NAZIR GILLANI Versus PAKISTAN RED CRESCENT SOCIETY2014 PLC(CS) 961 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2014-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil review petition was filed against the Supreme Court's judgment dated 01-06-2005, which had allowed the appeal of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society and set aside a Lahore High Court judgment. The original appeal held that the petitioner's constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging his removal from service was not maintainable due to being governed by non-statutory rules. The petitioner submitted that the service rules were statutory under Section 5 of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society Act and relied on precedents regarding writ maintainability. The Supreme Court re-examined the issue and reaffirmed that service rules framed for internal governance without statutory force do not confer maintainability for constitutional petitions. Applying the master and servant rule, the Court held that violation of non-statutory regulations cannot be enforced via writ jurisdiction under Article 199. Finding no error apparent on the face of the record, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition.
Questions settled- Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution is maintainable for enforcing service rules that are non-statutory in nature?
- Whether the service rules framed by the Pakistan Red Crescent Society are statutory or non-statutory?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply where service conditions of a statutory body's employees are governed by non-statutory rules?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Versus SULTAN AHMAD SHAMS2014 PLC(CS) 831 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federation of Pakistan appealed a common judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) which allowed civil servants who retired between 2003 and 2011 to recalculate their pensions by including various ad hoc, special, and dearness allowances. The respondents argued that these allowances were merged into the Basic Pay Scales 2011 via an Office Memorandum dated 4-7-2011 and that excluding pre-2011 retirees violated Article 25 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court addressed whether ad hoc allowances excluded by express executive notifications can be added to pensionable emoluments under Civil Service Regulations (CSR) Article 486, and whether subsequent pay scale revisions apply retrospectively to already retired civil servants.
Reversing the FST judgment, the Supreme Court held that under CSR Article 486, 'emoluments' are restricted to those received immediately prior to retirement and do not cover temporary ad hoc allowances specifically excluded by Office Memoranda. Relying on established precedent, the Court ruled that serving employees and retired employees constitute separate classes; revising pay scales for active civil servants does not amount to unconstitutional discrimination against prior retirees, nor can subordinate executive circulars apply retrospectively without explicit statutory authority.
Questions settled- Are ad hoc and special allowances specifically excluded by executive notifications reckonable as emoluments for calculating pension under CSR Article 486?
- Does the merger of ad hoc allowances into basic pay scales for serving employees entitle previously retired civil servants to a retrospective recalculation of pension?
- Does treating serving civil servants and retired civil servants as separate classes for the purpose of pay scale revisions violate Article 25 of the Constitution?
- HAROON MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus RUKHSANA YASMEEN2014 PLC(CS) 665 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-02-18Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab Versus Syed MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE SHAH2014 PLC(CS) 17 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals addressed whether retired government officers, specifically a former District and Sessions Judge and a former Member of the Punjab Public Service Commission, were entitled to the payment of an orderly allowance and its inclusion in their pensionary benefits. The core legal questions involved the interpretation of Finance Department letters dated 2nd March 1986 and 7th April 2003 regarding the eligibility criteria for orderly allowances and additional pension benefits. The Supreme Court held that the orderly allowance was strictly restricted to officers in BPS-20 and above working specifically in the Punjab Civil Secretariat who met the prescribed procedural conditions, and since the respondents had not served in the Punjab Civil Secretariat, the allowance was not admissible to them during pre-retirement service nor could it be included in their post-retirement pensionary benefits. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the judgments of the Lahore High Court were set aside.
Questions settled- Whether officers not working in the Punjab Civil Secretariat are entitled to an orderly allowance under the Finance Department letter dated 2nd March 1986?
- Can pre-retirement orderly allowance be included in the pensionary benefits of retired officers who were never admissible to receive it during their active service?
- Does the exclusion of non-secretariat officers from the grant of orderly allowance amount to discriminatory treatment under Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD Versus AMNA AFRIDI2014 PLC(CS) 1250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-08-13Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB (C&W) Versus IKRAMULLAH2013 PLC(CS) 801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2013-01-02Read full judgment →
- ABDUL MAJEED KHAN Versus TAWSEEN ABDUL HALEEM2012 PLC(CS) 574 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a civil suit for damages against the respondents, alleging that respondent No.1 (the then Administrator of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission) acted with personal enmity and mala fides by forcing him onto Leave Preparatory to Retirement (LPR) and subsequently issuing unlawful retirement orders, which were later set aside by the Federal Service Tribunal. The trial court and the Lahore High Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Pakistan addressed whether an employee can claim damages in tort for wrongful actions and disciplinary proceedings, and how general and special damages are to be assessed. The Court held that while the petitioner failed to quantify and prove special damages (such as specific litigation costs and medical expenses), he was entitled to general damages under the 'rule of thumb' for the mental agony and injury caused by the respondent's unauthorized and vindictive actions. The Court further ruled that statutory indemnity under Section 23-A of the Civil Servants Act 1973 only protects bona fide actions, not malicious abuses of power. The petition was converted into an appeal and partly allowed, awarding the petitioner Rs. 100,000 in general damages with 10% mark-up.
