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.

• GHULAM QASIM KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2005 PLC(CS) 1475 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• EJAZ AHMAD HASHMI Versus STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION2005 PLC(CS) 1463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  time-barredcondonation of delaySupreme Courtservice tribunalpetition dismissed
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners filed petitions against the judgments dated 22nd June, 2004, which were found to be barred by time. Separate applications for condonation of delay were moved on the ground that petitioners were informed later about the judgment and approached the court with a delay of two to three days, while one petitioner cited mental disturbance and family circumstances. The core legal question was whether sufficient grounds existed for the condonation of delay in filing the petitions. The Supreme Court held that the grounds taken were unacceptable as arguments were advanced and the judgment was announced in the presence of the parties and their counsel, and no plausible reason was assigned for the delay. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in filing petitions can be condoned on the ground of late intimation when judgment was announced in the presence of counsel?
  • Can personal mental disturbance and family circumstances serve as sufficient ground for condonation of delay without plausible justification?
  • Whether petitions barred by time without valid explanation are liable to be dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• ANWAR PARVEZ Versus CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, ABBOTTABAD2005 PLC(CS) 1382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-06-24Read full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMEED Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE and others2005 PLC(CS) 1367 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-06-01
  mutationcivil court decreemisconduct versus negligencerevenue officersdepartmental inquiryservice tribunalmajor penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  These three connected appeals arise from judgments of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding disciplinary proceedings against revenue officials (a Patwari, a Kanungo, and a Naib Tehsildar) who sanctioned a property mutation based on a civil court decree without the prior approval of the District Collector. The appellants faced multiple inquiries, leading ultimately to their dismissal from service for misconduct. The core legal questions involved whether prior approval of the District Collector is a legal prerequisite for implementing a court decree via mutation under the Land Revenue Act, 1967, and whether mere procedural omission or lack of vigilance constitutes 'misconduct' warranting major penalties or merely 'negligence'. The Supreme Court held that revenue officials are bound to implement a valid court decree under section 42 of the Land Revenue Act, 1967, and that prior approval of the District Collector is not a statutory requirement. The Court ruled that failing to inform senior authorities of sensitive matters involving government land amounts to negligence rather than deliberate misconduct, as misconduct requires mens rea or grave negligence. Consequently, the Court converted the major penalty of dismissal into a minor penalty of stoppage of two increments.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prior approval of the District Collector is required by law before sanctioning a mutation in implementation of a civil court decree?
  • Does a failure by revenue officials to bring sensitive matters involving government land to the notice of senior authorities constitute 'misconduct' or mere 'negligence'?
  • Can revenue staff go behind a civil court decree while dealing with mutation proceedings under the Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian ABDUL QADEER Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2005 PLC(CS) 1325 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Syed AQLEEM ABBASI JAFARI Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB2005 PLC(CS) 1289 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-08-04Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN RED CRESCENT SOCIETY Versus Syed NAZIR GILLANI2005 PLC(CS) 1264 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-06-01
  master and servantnon-statutory rulesconstitutional jurisdictionwrit of reinstatementPakistan Red Crescent Societytermination of serviceservice regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had accepted an intra-court appeal and reinstated the respondent, Syed Nazir Gillani, after setting aside the termination of his services by the Pakistan Red Crescent Society. The core legal question was whether the Pakistan Red Crescent Society Act 1920 and the Pakistan Red Crescent National Headquarters (Staff) Service Regulations 1974 are statutory in character, and whether an employee of the Society can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for reinstatement under the principle of master and servant. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's judgment, holding that the Pakistan Red Crescent Society is not a statutory body performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or Province, and that its regulations framed under section 5 of the Act are non-statutory. The key principle laid down is that where terms and conditions of service are not regulated by statute or statutory rules and no government intervention exists in rule-making, the relationship between the employer and employee is strictly governed by the principle of master and servant, rendering a writ petition for reinstatement incompetent, with the sole remedy for wrongful termination being a suit for damages.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Pakistan Red Crescent Society is a statutory body performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province?
  • Do the Pakistan Red Crescent National Headquarters (Staff) Service Regulations 1974 possess statutory force?
  • Can an employee of a corporation governed by non-statutory rules invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court for reinstatement?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for an employee of the Pakistan Red Crescent Society alleging wrongful termination of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Professor Dr. NIZAKAT BEGUM, AYUB MEDICAL COLLEGE, ABBOTTABAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.2005 PLC(CS) 1247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-06-29
  service tribunalcivil servantautonomous bodyremoval from servicespecial powersmedical institution
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges the order of the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal on the ground that, as an employee of an autonomous body, she was not a civil servant and the appeal was therefore incompetent. The core legal question is whether an employee of an autonomous medical institution proceeded against under special powers can approach the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that under Section 10 of the N.-W.F.P. Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, read with relevant statutory provisions, the petitioner has a remedy before the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the case for a decision on merits, establishing that employees governed by the specified special powers legislation are entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of an autonomous body proceeded against under the N.-W.F.P. Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 can file an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
  • Does Section 10 of the N.-W.F.P. Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 provide a right of appeal to the provincial Service Tribunal for persons aggrieved by final orders?
  • Are employees serving in the affairs of health institutions under the North-West Frontier Province Medical and Health Institutions Reforms Act, 1999 considered civil servants for the purpose of approaching the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• AMIR HAMZA Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN2005 PLC(CS) 1201 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2005-04-21Read full judgment →
• MARGHOOB AHMED Versus PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN2005 PLC(CS) 1184 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-11-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR Versus REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE2005 PLC(CS) 1155 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• ABID HASSAN Versus P.I.A.C.2005 PLC(CS) 1117 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-09-14
  service lawadministrative discretionstructuring discretiontraining policyseniorityarbitrary actionPIACequal treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from petitions for leave to appeal (converted into appeals) before the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed appeals against an order directing senior pilots of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) to attend Airbus-310 training instead of Boeing-777 transition training in the United States. The core legal question was whether PIAC exercised its administrative discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, and in violation of its own Training Policy and Flight Operation Manual by selecting junior pilots over senior officers without lawful justification. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and directed PIAC to nominate the appellants for the next Boeing-777 training batch in the USA. The Court held that statutory bodies and state functionaries cannot exercise discretionary power at their sweet-will or whim; administrative discretion must be structured, rationalized, fair, transparent, and exercised strictly in accordance with applicable rules, policies, and principles of non-discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Can a state enterprise exercise administrative discretion in violation of its own established training policy?
  • Whether senior officers can be bypassed for specialized career training without reasonable justification?
  • Does the arbitrary exercise of discretionary power by a public body violate the principle of equality under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• DIRECTOR-GENERAL, NATIONAL SAVINGS, ISLAMABAD Versus RAHAT ALI SHERWANI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SAVINGS, ISLAMABAD2005 PLC(CS) 1110 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-10-04Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD WASAY TAREEN Versus CHIEF JUSTICE OF BALOCHISTAN2005 PLC(CS) 1085 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-12-01Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF SINDH Versus ABDUL JABBAR2004 PLC(CS) 99 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• GHULAM HUSSAIN Versus UNION COUNCIL KHOKHRAPAR2004 PLC(CS) 902 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-03-03
  leave to appealconstitutional jurisdictionpending petitionvote of no confidenceinterim reliefsupreme court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking leave to appeal against the alleged failure of the High Court of Sindh to decide or grant interim relief in a pending Constitutional petition challenging a resolution and notification of no confidence passed against the petitioner as Naib Nazim/Member of Union Council Khokhrapar. The core legal question was whether a petition for leave to appeal is maintainable against the mere pendency or inaction of the High Court where no final judgment, decree, order, or sentence has been rendered. The Supreme Court held that under Article 185(3), a petition for leave to appeal is maintainable only against a judgment, decree, order, or sentence of the High Court, and no substantial question of public importance under Article 212(3) was made out. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction under Article 185(3) cannot be invoked against procedural delay or mere pendency of a matter before the High Court in the absence of an adjudicatory order.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable under Article 185(3) of the Constitution against the mere pendency or delay of a case in the High Court?
  • Does the failure of the High Court to grant or refuse interim relief constitute an order appealable under Article 185(3) of the Constitution?
  • What constitutes a maintainable judgment, decree, order, or sentence under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed IMAM SHAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.2004 PLC(CS) 866 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION Versus SHAHZAD FAROOQ MALIK2004 PLC(CS) 82 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-04-15
  Locus PoenitentiaeService terminationIrregular appointmentVested rightsPIACService lawConstitutional equality
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions filed by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) challenging the Federal Service Tribunal's decision to reinstate employees whose services were terminated due to alleged irregularities in their initial recruitment. The core legal question was whether PIAC, having itself violated recruitment rules to appoint these individuals, could subsequently terminate them on the ground of irregular appointment after they had been confirmed in service. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that an employer cannot unilaterally terminate confirmed employees based on its own procedural irregularities in the hiring process, particularly when no misconduct is alleged. The judgment affirmed the doctrine of locus poenitentiae, establishing that once an appointment takes legal effect and creates vested rights, such as confirmation in service, the authority cannot rescind the order. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that authorities must adhere to their own rules and that discriminatory treatment of employees violates the constitutional guarantee of equality. The Court criticized the practice of management blaming appointees for procedural lapses caused by the management itself.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer terminate an employee on the ground of irregular appointment after the employee has been confirmed in service?
  • Does the doctrine of locus poenitentiae prevent an authority from rescinding an appointment order that has already taken legal effect?
  • Can an employer rely on its own violation of recruitment rules to justify the termination of an employee?
  • Does the termination of employees while retaining others similarly appointed constitute a violation of the constitutional right to equality?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed MUHAMMAD IQBAL JAFRI Versus REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH, COURT, LAHORE2004 PLC(CS) 809 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-12-01
  departmental inquirycriminal acquittaldouble jeopardyjudicial officermisconductdismissal from servicecivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed by a former Civil Judge against the judgment of the Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his dismissal from service. The petitioner was arrested in the United Kingdom for heroin smuggling, convicted by a trial court, but subsequently acquitted on appeal. Following his acquittal and reinstatement, the departmental authority initiated fresh disciplinary proceedings on charges of corruption, misconduct, and bringing disrepute to the judiciary. The petitioner contended that the subsequent departmental inquiry on the same facts amounted to double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that departmental disciplinary proceedings are distinct from criminal trials, as they enforce service discipline rather than criminal liability. Consequently, a criminal acquittal does not bar departmental action. Finding no illegality or misreading of evidence, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a departmental inquiry following a criminal acquittal on the same facts violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution?
  • Are departmental disciplinary proceedings and criminal trials co-extensive or independent of each other?
  • Can a civil servant be departmentally dismissed based on conduct that led to a foreign criminal trial, notwithstanding their subsequent acquittal on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAHOOR ABBASI Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB2004 PLC(CS) 805 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-10-09
  pensionultra virescivil servantwithholding of pensionservice lawmisconductpension rules
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a retired civil servant, challenged a penalty imposed by the Education Department withholding a portion of his pension, which was subsequently reduced by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether Rule 1.8(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, is ultra vires Section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, on the grounds that it permits pension withholding beyond the specific instances of dismissal or removal mentioned in the Act. The Supreme Court held that the rule is not ultra vires. The Court reasoned that Section 18(1) of the Act makes the right to pension subject to being 'prescribed,' and Rule 1.8(a) serves as a valid regulatory mechanism to ensure good conduct. The Court affirmed that a civil servant's entitlement to pension is contingent upon good conduct during service. Finding that the factual findings regarding the petitioner's misconduct were finalized by the Tribunal and that the petitioner had already received substantial relief, the Court refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Is Rule 1.8(a) of the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963, ultra vires Section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974?
  • Does Section 18 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, restrict the withholding of pension solely to cases of dismissal or removal from service?
  • Is the right to receive a pension under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, an absolute right or is it subject to prescribed conditions?
  Read full judgment →
• ARSHAD JAMAL Versus N.-W.F.P. FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION2004 PLC(CS) 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-12-04
  constitutional petitionmaster and servantright of hearingaudi alteram partemtermination of servicecorporation employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the court is directed against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dismissing the appellant's Constitutional petition against the termination of his services as Assistant Manager (Administration) in the North-West Frontier Province Forest Development Corporation. The core legal question was whether a Constitutional petition is maintainable and whether an employee whose appointment is challenged as void ab initio is entitled to a hearing before removal, even in the absence of statutory rules. The Supreme Court held that where a removal order is passed on grounds that are in the nature of charges, the employee has a vested right of hearing under the principle of audi alteram partem. The Court ruled that the removal order passed without a show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing was illegal, setting it aside while permitting the Corporation to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of a statutory corporation whose services are terminated on grounds amounting to charges is entitled to a hearing under the principle of audi alteram partem in the absence of statutory rules?
  • Does a removal order passed on the basis that an appointment was illegal and void ab initio require a prior show-cause notice and an opportunity of hearing?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against the removal of a corporate employee when the termination order is founded on allegations of illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LIMITED Versus MAHMOOD ALI KHAN2004 PLC(CS) 796 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-10-27
  service appealdisciplinary proceedingsreinstatementde novo inquirynatural justicepersonal hearingmisconductRemoval from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns six civil petitions for leave to appeal against a common order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, which set aside the dismissal orders of several Habib Bank Limited employees and directed their reinstatement, pending de novo disciplinary proceedings under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The employees had been charged with fraud and misappropriation, leading to domestic inquiries and subsequent termination. The core legal questions involve whether the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 requires a personal hearing before a final decision is reached, despite the provision of a charge sheet and show-cause notice, and whether the Tribunal erred in ordering reinstatement and de novo proceedings when misconduct was allegedly proven. The Supreme Court noted the absence of authoritative precedent regarding these specific points under the Ordinance. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to address these significant legal issues, while directing the Bank to reinstate the employees in accordance with the Tribunal's judgment pending the final outcome of the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 require a personal hearing before a final order of dismissal is passed?
  • Can the Federal Service Tribunal order reinstatement and de novo disciplinary proceedings when misconduct has been established in a domestic inquiry?
  • Is a dismissal order invalid if passed by an incompetent authority under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RASHEED, STENOGRAPHER Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL TARIFF COMMISSION Muhammad Zaman Bhatti2004 PLC(CS) 792 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION Versus SHAHID HASSAN KHAN2004 PLC(CS) 789 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• FAUZIA SIDDIQUE QURESHI Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD2004 PLC(CS) 781 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-10-07Read full judgment →
• GHULAM YASIN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE PUNJAB, LAHORE2004 PLC(CS) 755 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  departmental proceedingsacquittal in criminal casedouble jeopardyservice tribunalcompulsory retirementpolice discipline
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings under the Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, for inefficiency and misconduct. After exhausting departmental remedies, the petitioner appealed to the Punjab Service Tribunal, which partly accepted the appeal by converting the penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that his acquittal in a related criminal case under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 barred subsequent departmental proceedings, amounting to double jeopardy. The core legal question was whether acquittal in a criminal charge bars departmental proceedings on the same facts. The Supreme Court held that the objects of criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings are entirely different, and an acquittal in a criminal case does not constitute a bar to disciplinary action or have a direct bearing on service discipline. The key principle laid down is that criminal acquittal does not bar departmental proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal in a criminal case bar the initiation or continuation of departmental proceedings on the same grounds?
  • Are the objects of prosecution on a criminal charge and departmental proceedings distinct?
  • Will a finding of fact by the Service Tribunal regarding willful absence be interfered with by the Supreme Court in the absence of a substantial question of law?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR2004 PLC(CS) 740 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• SHABBIR AHMED Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN), DIRECTORATE OF EDUCATION (SE), BAHAWALPUR2004 PLC(CS) 687 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-04-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD QASIM Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB2004 PLC(CS) 648 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Syed ALI SHAH BUKHARI Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE2004 PLC(CS) 55 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-09-25Read full judgment →
• SECRETARY HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus Dr. SHAHZAD ALI BUKHARI2004 PLC(CS) 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-06-11
  unauthorized absencedisciplinary proceedingslimitation periodservice appealcivil servantdepartmental representationminor penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition by the Government of Punjab challenged a judgment by the Punjab Service Tribunal which had set aside a disciplinary penalty imposed on a civil servant for unauthorized absence. The core legal questions were whether a formal inquiry involving cross-examination is necessary when the misconduct is admitted, and whether an appeal filed six years after the penalty is maintainable. The Supreme Court allowed the government's appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that where a civil servant admits to being absent without leave, a detailed inquiry is not required as the facts are not in dispute. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the respondent's appeal before the Tribunal was hopelessly barred by limitation, as it was filed six years after the penalty without evidence of a timely departmental representation or exhaustion of legal remedies. Consequently, the Tribunal erred in both its procedural assessment and its failure to address the statutory limitation period, rendering the appeal non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does an admission of unauthorized absence by a civil servant dispense with the requirement for a formal inquiry and cross-examination of witnesses?
  • Is a service appeal maintainable when filed six years after the imposition of a disciplinary penalty without proof of a timely departmental appeal?
  • Can a Service Tribunal set aside a disciplinary penalty on the ground of procedural deficiency when the underlying facts are admitted by the civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA Versus M.M. CHANDIO, EX-CHIEF ENGINEER, WAPDA2004 PLC(CS) 47 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-05-27
  revisional authoritymajor penaltyremoval from serviceexonerationpersonal hearingservice tribunalcivil petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby the appeal filed by the respondent, an ex-Chief Engineer of WAPDA, against his removal from service was allowed. The respondent was initially exonerated of charges by the Managing Director, but the petitioners subsequently invoked revisional authority under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, to set aside the exoneration and impose a major penalty of removal from service. The core legal question was whether the respondent was afforded a proper opportunity of personal hearing and whether grounds for taking adverse action were communicated prior to the imposition of the major penalty. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal rightly found that no personal hearing was granted to the respondent at the crucial stage when the case was re-examined and the exoneration reversed, and that the show-cause notice failed to disclose the grounds for the major penalty. The petition was dismissed as no substantial question of law of public importance was involved, upholding the principle that natural justice mandates adequate notice and personal hearing before reversing an exoneration to impose a major penalty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether personal hearing is mandatory before reversing an order of exoneration and imposing a major penalty under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
  • Does a show-cause notice issued under Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 require the disclosure of grounds for imposing a major penalty?
  • Can a revisional authority set aside an exoneration order without affording the employee an opportunity of defense against the proposed adverse action?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZAKIR KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH2004 PLC(CS) 420 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-12-10Read full judgment →
• ZI.A-UL-ISLAM HASHMI Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR2004 PLC(CS) 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-01-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. SAMINA NAZEER Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (W)2004 PLC(CS) 371 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-05-14
  civil servicetermination of servicedisciplinary proceedingsregular inquirycompetent authorityservice tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which upheld the termination of the petitioner's services as a civil servant. The petitioner's services were terminated following disciplinary action regarding allegations of an unsigned joining report, a doubtful relinquishment report, and a fake transfer order. The core legal question was whether the termination of services was unlawful due to the absence of a regular departmental inquiry into the allegations. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly determined that the petitioner's name was not on the merit list and that the appointment and joining documents were fabricated. The Court affirmed that a regular inquiry is not mandatory in every instance, as the Competent Authority possesses the discretion to dispense with such an inquiry under the relevant rules when allegations are substantiated by documentary evidence. Consequently, the Court found no question of law of public importance warranting interference, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Competent Authority dispense with a regular inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975?
  • Is a regular inquiry mandatory to terminate a civil servant's services when allegations are proven by documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION Versus Ms. SHAISTA NAHEED2004 PLC(CS) 344 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-11-03
  service appealmisconductsecond inquiryreinstatementback benefitsremoval from servicenatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated an Airhostess into service with back benefits. The respondent was initially proceeded against under the PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 and exonerated by the inquiry officer, but the competent authority ordered a second inquiry under the Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, resulting in her dismissal. The core legal questions involved the legality of initiating a second inquiry after exoneration in the first inquiry, and whether the dismissal under the Ordinance of 2000 was justified. The Supreme Court held that initiating a second inquiry upon the failure of the first inquiry was unjustified, as the petitioner was bent upon removing the respondent from service. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's judgment, finding no misreading or non-reading of evidence, and dismissed the appeal along with noting that no question of general public importance under the Constitution was involved.