Questions settled- Whether statutory indemnity under Section 23-A of the Civil Servants Act 1973 protects a public officer who acts with proven mala fides or personal malice?
- Can a plaintiff recover general damages under the 'rule of thumb' for mental agony and injury if they fail to specifically quantify and prove special damages?
- Is a separate civil suit maintainable for the recovery of litigation costs incurred in previous proceedings before the Service Tribunal when the Tribunal did not award costs?
- Can the tort of malicious prosecution be extended to departmental disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- Whether interest or mark-up on general damages for mental agony can be awarded from the date of filing of the suit or only from the date of the decree?
- PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER, N.-W.F.P. Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAZ2011 PLC(CS) 865 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-04-22Read full judgment →
- Syed SABIR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB2011 PLC(CS) 643 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-03-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the dismissal of a writ petition regarding the promotion of Respondent No. 4 to the post of Provincial Director in the Local Fund Audit Department. The appellant contended that under the Punjab Local Fund Audit Department Service Rules, 1981, the eligibility requirement of "holding posts of Divisional Director" necessitates actual service in that post at the time of promotion. As the respondent was serving in the Finance Department on transfer, the appellant argued he was ineligible. The Supreme Court examined whether this phrase required physical presence in the post or merely holding a substantial post within the parent department. The Court held that the respondent, who retained his seniority and a substantial post in the Local Fund Audit Department despite his temporary transfer, remained eligible for promotion. The Court concluded that the rule implies holding a substantial post, not necessarily physical presence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that temporary transfer does not deprive a civil servant of promotion opportunities in their parent department, consistent with established departmental practice.
Questions settled- Does the phrase 'holding posts of Divisional Director' in the Punjab Local Fund Audit Department Service Rules, 1981, require actual physical service in that post at the time of promotion?
- Can a civil servant on temporary transfer to another department be considered for promotion in their parent department?
- Does a temporary transfer to another department deprive a civil servant of their seniority or eligibility for promotion in their parent department?
- MUHAMMAD YAHYA KHAN KULACHI Versus REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE2011 PLC(CS) 1358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2011-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves appeals against the dismissal of a challenge to adverse remarks, specifically 'Reported to be corrupt,' recorded in the Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of a Civil Judge. The core legal question addressed is whether a Countersigning Officer is legally obligated to provide specific reasoning or tangible evidence when recording adverse remarks in a judicial officer's ACR. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, holding that no such legal requirement exists. The Court affirmed that superior officers, such as Judges of the High Court, are uniquely positioned to assess the performance, conduct, and reputation of subordinate judicial officers based on personal observation and credible information. Consequently, the Court ruled that an evaluation by a superior officer is valid and does not require the production of specific tangible evidence or written complaints, provided there is no evidence of mala fides or bias against the subordinate officer. The judgment reinforces that the assessment of a judicial officer's integrity is a subjective evaluation by the superior authority, which should be accepted in the absence of proven prejudice.
Questions settled- Is a Countersigning Officer legally required to provide reasons when recording adverse remarks in a judicial officer's ACR?
- Can adverse remarks regarding a judicial officer's integrity be sustained without the production of tangible evidence or written complaints?
- What is the standard for evaluating the performance and conduct of a subordinate judicial officer by a High Court Judge?
- Does the absence of specific material or complaints render adverse remarks in an ACR invalid?
- KHURSHID ALAM Versus E.D.O. (EDUCATION) SKP2010 PLC(CS) 840 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the petitioner, an Elementary English Teacher who challenged the major penalty of removal from service following departmental proceedings. The petitioner was proceeded against for joining at Government Primary School Mandianwala instead of his designated posting at Wahgray, despite having served at the former location for nearly ten years without complaint, drawing salary, and acting pursuant to directions from the competent authority. The core legal question considered by the court was whether a charge of misconduct could be sustained when the authorities raised no objection to the posting for a decade. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the matter requires detailed examination regarding the sustainability of the misconduct charge under such circumstances, thereby laying down principles concerning departmental proceedings, acquiescence, and the finality of long-standing administrative arrangements.