  Questions settled

  • Can a competent authority initiate a second departmental inquiry against an employee under a different law after the employee has been exonerated in the first inquiry?
  • Whether the initiation of a fresh inquiry under the Removal From Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 after the failure of the initial inquiry under service regulations is legally justified?
  • Does the imposition of a major penalty like dismissal from service require a proper and regular inquiry complying with the principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus NOOR JAMAL2004 PLC(CS) 328 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-10-20
  reinstatementcivil servicemajor penaltyregular inquirynatural justiceinefficiencydepartmental inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, brought with leave of the Court, was directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which had accepted the respondent's appeal and reinstated him in service with all consequential benefits. The respondent, an Executive Engineer, was dismissed from service on charges of inefficiency and financial irregularity for spending in excess of allocated funds under a development programme. The respondent contended that no regular inquiry was conducted, no witnesses were examined, and the proceedings violated the principles of natural justice. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that for the imposition of a major penalty, a proper and regular inquiry must be conducted in accordance with Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973, which includes providing the delinquent officer an opportunity of defence and a personal hearing. Conducting an inquiry merely by way of a questionnaire without examining witnesses does not satisfy the statutory requirements. Finding no merit in the appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a major penalty of dismissal from service can be imposed on a civil servant without conducting a regular inquiry under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973?
  • Does an inquiry conducted solely by way of a questionnaire, without examining witnesses in support of the charge or defence, satisfy the requirements of a proper departmental inquiry?
  • Can a civil servant be penalized with dismissal where the inquiry proceedings violate the principles of natural justice by denying the opportunity of defence and personal hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division Versus NOOR JAMAL, EX-EXECUTIVE ENGINEER2004 PLC(CS) 312 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-10-20
  civil servicereinstatementdismissal from servicemajor penaltyregular inquirynatural justicedisciplinary proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by leave was filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had reinstated the respondent, a former Executive Engineer, into service after he was dismissed on charges of inefficiency and financial irregularity. The central legal issue was whether the major penalty of dismissal from service could be lawfully sustained where the disciplinary action was taken based on a preliminary fact-finding inquiry conducted via questionnaire, without holding a regular inquiry or providing an opportunity for defence and personal hearing. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Service Tribunal's judgment reinstating the respondent. The Court held that whenever a major penalty is to be awarded against a civil servant, principles of natural justice and Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 mandate conducting a proper regular inquiry, issuing a show-cause notice, examining witnesses, and affording the delinquent officer a fair opportunity to submit a defence and be heard personally. Preliminary questionnaire-based proceedings cannot substitute a regular inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Is a regular inquiry under Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 mandatory before imposing a major penalty on a civil servant?
  • Can a major penalty of dismissal from service be lawfully imposed on the basis of a preliminary fact-finding inquiry conducted via questionnaire?
  • Does the failure to afford a personal hearing and an opportunity to examine defence witnesses during disciplinary proceedings violate principles of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• FEDERAL BANK FOR COOPERATIVES, ISLAMABAD Versus EHSAN MUHAMMAD2004 PLC(CS) 25 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• KHALIQ DAD Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE2004 PLC(CS) 198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-03-04Read full judgment →
• ISLAMIA UNIVERSITY, BAHAWALPUR Versus MUHAMMAD HAMEED BHATTI2004 PLC(CS) 191 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-02-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED2004 PLC(CS) 166 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• NAZAKAT ALI Versus WAPDA2004 PLC(CS) 163 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-04-03
  service appeallimitationcondonation of delaywrong forumgood faithtermination of serviceWAPDA
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his termination from service with WAPDA. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal was time-barred and whether the delay in filing could be condoned. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was indeed hopelessly barred by time. The Court observed that the petitioner failed to pursue his remedies diligently, having approached the National Industrial Relations Commission instead of the appropriate forum, and failed to prove that he had sought such remedy in good faith. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal as time-barred. The key principle laid down is that while time does not run against a void order, a party seeking condonation of delay for approaching a wrong forum must prove that they acted in good faith. Furthermore, the sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay is a question of fact within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, and its exercise of discretion will not be disturbed without strong justification.

  Questions settled

  • Is a party entitled to condonation of delay for approaching a wrong forum if they cannot prove they acted in good faith?
  • Does the limitation period run against an order alleged to be void?
  • Is the sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay a question of fact within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• TANVIR AHMED Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE2004 PLC(CS) 157 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-03Read full judgment →
• STATE PETROLEUM REFINING AND PETROCHEMICAL CORPORATION LIMITED Versus LATEEF SIDDIQUI2004 PLC(CS) 154 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-08-01
  service tribunaldismissal from servicecompulsory retirementmaster and servantlimitationcondonation of delaypetroleum corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil petitions filed against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the dismissal of an employee from the State Petroleum Refining and Petrochemical Corporation Limited. The core legal questions involve whether the Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction under the law to convert an order of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement in the absence of a specific provision for compulsory retirement in the corporate service rules, and whether the Tribunal erred in its findings concerning the proof of charges, limitation condonation, and the master-servant relationship. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions raised by both parties regarding the vires of the Tribunal's judgment and the extent of its powers in modifying departmental penalties, while suspending the operation of the impugned judgment pending the final hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Service Tribunal convert an order of dismissal into compulsory retirement when the employer's service rules do not provide for the penalty of compulsory retirement?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to modify a departmental penalty under the master and servant framework?
  • Did the Federal Service Tribunal properly exercise its discretion in condoning the delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAFAULLAH KHAN NIAZI Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR, FOOD DEPARTMENT, MULTAN2004 PLC(CS) 149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-10-06
  major penaltydisciplinary actionauthority vs authorized officercompetence of authorityleave to appealcivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against a disciplinary decision imposing a major penalty upon a civil servant. The core legal question was whether the departmental Authority has the legal competence to impose a major penalty upon a delinquent officer when the Authorized Officer had recommended otherwise. The Supreme Court held that the Authority is fully competent under the law to differ with the recommendations of the Authorized Officer and impose a major penalty based on the evidence on record, provided that the Authority provides sound and just reasons for such disagreement after issuing notice for personal hearing and considering the relevant documents and defence of the accused official. Finding that no substantial question of law of public importance was involved, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is the departmental Authority competent to impose a major penalty on a civil servant if the Authorized Officer did not recommend it?
  • Can the Authority differ with the recommendation of the Authorized Officer provided it gives sound reasons and affords a hearing to the delinquent official?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Versus Malik MUHAMMAD FEROZE and others2004 PLC(CS) 1261 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-09-29
  civil review petitioncondonation of delayadverse ACRexonerationexpungement of ACRservice matter
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil review petition arises from a time-barred petition filed by the Government of the Punjab against observations made by the Supreme Court in an earlier civil petition. The core legal question concerned whether observations made regarding the expungement of adverse Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) based on an order of exoneration from specific charges adequately protected the government's stance regarding other uncharged remarks. The Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing and held that the judgment under review sufficiently safeguarded the matter by limiting the respondent's right to seek expungement strictly to the remarks concerning the charges from which he was exonerated, leaving other matters to be decided independently by the competent departmental authority upon representation. The key principle laid down is that departmental authorities possess the jurisdiction to examine representations for the expungement of ACR remarks in accordance with law, uninfluenced by prior judicial observations, particularly when exoneration covers specific underlying charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can a delay in filing a review petition be condoned when the judgment under review was passed in the absence of representation?
  • Whether an employee exonerated from charges mentioned in an adverse ACR can approach the departmental authority for expungement of that ACR?
  • Does an exoneration from specific charges automatically warrant the expungement of all remarks in an adverse ACR?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA Versus FIDA HUSSAIN2004 PLC(CS) 1240 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-06-01Read full judgment →
• Maj. (Retd.) TIPU SULTAN KHAN and others Versus SHAHZAD HUSSAIN and others2004 PLC(CS) 1225 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-04-23
  Service matterAppointment quotaArmy OfficersSurvey of PakistanFederal Service TribunalInterpretation of rulesCivil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) RulesConstitutional petitionRecruitment rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses connected appeals challenging a consolidated decision by the Federal Service Tribunal concerning the induction of Army Officers into the Survey of Pakistan. The core legal question revolved around the interpretation and application of a 20% quota reserved for Army Officers of the Corps of Engineers for posts in BPS-19 within the Department of Survey of Pakistan, as stipulated by S.R.O. 305(I)/85. The appellants contended that the Tribunal misinterpreted the rules and an Office Memorandum. The Supreme Court, after reviewing the material and arguments, held that the Tribunal correctly interpreted the statutory notification and the Office Memorandum. It affirmed that the 20% quota for BPS-19 posts was specifically reserved for Army Officers, and that terms and conditions of service or rules applicable after confirmation would only apply subsequent to proper induction into the Survey of Pakistan. The Court found the Tribunal's judgment to be well-reasoned and not open to exception, dismissing the appeals.