Questions settled- Could the charge of misconduct be said to have been proved when neither the competent authority nor the Drawing and Disbursing Officer raised any objection to the posting for a period of ten years?
- Does joining a school pursuant to a direction of the competent authority and serving there for a decade bar subsequent departmental proceedings for wrongful joining?
- Syed KAMAL SHAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary2010 PLC(CS) 809 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Service Tribunal, which upheld his removal from service due to willful absence from duty. The petitioner, a civil servant, applied for long leave but absented himself from duty without waiting for approval, ignoring multiple departmental notices, transfer offers, and public media call-up notifications. Departmental proceedings culminated in his removal from service. The core legal questions addressed were whether concurrent findings of fact regarding an employee's willful absence can be re-examined by the Supreme Court, and whether equitable discretionary relief can be granted to a delinquent officer who repeatedly defies departmental orders. The Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, holding that concurrent findings of fact recorded by departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal cannot be interfered with under Article 212(3) of the Constitution when supported by evidence. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary and equitable, requiring clean hands from the seeker, which the petitioner lacked due to his conduct.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding an employee's willful absence from duty?
- Is a civil servant entitled to equitable discretionary relief when they absent themselves from duty without sanction and defy departmental call-up notices?
- Does an application for extraordinary leave grant an absolute right to remain absent prior to formal sanction by the competent authority?
- CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE Versus NAWAB KHAN2010 PLC(CS) 804 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from cross-appeals against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the counting of previous service and pay protection for an employee who moved from an autonomous body to the Central Board of Revenue (CBR). The core legal questions concerned whether an employee is entitled to protection of previous service rendered in an autonomous body for pensionary benefits and pay fixation upon joining government service after resigning from the previous post. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly allowed the counting of previous service for pensionary benefits in accordance with relevant Pensionary Rules and established precedent, while correctly denying pay protection under Fundamental Rule 22(a) due to the absence of a retained lien on the former permanent post. The key principle laid down is that previous service in an autonomous body can be counted towards pensionary benefits upon joining government service, but pay protection is contingent upon holding a lien on the previous post.
Questions settled- Whether an employee is entitled to have the protection of previous service rendered in an autonomous body for the purpose of counting previous service for pension?
- Does Fundamental Rule 22(a) bar pay protection to an employee who does not hold a lien on his previous permanent post?
- STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN Versus Syed HASSAN ALI SHAH2010 PLC(CS) 789 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated several Area Managers of the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan whose services were terminated for failing to meet prescribed performance targets. The core legal question was whether the termination of employees in a commercial organization, based on their failure to achieve assigned business targets as stipulated in their appointment letters and the State Life Employees Service Regulations 1973, was legally justified. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred by relying on a previous judgment that did not declare any binding law. Affirming the principle established in Mazullah Khan v. Zonal Head, State Life Insurance, the Court held that in a commercial organization, employees are strictly bound by performance standards. Failure to meet these targets, as evaluated under the relevant service regulations, justifies termination. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment and upholding the termination of the respondents for poor performance.
Questions settled- Can a commercial organization terminate an employee for failing to meet assigned business performance targets?
- Does the failure to meet performance standards prescribed in appointment letters justify the termination of an employee under the State Life Employees Service Regulations 1973?
- Is a judgment of the Service Tribunal that relies on a previous case which declared no law of public importance sustainable?
- REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD NAVEED HASHMI2010 PLC(CS) 776 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-01-26Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD AMIN Versus PRESIDENT ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMTED2010 PLC(CS) 710 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal concerning the terms of his study leave granted by the Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (formerly Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan). The petitioner, an employee of the respondent-Bank, had applied for study leave for a Ph.D program, which the competent authority sanctioned partially on half pay and partially without pay. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner's service conditions were governed by statutory rules, exempting him from abatement under the rule in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam's case, and whether the denial of full pay study leave based on length of service was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, holding that since the respondent-Bank's service regulations were framed with the prior approval of the Federal Government under the relevant statutory ordinance, the employees' services were governed by statutory rules, thus rescuing the case from abatement. Furthermore, the court held that the length of service requirement under ESTACODE was directory rather than mandatory. Consequently, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and the partial half-pay restriction were set aside, directing that the leave be granted with full pay.