  Questions settled

  • How should the 20% quota for Army Officers in BPS-19 posts within the Survey of Pakistan be interpreted?
  • Do terms and conditions of service for Army Officers transferred to the Survey of Pakistan apply prior to their proper induction?
  • Can a letter issued by the Ministry of Defence after a Tribunal judgment affect appeals against that judgment?
  • Is a well-reasoned judgment that properly interprets recruitment rules and an Office Memorandum open to exception?
  • Is the 20% quota for Army Officers in the Survey of Pakistan applicable to posts in BPS-19?
  Read full judgment →
• STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus KHYBER ZAMAN and others2004 PLC(CS) 1213 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-06-10
  golden handshake schemebenevolent fund grantservice tribunalretrospective effectlimitation and lachesvoluntary retirement
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses appeals arising from a common decision of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the claims of bank employees who opted for the Voluntary Golden Handshake Scheme (GHSS) introduced by the State Bank of Pakistan on October 23, 1997. The core legal question was whether employees who retired under the GHSS, which provided a lump sum Benevolent Fund Grant (BFG) equivalent to 10 years, were subsequently entitled to claim increased monthly BFG benefits under a later Circular No. 20 dated November 7, 2000, or under normal retirement regulations. The Supreme Court held that employees who voluntarily opted for the GHSS received a final lump sum payment in lieu of monthly benefits and could not claim both normal retirement benefits and the special package simultaneously. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Circular No. 20 could not be applied retrospectively to former employees who had retired years prior to its issuance, and that their claims were barred by laches and limitation. The appeals were accepted and the Tribunal's judgment was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether employees who opted for a voluntary golden handshake scheme containing a lump-sum benevolent fund grant are entitled to subsequent monthly benevolent fund increases?
  • Can a circular enhancing monthly benevolent fund grants be applied retrospectively to employees who retired years prior to its issuance?
  • Whether an employee can simultaneously claim benefits under normal retirement rules and a special golden handshake scheme?
  • Does a belated claim for service-related financial benefits constitute a recurring cause of action to bypass limitation periods?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. MUHAMMAD ARSLAN Versus CHANCELLOR, QUAID-E-AZAM UNIVERSITY, ISLAMABAD and others2004 PLC(CS) 1207 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-05-27
  tenure posttermination of servicedepartmental appeallimitationnatural justicecondonation of delayvice-chancellor
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the termination of the appellant's services as Vice-Chancellor of Quaid-e-Azam University before the expiry of his statutory four-year tenure. The Federal Service Tribunal had dismissed the appellant's service appeal on the grounds of limitation and failure to file a departmental representation. The Supreme Court addressed whether employees covered under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, are mandated to file departmental representations before approaching the Tribunal, and whether the period spent bona fide pursuing a remedy in the High Court should be condoned for limitation. The Court held that non-filing of a departmental appeal is not fatal for Section 2-A employees, and that the period spent pursuing the remedy in the High Court was condonable due to confusion surrounding the insertion of Section 2-A. On the merits, the Court ruled that where a statutory tenure is fixed, the competent authority must exercise its powers fairly, justly, and transparently, and cannot terminate services arbitrarily without assigning reasons or providing a hearing. The Court set aside the termination but, to avoid administrative disruption, ordered the payment of arrears for the unexpired tenure period instead of reinstatement.

  Questions settled

  • Are employees whose cases fall under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 required to file a departmental appeal or representation before approaching the Service Tribunal?
  • Can the period spent bona fide prosecuting a constitutional petition in the High Court be condoned under the Limitation Act when the forum changes due to the insertion of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Can a competent authority terminate the services of a statutory tenure-post holder before the expiry of their term without assigning reasons or providing an opportunity of being heard?
  Read full judgment →
• I.G. HQ FRONTIER CORPS and others Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and others2004 PLC(CS) 1187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-06-01
  Frontier Corpscivil servantdisciplinary proceedingsspecial law vs general lawimplied repealService Tribunal jurisdictionpara-military force
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns appeals against judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside disciplinary actions against members of the Frontier Corps on the ground that the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, should have been applied instead of the Frontier Corps Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions were whether Frontier Corps employees are civil servants entitled to approach the Service Tribunal, and whether their disciplinary proceedings are governed by the special provisions of the Frontier Corps Ordinance, 1959, or the general provisions of the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. The Supreme Court held that while Frontier Corps members are deemed civil servants for the limited purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, their disciplinary matters are exclusively governed by the special law, the Frontier Corps Ordinance, 1959. The Court established the principle of 'generalia specialibus non derogant,' holding that a general, later statute (the Ordinance of 2000) does not impliedly repeal a special, earlier statute (the Ordinance of 1959) that deals with a specific class of objects or subjects. Consequently, the appeals were allowed and cases remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Are members of the Frontier Corps considered civil servants for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Does the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, impliedly repeal the disciplinary provisions of the Frontier Corps Ordinance, 1959?
  • Which statute governs the disciplinary proceedings of members of the Frontier Corps: the Frontier Corps Ordinance, 1959, or the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. AZAM SARFRAZ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2004 PLC(CS) 1185 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-06-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ and others Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary, Education Department, Punjab, Lahore and others2004 PLC(CS) 1168 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-06-10Read full judgment →
• Syed SHAUKAT IQBAL Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB2004 PLC(CS) 1164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-05-28
  review petitionpension rulesdisciplinary proceedingslimitation periodservice lawerror apparent on the face of record
  Summary & questions settled

  This review petition arises from the dismissal of a service matter concerning the petitioner's retirement benefits. The petitioner sought a review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment, which had upheld the Punjab Service Tribunal's decision regarding disciplinary proceedings initiated against him post-retirement. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings were validly instituted under the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, specifically regarding the timing of the charge-sheet and the necessity of notice. The Court held that the review petition was without merit, as the proceedings were initiated within the one-year limitation period prescribed by Rule 1.8(b) of the Pension Rules. The Court clarified that the institution of proceedings refers to the commencement of the process, not the service of notice. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a review petition is only competent when there is a discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record, neither of which was established here. The principle laid down is that disciplinary proceedings against a pensioner are valid if initiated within one year of retirement, and a review petition cannot be used to re-argue points already decided.