Questions settled- Whether employees of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan are governed by statutory rules for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Does the requirement regarding length of service for granting study leave under the ESTACODE rules operate as a mandatory or a directory provision?
- What is the effect of the repeal of an Ordinance without a saving clause on previously framed regulations and pending proceedings under the General Clauses Act 1897?
- Whether the rule regarding past and closed transactions and abatement enunciated in Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam's case applies to employees governed by statutory rules?
- KHURSHEED LATIF Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2010 PLC(CS) 676 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-09-24Read full judgment →
- SECTION OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FINANCE DEPARTMENT Versus GHULAM SHABBIR2010 PLC(CS) 641 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-04-05Read full judgment →
- OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN2010 PLC(CS) 621 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-01-18Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus SHAMOON KHAN2010 PLC(CS) 608 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-03-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus LAHORE HIGH COURT through Registrar2010 PLC(CS) 584 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-02-01Read full judgment →
- NED UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARACHI Versus HAFEEZULLAH KHAWAJA2010 PLC(CS) 579 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-11Read full judgment →
- Haji ZAHIR ALI Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN2010 PLC(CS) 566 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-02-02Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ZAHEER KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISAN through Secretary, Establishment2010 PLC(CS) 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-10-09Read full judgment →
- OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY Versus NAZAR HUSSAIN2010 PLC(CS) 547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-01-18Read full judgment →
- ASAD KHAN MENGAL Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL SHOUQ2010 PLC(CS) 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-03-08Read full judgment →
- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, QUETTA ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (QESCO) Versus Rana SHAMIM AKHTAR2010 PLC(CS) 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-07-28Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN DR. A.Q. KHAN Versus Malik MUHAMMAD HAMID ULLAH KHAN2010 PLC(CS) 402 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a judgment of the Service Tribunal which had modified a civil servant's penalty of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement after finding him guilty of unauthorized absence from duty amounting to misconduct. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal could judiciously modify a departmental penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement based on mitigating circumstances when unauthorized absence was established and the employee's past service record contained multiple disciplinary warnings for similar violations. The Supreme Court held that while the Service Tribunal possesses powers under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act to modify an order, such power must be exercised judiciously and within the parameters of the law, rather than arbitrarily granting relief without legal foundation, especially when the employee's past record showed repeated disciplinary infractions. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that the Service Tribunal cannot grant arbitrary relief or modify a valid departmental penalty without cogent reasons, supporting law, or a favorable service record.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal has the authority to modify a departmental penalty of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement when unauthorized absence from duty is established?
- Can the Service Tribunal grant arbitrary relief to a civil servant without considering their past disciplinary record?
- How must the powers under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act be exercised by the Tribunal?
- Dr. SHAFI-UR-REHMAN AFRIDI Versus C.D.A., ISLAMABAD through Chairman2010 PLC(CS) 367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-04-02Read full judgment →
- Mrs. RASHIDA ASIF Versus Mrs. AASIA GONDAL2010 PLC(CS) 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a dispute over the revised seniority list of Information Assistants (B-11). The petitioner claimed seniority over respondent No. 1 based on temporary service performed under stop-gap arrangements since 1985. However, both parties were formally selected via a merit list in 1990 following an advertisement, wherein respondent No. 1 ranked higher. A provisional and subsequent final seniority list issued in 1995 assigned senior placement to respondent No. 1, which the petitioner failed to challenge at the relevant time. The Federal Service Tribunal accepted respondent No. 1's appeal against a belated alteration of her seniority position. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal, holding that temporary stop-gap service against non-substantive posts confers no regular seniority. The Court reiterated that an officer in a graded service has a vested right to their place in the final seniority list, which cannot be altered arbitrarily by the competent authority after a long delay.
Questions settled- Does service rendered against a temporary or stop-gap arrangement confer right to seniority over regular appointees selected later?
- Can a competent authority arbitrarily alter a finalized seniority list without lawful justification after a lapse of several years?
- Is the exercise of discretion by the Service Tribunal regarding condonation of delay a question of fact that Supreme Court will ordinarily not interfere with?
- Dr. PAKIZA RAZA HYDER Versus MINISTRY OF HEALTH2010 PLC(CS) 327 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-09-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against the Federal Service Tribunal's judgment dismissing the petitioner's service appeal concerning seniority and promotion issues in the Ministry of Health. The core legal questions involved the condonation of delay, the applicability of Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to service matters, and the principles governing service promotions and past closed transactions. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal on grounds of limitation, as the petitioner's plea of discovering the cause of action through a later letter was incredible, and that the challenge to promotions was barred by Order II, Rule 2 and the principle of past and closed transactions since earlier judgments had attained finality. The Court laid down that a party cannot resurrect abandoned claims or belatedly challenge promotions after failing to challenge them in earlier parallel proceedings, and that the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal regarding limitation will not be interfered with where the petitioner exhibits indolence.
Questions settled- Whether an appellant can resurrect a challenge to a promotion order that was expressly abandoned before the Service Tribunal?
- Does a subsequent departmental letter create a fresh cause of action to bypass the period of limitation for challenging past promotions?
- Is a service appeal barred under the principles analogous to Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 when the litigant omitted grounds in a previous challenge?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the Federal Service Tribunal's exercise of discretion in declining to condone delay?
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER2010 PLC(CS) 306 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-10-07Read full judgment →
- HAMIDA BEGUM Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION through Secretary2010 PLC(CS) 297 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-08-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal regarding her repatriation to her parent provincial department. The petitioner, a teacher on deputation from the N.-W.F.P. government to the Federal Directorate of Education, challenged her repatriation, arguing she had since acquired higher qualifications and that her pay scale had been upgraded. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could be permanently absorbed into the Federal Government despite lacking the requisite qualifications at the time of the initial decision and failing to obtain the mandatory formal concurrence from her parent provincial government. The Supreme Court held that the repatriation order was lawful, noting that the petitioner failed to secure the necessary 'No Objection Certificate' or concurrence from the Provincial Government for permanent absorption. The Court affirmed that absorption into the Federal Government is a discretionary departmental matter contingent upon strict adherence to recruitment rules and inter-provincial concurrence. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, upholding the principle that a deputationist cannot be absorbed without the formal consent of their parent department.
Questions settled- Can a deputationist be permanently absorbed into a federal department without the formal concurrence of their parent provincial government?
- Does the acquisition of higher qualifications after the initiation of repatriation proceedings entitle a deputationist to mandatory absorption?
- Is the absorption of a deputationist into the federal service a matter of right or departmental discretion?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained on the same cause of action after a final decision by the Supreme Court?
- ABDUL MAJEED Versus PROVINCIAL POLICE OFFICER2010 PLC(CS) 1469 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-05-11Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD KHOKHAR Versus PAKISTAN POST OFFICE through Director-General, Islamabad2010 PLC(CS) 1291 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-07-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his dismissal from service. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal was time-barred under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was indeed time-barred. The Court affirmed that under the proviso to Section 10 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, where a departmental representation is filed but remains unresponded to for sixty days, the aggrieved person must file an appeal to the Service Tribunal within the subsequent thirty days. The Court established the principle that the statutory limitation period for filing an appeal to the Service Tribunal is triggered by the expiry of the sixty-day period for a departmental decision, regardless of whether the department later communicates a formal rejection. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner's failure to adhere to this statutory timeline rendered his appeal incompetent, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the proviso to Section 10 of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 mandate that an appeal to the Service Tribunal must be filed within 30 days after the expiry of 60 days from the submission of a departmental representation?
- Does a later communication from a department rejecting a time-barred representation extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Can a petitioner claim that they were misled by an incorrect appeal instruction in a dismissal order to bypass statutory limitation periods?
- Mst. ROQIAZA AKBAR Versus SECRETARY, EDUCATION (S&L), N.-W.F.P.2010 PLC(CS) 1251 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-04-01Read full judgment →
- SUO MOTU CASE NO.9 OF 2010 Versus2010 PLC(CS) 1241 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-07-23Read full judgment →
- CHAIRMAN, STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION Versus HAMAYUN IRFAN2010 PLC(CS) 1183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from appeals filed by the Chairman, State Life Insurance Corporation against the judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the termination of services of the respondents (Area Managers) and ordered their reinstatement with back benefits. The core legal questions examined by the Supreme Court were whether the regulations framed by the Corporation under the Life Insurance (Nationalisation) Order, 1972 possess a statutory status, whether the competent authority had the jurisdiction to review performance in the manner adopted, and whether the employees were entitled to back benefits. The Supreme Court held that the State Life Employees Service Regulations, 1973, having been framed with the previous approval of the Federal Government and published in the official Gazette pursuant to Article 49 of the Life Insurance (Nationalisation) Order, 1972, are statutory regulations. On merits, the Court found that the termination orders were passed without proper application of mind, without assigning reasons, and without considering the replies submitted by the respondents to the show-cause notices. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, upholding the reinstatement of the respondents with back benefits.