  Questions settled

  • Does the institution of disciplinary proceedings against a pensioner under the Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules require the service of notice within one year, or merely the commencement of the proceedings?
  • What are the permissible grounds for maintaining a review petition in the Supreme Court?
  • Can a review petition be entertained if the judgment is sustainable on other grounds despite an alleged error of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, HYDERABAD Versus IQBAL AHMAD2004 PLC(CS) 115 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-11-28Read full judgment →
• HABIB BANK LIMITED through Attorneys Versus MUHAMMAD ABDUL SAMAD KHAN and another2004 PLC(CS) 1148 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2004-05-27Read full judgment →
• Raja MUHAMMAD AJAIB (R) DIRECTOR, ACCOUNTS, WAPDA BONDS CELL, TARBELA Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE2003 PLC(CS) 973 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-07Read full judgment →
• MEHFOOZ ILAHI PIRACHA Versus SME BANK LIMITED, ISLAMABAD2003 PLC(CS) 971 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-08
  service appealinterim relieftermination of servicespecial leave to appealexpeditious disposalFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against an interim order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which declined to suspend the petitioner's termination from service pending the final disposal of their service appeal. The petitioner, formerly an employee of the Regional Development Finance Corporation, was absorbed into the S.M.E. Bank Limited under Ordinance No. LVI of 2001 before being terminated. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should interfere with an interim order of the Tribunal regarding the suspension of a termination order. The Supreme Court held that the petition against the interim order was not maintainable, noting that granting the requested relief would effectively dispose of the main appeal before the Tribunal. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal but directed the Federal Service Tribunal to expedite the hearing and decide the petitioner's appeal as early as possible. The judgment reinforces the principle that appellate courts are generally reluctant to interfere with interlocutory orders of tribunals when doing so would pre-empt the final adjudication of the substantive dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable against an interim order of the Federal Service Tribunal refusing the suspension of a termination order?
  • Does the granting of an interim suspension of a termination order by an appellate tribunal amount to the final disposal of the service appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• NAZAR HUSSAIN Versus DEPUTY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER2003 PLC(CS) 956 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-04-25Read full judgment →
• EJAZ AHMED WARRAICH Versus PRESIDENT OF U.B.L.2003 PLC(CS) 948 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-03-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL VIRK, S.D.O. Versus CHAIRMAN, AREA ELECTRICITY BOARD, WAPDA, GUJRANWALA2003 PLC(CS) 94 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-19
  WAPDA employeesefficiency and disciplineminor penaltyrecovery of pecuniary lossservice tribunalunauthorized electricity connectionSupreme Court of Pakistan
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal concerning disciplinary proceedings. The appellant, serving as an S.D.O. in WAPDA, was penalized with the recovery of Rs.39,250 under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, for unauthorizedly and surreptitiously providing a commercial electricity connection to a consumer whose industrial connection had been cancelled, thereby causing financial loss to WAPDA. The core legal question was whether the imposition of the minor penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss was justified and within the parameters of the applicable rules. The Supreme Court held that the appellant acted in violation of departmental rules with ulterior motives, causing financial loss through his negligence or breach of orders, and that the penalty imposed by the competent authority was legal and valid. The key principle laid down is that a competent authority under the WAPDA E&D Rules can lawfully impose the penalty of recovery from pay for pecuniary loss caused by an employee's negligence or breach of orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the penalty of recovery of pecuniary loss can be imposed upon a WAPDA employee under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978 for causing financial loss?
  • Does the sanctioning of an unauthorized electricity connection in violation of departmental rules constitute a breach of orders warranting disciplinary action?
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal's appreciation of material and evidence in a disciplinary matter is open to interference when properly reasoned?
  Read full judgment →
• GOVERNOR, STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN Versus SHAMSUL ISLAM2003 PLC(CS) 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-10-30
  remand proceedingsfactual findingsservice tribunalreimbursement of income taxfinality of judgmentcivil petitions
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of civil petitions filed by the Governor of the State Bank of Pakistan challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal, upon remand by the Supreme Court, correctly determined that a departmental representative of the Bank had indeed made a statement regarding the reimbursement of income tax to employees. In the previous round of litigation, the Supreme Court had remitted the case to the Tribunal specifically to verify the factual accuracy of this alleged statement. Following an inquiry, the Tribunal affirmed that the statement was made in the presence of counsel and the parties. The Supreme Court, upon reviewing the petitions, held that the Tribunal had complied with the remand directions and conducted the necessary inquiry. The Court ruled that the Tribunal’s factual findings were conclusive and could not be re-opened in subsequent proceedings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, establishing the principle that factual findings made by a lower forum pursuant to a specific remand order are final and not subject to re-litigation in the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Can factual findings made by a tribunal pursuant to a specific remand order be re-opened in appellate proceedings?
  • Is a tribunal's determination regarding a statement made by a departmental representative conclusive after a directed inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• ALTAF HUSSAIN SHAH Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE2003 PLC(CS) 904 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
• Khawaja ABDUL HAMEED NASIR Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN2003 PLC(CS) 880 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-03-05
  Provident FundPensionary benefitsService lawPolicy circularInterpretation of instrumentsSocial securityNational Bank of PakistanEmployee rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the entitlement of National Bank of Pakistan employees to their full Provident Fund contributions following a 1977 policy circular that restructured pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether employees whose service was already pensionable were required to surrender the bank’s Provident Fund contributions upon the introduction of the new scheme, or if the scheme applied automatically without such forfeiture. The Supreme Court held that the circular discontinued existing schemes for National Bank of Pakistan employees by operation of law. The Court determined that the option clause requiring the surrender of employer contributions applied exclusively to non-pensionable employees. Consequently, the bank’s withholding of its contributions was declared illegal. The Court established the principle that policy instruments must be construed as a whole, prioritizing the underlying intent of providing social security over isolated clauses. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the benefit of this interpretation extends to all similarly situated employees to ensure complete justice, mandating the payment of the full Provident Fund balance, including bank contributions and interest, to all affected employees.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the 1977 policy circular regarding pensionary benefits applied automatically to employees of the National Bank of Pakistan whose service was already pensionable?
  • Does the requirement to surrender employer contributions to a Provident Fund apply to employees whose service was already pensionable prior to the introduction of a new pension scheme?
  • Can the benefit of a judicial interpretation regarding service benefits be extended to all similarly situated employees not party to the specific litigation?
  • Does the closure of a Provident Fund entitle employees to the full accumulated amount, including employer contributions and interest?
  Read full judgment →
• INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, KARACHI Versus SHAFQAT MEHMOOD2003 PLC(CS) 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-27Read full judgment →
• Dr. NAVEEDA TUFAIL and 72 others Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2003 PLC(CS) 69 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-25Read full judgment →
• ADMINISTRATOR, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD2003 PLC(CS) 547 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-11-23Read full judgment →
• GOVERNMENT OF SINDH Versus ILYAS KHICHI2003 PLC(CS) 545 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2000-04-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN Versus PRINCIPAL, AYUB MEDICAL COLLEGE2003 PLC(CS) 539 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-03Read full judgment →
• Major (Retd.) ABDUL WAHEED KHAN Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL2003 PLC(CS) 533 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1999-08-17Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MAHMOOD Versus AUDITOR-GENERAL OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD2003 PLC(CS) 531 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-07-11
  service appealwilful absencemedical leaveremoval from servicehabitual absenteeleave to appeal
  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, directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding the removal of the petitioner, a Senior Auditor, from service due to unauthorized absence from duty. The core legal question revolved around whether absence from duty on medical grounds can justify non-compliance with leave sanction procedures and vitiate departmental proceedings initiated for wilful absence. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to properly apply for leave or inform the authorities in the prescribed manner, and that the Service Tribunal was fully justified in examining the petitioner's past service record to establish his habitual absenteeism. The court concluded that leave on medical grounds does not exempt a civil servant from adhering to procedural requirements or justify wilful absence without sanction. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can leave applied on medical grounds under the Revised Leave Rules, 1980 be refused by the competent authority?
  • Whether the Service Tribunal can examine the past service record of a civil servant to determine habitual absenteeism?
  • Does failure to apply for leave properly justify departmental proceedings for wilful absence from duty?
  Read full judgment →
• MANAGING DIRECTOR (POWER), WAPDA Versus MUHAMMAD LUQMAN2003 PLC(CS) 526 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-10
  pro forma promotionseniorityservice tribunaldepartmental representationWAPDAcivil servantlimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that directed the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) to grant the respondent pro forma promotion as a Revenue Officer from the date his junior was promoted, along with the entitlement to BPS-17. The core legal questions concerned whether the respondent's appeal to the Tribunal was time-barred, whether he possessed a vested right to promotion, and the interpretation of rules governing his grade entitlement. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, deemed a civil servant by legal fiction under WAPDA service laws, was required to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Tribunal, rendering his appeal timely as it was filed after his representation. The Court affirmed that while there is no absolute vested right to promotion, arbitrary deviations from established rules are justiciable. Furthermore, the Court upheld the Tribunal's interpretation that the relevant rules entitled the respondent to BPS-17 upon promotion, subject to qualifying departmental examinations. The principle established is that WAPDA employees, treated as civil servants, must exhaust departmental representations before appealing to the Service Tribunal, and that promotion rules must be applied consistently to avoid arbitrary denial of seniority-based benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Are WAPDA employees required to exhaust departmental remedies before filing an appeal with the Service Tribunal?
  • Does an employee have a justiciable right to challenge promotion decisions if the competent authority deviates from established rules for arbitrary reasons?
  • Does the Note in Appendix I of the Pakistan Power Wing Commercial and Revenue Officers Rules 1982 mandate the grant of BPS-17 to a promotee upon selection?
  Read full judgment →
• ABDUL KHALIQUE Versus THE UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI2003 PLC(CS) 524 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-11-11Read full judgment →
• Malik SHAUKAT HAYAT Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2003 PLC(CS) 52 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-03
  house rent allowancebasic pay scaleservice lawabsorption of employeesdesignation vs pay scaleWAPDA rulespay protection
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, by leave of court, was filed against the majority judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the entitlement of a WAPDA employee to House Rent Allowance. The appellant, formerly employed by a taken-over power company, was absorbed into WAPDA and placed in Basic Pay Scale (BPS) 7 due to his higher existing salary, despite the post of Meter Reader normally carrying BPS-5. Following an audit objection, his House Rent Allowance was reduced to BPS-5 level based on his designation. The core legal issue was whether House Rent Allowance is payable according to the employee’s basic pay scale or according to the designation or post held. The Supreme Court set aside the majority decision of the Service Tribunal and ruled in favor of the appellant. The Court held that House Rent Allowance is directly referable to the basic pay scale enjoyed by an employee rather than their designation. Consequently, an employee drawing pay in a higher basic pay scale is entitled to allowance calculated on that scale.

  Questions settled

  • Whether House Rent Allowance is calculated based on an employee's basic pay scale or the designation of the post held?
  • Does granting an allowance based on a higher basic pay scale to an absorbed employee constitute unlawful discrimination against colleagues holding the same designation in a lower pay scale?
  • Is an employee absorbed into a statutory authority entitled to allowances corresponding to their higher protected basic pay scale?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JANAN Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD2003 PLC(CS) 517 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-11-11
  forced retirementservice rulessuperannuationreinstatementback benefitspretextual retirementservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an employee of the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation, challenged his forced retirement before the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the action under the Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine the legality of the retirement. The Court found that the petitioner's service was governed by the Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation Rules, which mandate retirement only upon attaining the age of 60 years. As the petitioner had not reached this age, the retirement was declared illegal. Furthermore, the Court rejected the respondent's plea of financial constraints, noting that the corporation had simultaneously promoted numerous other officers and maintained a healthy financial status, rendering the 'retirement' a mere pretext. The Court held that the Service Tribunal erred by conflating retirement with termination. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the Court ordered that if the appellant had not reached the age of 60, he must be reinstated with full back benefits; otherwise, he is to be treated as retired upon reaching that age with all applicable benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee be retired from service before attaining the age of superannuation prescribed by the relevant service rules?
  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal err in law by treating a forced retirement as a termination under the Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Is a claim of financial constraints by a state-owned corporation a valid ground for the premature retirement of an employee when evidence suggests otherwise?
  Read full judgment →
• SHAMAS-UD-DIN KHAWAJA Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2003 PLC(CS) 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-09
  compulsory retirementdepartmental inquirymajor penaltycriminal chargesacquittalservice tribunalcivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an A.S.-I. in the Intelligence Bureau, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his appeal and confirmed his compulsory retirement from service. The disciplinary proceedings stemmed from a criminal case registered against him and his brother, resulting in a show-cause notice and the imposition of a major penalty without conducting a regular inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of compulsory retirement could be validly imposed without holding a regular inquiry, and whether departmental proceedings could solely rely on criminal charges that ultimately ended in acquittal. The Supreme Court held that for imposing a major penalty, a regular inquiry under the rules cannot be dispensed with, and ample convincing and reliable evidence must be placed on record. The Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and reinstated the appellant. The key principle laid down is that dispensing with a regular inquiry while imposing a major penalty under disciplinary rules is unlawful, particularly when departmental action is entirely founded on criminal charges that result in acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a regular inquiry be dispensed with when imposing a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Whether departmental proceedings initiated solely on the basis of criminal charges can be sustained when the accused is acquitted by a competent court of law?
  • Does the failure to conduct a full-fledged inquiry vitiate the imposition of compulsory retirement on a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• PRESIDENT, UNITED BANK LTD. Versus IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN KHAN2003 PLC(CS) 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-12-13Read full judgment →
• AAMIR IKRAM Versus DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, VEHARI2003 PLC(CS) 488 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-12-04
  service tribunaltermination of servicesback benefitslimitationdelay in filing petitionsubstantial justiceparity of treatment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, which had accepted the petitioners' appeals against the termination of their services but treated the intervening period as extraordinary leave. The core legal question concerns whether the delay of 146 days in filing the petitions should bar the petitioners from obtaining the same relief—specifically back benefits—that was already granted by the Supreme Court to their co-employees in identical circumstances arising from the same impugned judgment. The Supreme Court held that the delay in filing the petitions should not impede the dispensation of complete and substantial justice, noting that the department ought to have extended the same benefits to the present petitioners voluntarily. The Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed the petitioners all back benefits. The key principle laid down is that procedural delays should be condoned to ensure substantial justice and parity of treatment among similarly situated employees when identical relief has already been granted to co-employees by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delay in filing petitions can be condoned when co-employees sailing in the same boat have already been granted relief by the court?
  • Should an employer department extend the benefit of a judgment to all similarly situated employees without forcing them into litigation?
  • Can the Supreme Court grant back benefits to petitioners despite a delay of 146 days in filing the leave to appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA Versus SHARAFAT HUSSAIN2003 PLC(CS) 479 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-01-14
  compulsory retirementaudi alteram partemmala fideservice lawWAPDAright of hearingservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside the compulsory retirement of several employees. The core legal question was whether WAPDA could compulsorily retire employees under Section 17(1-A)(a) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, without providing them an opportunity of hearing, particularly when previous departmental inquiries into the same charges had failed to prove misconduct. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly interfered with the retirement orders. The Court affirmed that while the Authority possesses summary powers under the Act, these powers are not unfettered, unbridled, or arbitrary. The principle laid down is that where an action of premature retirement is exercised in a colourable manner with mala fide intention, or where adverse action is contemplated, the affected employee is entitled to a right of hearing under the principle of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the reinstatement of the employees.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Water and Power Development Authority compulsorily retire an employee under Section 17(1-A)(a) of the WAPDA Act 1958 without providing a right of hearing?
  • Does the power to retire an employee under Section 17(1-A)(a) of the WAPDA Act 1958 grant the Authority unfettered or arbitrary discretion?
  • Is a compulsory retirement order passed under Section 17(1-A)(a) of the WAPDA Act 1958 subject to judicial review if it is tainted with mala fide intentions?
  Read full judgment →
• ZULFIQAR-UL-HUSNAIN Versus OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION2003 PLC(CS) 368 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-01-15
  service tribunalpromotionexecutive grouppay scalesdiscriminationoil and gas development corporationassistant officers
  Summary & questions settled