Questions settled- Whether the service regulations framed by the State Life Insurance Corporation under the Life Insurance (Nationalisation) Order, 1972 are statutory in nature?
- Do public functionaries have a legal obligation to decide matters of subordinates with reasons and after proper application of mind under section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with findings of fact recorded by the Federal Service Tribunal while exercising jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- MUHAMMAD ABDUL MOIED Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Works2010 PLC(CS) 1143 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2010-07-09Read full judgment →
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION Versus S.M. ISMAIL NAQVI2010 PLC(CS) 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
Petitions for leave to appeal were filed by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal directing PIAC to implement its earlier judgment and pay the retired respondents their dues, including annual increments and accumulated privilege leave/leave preparatory to retirement (PL/LPR) under the Mandatory Retirement Scheme dated 31-10-1997. The core legal questions were whether employees retired under an early retirement scheme are entitled to annual increments and PL/LPR encashment for the intervening period up to the age of superannuation, and how such retirement policy instruments should be construed. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, holding that under the scheme, retiring employees are deemed to be in service during the intervening period for all intents and purposes and are entitled to the same benefits as regular employees of their substantive pay group and rank. The Court laid down that beneficial early retirement policies must be interpreted liberally in favor of employees, and normal entitlements cannot be denied on the ground of lack of actual service.
Questions settled- Whether employees retired under an early mandatory retirement scheme are entitled to annual increments and encashment of PL/LPR for the intervening period until reaching the age of superannuation?
- How should beneficial instruments and early retirement schemes introduced by an employer be construed concerning employee entitlements?
- Whether absence from actual service during the intervening period under a mandatory retirement scheme disentitles an employee from benefits admissible to regular employees?
- CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD SHAFI2010 PLC(CS) 1088 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2009-10-06Read full judgment →
- INSPECTOR-GENERAL (PRISONS) N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR Versus Syed JAFFAR SHAH2009 PLC(CS) 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-11-21Read full judgment →
- Syed ASDUS SAMAD PIRZADA Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Finance, Finance Department, Lahore2008 PLC(CS) 264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-06-26Read full judgment →
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus ALLAH DAD MASHORI Mazhar Ali B. Chohan , Manzoor Ali Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Miss Wajahat Niaz2008 PLC(CS) 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-10-22Read full judgment →
- MUMTAZ ALI NARAI Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, KARACHI2008 PLC(CS) 255 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-03-07Read full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, QADIRABAD BARRAGE DIVISION, QADIRABAD Versus EJAZ AHMAD2008 PLC(CS) 246 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed by the Executive Engineer, Qadirabad Barrage Division, challenging the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent, Ejaz Ahmad, following his dismissal from service due to alleged inefficiency and misconduct. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the Department were legally valid despite procedural irregularities, specifically the failure to issue a show-cause notice and provide a fair opportunity for a hearing. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the appeal, holding that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by glaring illegalities. The Court emphasized that the failure to issue a show-cause notice as mandated by the governing statute and the denial of a fair opportunity to defend oneself constituted a flagrant violation of both the statutory provisions and the principles of natural justice. The Court affirmed that mandatory procedural requirements cannot be bypassed, even when serious charges are alleged against a government employee, and upheld the Tribunal's decision allowing the Department to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Does the failure to issue a show-cause notice under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000 vitiate disciplinary proceedings?
- Can procedural lapses in disciplinary proceedings be excused on the grounds that the charges against a government employee are serious?
- Is the right to a fair opportunity of hearing a mandatory requirement in disciplinary proceedings against a government servant?
- CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus ARIF HUSSAIN2008 PLC(CS) 240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions filed by the Chairman, Pakistan Railways, challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which directed the regularization of the respondents' services. The respondents, appointed as temporary laborers in the Electric Traction Department of Pakistan Railways between 1983 and 1999, had continuously performed duties against permanent posts. The core legal question was whether these employees were entitled to regularization and whether they fell within the definition of civil servants entitled to approach the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the employees of the railway department are governed by their own statutory rules, distinguishing their status from other categories of employees. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, noting that the respondents had rendered continuous service against permanent posts and were entitled to regularization under the department's established policy. Consequently, the Court found the Tribunal's judgment unexceptionable, dismissed the petitions, and refused leave to appeal, reinforcing the principle that long-term employees serving against permanent posts in the railway department are entitled to regularization in accordance with departmental policy.
Questions settled- Are employees of the Pakistan Railways department governed by their own statutory rules regarding service status?
- Does the continuous performance of duties against permanent posts entitle temporary railway laborers to regularization?
- Can railway employees who have served for a considerable period approach the Federal Service Tribunal for regularization?
- RAB NAWAZ HINGORO Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH2008 PLC(CS) 229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2007-08-07Read full judgment →
- Miss RASHIDA KHATOON, DEPUTY MANAGER, PAK STEEL, KARACHI Versus SECRETARY M/O INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION2008 PLC(CS) 208 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-09-30Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Health Department, Lahore Versus Dr. SAADIA ASHRAF BHATTI2008 PLC(CS) 201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-11-14Read full judgment →
- Dr. SHAMIM WAHEED Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Health Department, Lahore2008 PLC(CS) 192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-10-18Read full judgment →
- TAHIR LATEEF SHEIKH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division2008 PLC(CS) 188 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-10-10Read full judgment →
- Haji ALLAH NOOR MALIK Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, PUNJAB2008 PLC(CS) 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had upheld disciplinary action taken against the petitioner. The core legal questions were whether the department failed to substantiate the charges against the petitioner and whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during the departmental inquiry. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner's defense regarding the scrap material was unsubstantiated by any documentary evidence. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioner had been granted two opportunities to cross-examine the departmental witnesses but failed to appear, leaving the Inquiry Officer with no option but to proceed. The Court held that the findings of fact regarding the petitioner's responsibility for the removal of government property were supported by evidence and had been accepted by both the competent departmental authority and the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, reaffirming that factual findings in disciplinary proceedings, when properly supported, are not subject to interference.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner claim denial of cross-examination if they failed to avail themselves of provided opportunities?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with findings of fact recorded by a Service Tribunal in disciplinary matters?
- Is a departmental finding of guilt sustainable when the accused fails to produce evidence to support their defense?
- Syed JAMSHED HUSSAIN, Ex-Assistant, Office of Director Public Relations, Bahawalpur Division Bahawalpur Versus CHIEF MINISTER PUNJAB, LAHORE2008 PLC(CS) 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-10-26Read full judgment →
- KHURSHID AHMED Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore2008 PLC(CS) 150 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-10-17Read full judgment →
- HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION Versus Syed MUHAMMAD ALI GOHAR ZAIDI2007 PLC(CS) 870 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-05-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUSAF BUTT Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE2007 PLC(CS) 718 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. SARWAT QAMAR Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB2007 PLC(CS) 715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-11-25Read full judgment →
- WAZIR ALI SOOMRO Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others2007 PLC(CS) 260 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-09-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOOD and another2007 PLC(CS) 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-02-24Read full judgment →
- DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, NAROWAL Versus ANSAR PERVAIZ2006 PLC(CS) 625 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-12-15Read full judgment →
- SAMI ULLAH Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE2006 PLC(CS) 449 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-02-03Read full judgment →
- INAYATULLAH Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL2006 PLC(CS) 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-11-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUKHTAR Versus MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, SERVICES HOSPITAL, LAHORE2006 PLC(CS) 405 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AMIN KALUS Versus PUNJAB LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD2006 PLC(CS) 394 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-25Read full judgment →
- NAJAM ABBAS Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CITY DIVISION, GUJRANWALA2006 PLC(CS) 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-02-14Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus SHAKEEL AHMAD2006 PLC(CS) 340 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-01-24Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus SHAHID MEHMOOD BUTT2006 PLC(CS) 325 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-12-02Read full judgment →
- CHIEF SECRETARY PUNJAB and others Versus ABDUL RAOOF DASTI2006 PLC(CS) 1278 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2006-05-02Read full judgment →
- ASAD BASHIR Versus CHAIRMAN BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, LAHORE and 2 others2006 PLC(CS) 110 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals by leave address the maintainability of constitutional petitions filed by former employees of the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore, who were dismissed, removed, or compulsorily retired from service. The core legal question is whether the service regulations governing the employees of the Board are statutory in nature, thereby rendering the writ petitions maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that since the regulations framed by the Board lacked the mandatory formal approval of the Government as required by the enabling statute, they possess no higher status than internal instructions or domestic rules and are non-statutory. Consequently, the High Court correctly dismissed the writ petitions for lack of maintainability. The key principle laid down is that service regulations of a statutory board which have not received the formal approval of the Government do not acquire statutory force, and the violation of such non-statutory rules does not furnish a ground to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court.
Questions settled- Whether service regulations framed by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education without the formal approval of the Government possess statutory status?
- Are constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution maintainable for the enforcement of non-statutory service rules of an educational board?
- What is the legal status of service rules and regulations adopted or framed by a statutory board without fulfilling the statutory requirement of government approval?
- MUHAMMAD YOUNUS TANOLI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Finance and others2005 PLC(CS) 798 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-03-09Read full judgment →
- ASDULLAH MANGI Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION2005 PLC(CS) 771 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-06-01Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. Versus FARMAN ALI2005 PLC(CS) 737 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-03-04Read full judgment →
- EXECUTIVE ENGINEER and others Versus ZAHID SHARIF2005 PLC(CS) 701 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which set aside the dismissal of the respondent and directed his reinstatement with back-benefits. The respondent, a WAPDA employee, had been dismissed from service following allegations of corruption and illegal gratification after being caught during an Anti-Corruption Department raid. The Supreme Court examined whether the dismissal order was vitiated due to being passed by an Executive Engineer instead of the competent authority, and whether the dispensation of a regular inquiry under the Pakistan Employees (E&D) Rules, 1978 was lawful. The Court held that while the dismissal order suffered from an irregularity regarding the issuing authority, the underlying disciplinary proceedings and the dispensation of inquiry by the competent Chief Engineer were valid. The Court further noted that acquittal in a criminal trial does not bar departmental disciplinary proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the Tribunal's judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the competent authority to decide afresh within two months on the existing record without holding a fresh inquiry.
Questions settled- Does an acquittal in a criminal trial serve as an embargo against departmental disciplinary proceedings?
- Can the competent authority dispense with a regular inquiry under the Pakistan Employees (E&D) Rules, 1978?
- Does the issuance of a dismissal order by an Executive Engineer instead of the Chief Engineer render the entire disciplinary proceedings ab initio void?
- MUHAMMAD ISRARULLAH Versus ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MANPOWER2005 PLC(CS) 639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-12-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which upheld the termination of the appellant's services. The appellant, initially appointed as a Junior Clerk, was later appointed as an Instructor on a contract basis. The core legal question was whether the appellant, a regular employee who had moved to a new position through proper channels, could have his services terminated despite retaining a lien on his original post. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's appointment as an Instructor was effectively on a deputation basis, as he had not been confirmed in the borrowing department. Consequently, his lien on his original post as a Junior Clerk remained intact. The Court ruled that the administrative failure to confirm the appellant in his original post did not prejudice his rights, and he could not be terminated due to the temporary nature of his subsequent appointment. The Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, ordering the appellant's reinstatement as a Junior Clerk with full back benefits, emphasizing that a regular employee's lien cannot be terminated without legal justification.
Questions settled- Can the services of a regular employee be terminated when they are appointed to a new position through proper channels but not confirmed in the borrowing department?
- Does an employee retain a lien on their original post if they are appointed to a new position on a deputation basis?
- Can an employee be held responsible for the failure of administrative authorities to confirm them in a post to facilitate a lien?
- TASLEEM JAN and others Versus MUHAMMAD ZAMAN and others2005 PLC(CS) 610 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-12-31Read full judgment →
- INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, SINDH Versus HABIBUR REHMAN ABRO2005 PLC(CS) 554 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-11-10Read full judgment →
- CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH Versus Al-Haj Professor Syed SIBTE HASAN ZAIDI2005 PLC(CS) 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-11-18Read full judgment →
- TARA CHAND Versus KARACHI WATER AND SEWERAGE BOARD, KARACHI2005 PLC(CS) 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for review and miscellaneous applications filed by employees of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board whose services were terminated alongside other employees who had successfully challenged their retrenchment before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who were not appellants in the previous successful litigation, were entitled to the same relief as the successful parties, given that their cases were identical. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the same relief. It reasoned that when a court determines a point of law regarding the terms of service, the benefit of that judgment should be extended to all similarly situated civil servants to ensure complete justice and uphold the rule of good governance, rather than forcing them to initiate separate litigation. The Court affirmed that under the principle of equality enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution and the appellate powers of the Court, relief can be granted to non-appealing parties to prevent discrimination and ensure that identical cases are treated uniformly.
Questions settled- Can the benefit of a judgment regarding service terms be extended to civil servants who were not parties to the original litigation?
- Does the Supreme Court have the power to grant relief to non-appealing respondents in a service matter?
- Is the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution applicable to the extension of relief in service matters?