  These civil appeals arose from a consolidated judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal concerning employees of the Oil and Gas Development Corporation who joined as Assistant Officers (Non-Technical) and were initially placed in Executive Group I (EG-I) upon the introduction of pay groups replacing basic pay scales, while Assistant Officers (Technical) were placed in EG-II. The core legal question was whether Assistant Officers (Non-Technical) were entitled to be promoted directly from EG-I to EG-III to maintain parity with technical officers, or whether they had to progress sequentially through EG-II. The Supreme Court held that Assistant Officers from both categories fell within the same class and could not be subjected to discriminatory treatment in promotions, setting aside the Tribunal's view and ruling that the appellants were entitled to promotion to EG-III directly from their original grade, preventing discriminatory pay and promotion disparities. The key principle laid down is that administrative delegation cannot override core policy decisions protecting employee terms and conditions, and similarly situated employees must not face discriminatory treatment in career progression.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Assistant Officers (Non-Technical) placed in Executive Group-I are entitled to direct promotion to Executive Group-III to maintain uniformity with Technical Officers?
  • Can a delegatee authority lay down a promotion policy that nullifies the foundational policy decisions taken by the Board of Directors?
  • Does shifting from Executive Group-I to Executive Group-II for a non-technical officer amount to a promotion when technical officers started in Executive Group-II?
  • Whether discriminatory treatment in the matter of promotion among similarly situated employees violates service jurisprudence?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD2003 PLC(CS) 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-28Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION Versus INAYAT RASOOL2003 PLC(CS) 333 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-05-27Read full judgment →
• SAMIULLAH KHAN MARWAT Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2003 PLC(CS) 317 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-04-02Read full judgment →
• MIR AMAN SHAH Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR, ISLAMABAD2003 PLC(CS) 274 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-21Read full judgment →
• DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ORDNANCE SERVICES, GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, RAWALPINDI Versus MUHAMMAD ABDUL LATIF2003 PLC(CS) 262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-11-14Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASADULLAH SHAIKH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2003 PLC(CS) 231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-11-22
  civil servantdismissal from servicemisconductcorruptionshow-cause noticedisciplinary proceedingsformal inquiryGovernment Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner, a civil servant, from service. The petitioner, while serving as Managing Director of the National Investment Trust, faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged misconduct and corruption, including unauthorized equity investments and living beyond his means. The Authorized Officer, invoking Rule 5(1)(iii) of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, dispensed with a formal inquiry and proceeded via a show-cause notice. The petitioner contended that a regular inquiry was mandatory for corruption charges and that the failure to issue a second show-cause notice vitiated the proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the decision to dispense with a formal inquiry under Rule 5(1)(iii) depends on the nature of the charges and the evidence available. Since the charges were documented and the petitioner was fully apprised of the case and the proposed penalty, the procedure was legally sufficient. The Court further affirmed that a second show-cause notice was not required in these circumstances and noted the petitioner's persistent failure to appear for hearings.

  Questions settled

  • Is a formal inquiry mandatory in all disciplinary proceedings involving charges of corruption against a civil servant?
  • Under what circumstances can an Authorized Officer dispense with a formal inquiry under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
  • Is a second show-cause notice legally required before imposing a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, when the initial show-cause notice was comprehensive?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAHID RASHID Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2003 PLC(CS) 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-09-24Read full judgment →
• IMTIAZ AHMAD MAHMOOD Versus FEDERAL BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, ISLAMABAD2003 PLC(CS) 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-10-31
  service tribunalcivil servantjurisdictionvoid orderwithout jurisdictioncivil court decreeunconditional withdrawal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant, an employee of the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Islamabad, challenged his dismissal through a civil suit in 1995 as employees were not civil servants at the time. A civil court decreed the suit in his favour on 30-6-1997. Meanwhile, section 2A was inserted into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on 10-6-1997, giving board employees the status of civil servants. The Board filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal against the civil court decree, but subsequently withdrew it unconditionally. The Tribunal, however, made observations declaring judgments regarding service matters passed after 10-6-1997 to be void. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a civil court's judgment or declare its decree void. The Court clarified that the civil court decree passed on 30-6-1997 was without jurisdiction rather than void ab initio, and since the Board's appeal against it was unconditionally withdrawn, the decree held the field and became final. The appeal was accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against the judgment and decree of a Civil Court?
  • What is the distinction between an order that is void and an order passed without jurisdiction?
  • What is the legal effect of an unconditional withdrawal of an appeal?
  • Does Section 6 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 become redundant after six months of the promulgation of the Act?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN RANGERS (SINDH)2003 PLC(CS) 1418 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-06-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAVEED IQBAL Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2003 PLC(CS) 1239 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2003-06-12Read full judgment →
• PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, I. I. CHUNDRIGAR ROAD, KARACHI Versus MUHAMMAD ALI SABRI2003 PLC(CS) 1103 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-06-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM Versus U.B.L.2003 PLC(CS) 1061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2001-11-26
  retrenchmentservice benefitslimitationdismissal in liminepast and closed transactionconsent judgmentservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed appeals filed by former employees of United Bank Limited challenging their retrenchment. The petitioners, who had not challenged their termination at the time of the retrenchment scheme in 1997, sought relief years later, relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Akram Zahoor v. Federation of Pakistan. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal could dismiss time-barred appeals in limine and whether the petitioners were entitled to terminal benefits based on the Akram Zahoor precedent. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal acted correctly in dismissing the appeals in limine as they were significantly time-barred and concerned past and closed transactions. The Court further clarified that the Akram Zahoor judgment was a consent-based decision and did not constitute a binding precedent for non-parties. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief sought, as their claims were both procedurally barred and substantively unsupported by the cited case law.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Federal Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal in limine if it is time-barred?
  • Does a consent judgment of the Supreme Court constitute a binding precedent for non-parties?
  • Are retrenched employees entitled to pensionary benefits if they were terminated rather than retired?
  • Can a party claim relief based on a previous Supreme Court judgment if they did not challenge their termination at the relevant time?
  Read full judgment →
• GENERAL MANAGER/CIRCLE EXECUTIVE MUSLIM COMMERCIAL2002 PLC(CS) 982 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-29Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION Versus Captain M.S.K. LODHI2002 PLC(CS) 960 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-03-28
  service appeallimitation periodcondonation of delayreinstatementlump sum compensationMartial Law Regulationclean hands doctrinewaiver of rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal, which had granted relief to the respondent, a former employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, regarding a claim for compensation following his removal under Martial Law Regulation 52. The core legal questions concerned whether the Tribunal could condone a nine-year delay in filing the appeal, whether the respondent was entitled to lump sum compensation after opting for reinstatement but failing to join duty, and the validity of the Wafaqi Mohtasib's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the respondent’s appeal before the Tribunal was hopelessly time-barred, and pursuing remedies in the wrong forum did not constitute a reasonable cause for condonation. Furthermore, the Court determined that by opting for reinstatement and submitting a joining report, the respondent had waived his right to claim compensation. His subsequent failure to join duty, despite multiple extensions, and his lack of clean hands regarding his employment status elsewhere, disentitled him to the relief granted by the Tribunal. The Court set aside the impugned judgment, affirming that the Corporation correctly disallowed the compensation claim.

  Questions settled

  • Can a service appeal be entertained by a Tribunal after a delay of nine years?
  • Does pursuing a remedy in a wrong forum constitute sufficient cause to condone a delay in filing an appeal?
  • Does an employee waive the right to claim compensation upon opting for reinstatement and submitting a joining report?
  • Is an employee entitled to compensation if they fail to join service after being granted extensions for secondment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN, STENOGRAPHER, FINANCE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD Versus SECRETARY, PRIVATIZATION COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD2002 PLC(CS) 958 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-10
  willful absencedisciplinary proceedingscompulsory retirementstoppage of incrementsmove-overFederal Service Tribunalleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a government servant, challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Federal Service Tribunal regarding a disciplinary action for willful absence from duty. The petitioner had been absent on multiple occasions and failed to provide adequate justification or medical certification when requested. Following disciplinary proceedings, he was initially compulsorily retired, but the Departmental Appellate Authority, on compassionate grounds, converted this penalty to the stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner appealed this decision to the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner sought leave to appeal, raising issues regarding the penalty and the subsequent denial of 'move-over' benefits. The Supreme Court held that no question of law of public importance, as required under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was involved. The Court found the petitioner's case meritless, noting that the departmental authority had already adopted a lenient stance. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal, clarifying that grievances regarding 'move-over' benefits must be agitated separately before the departmental authorities and the Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a service matter involving disciplinary action for willful absence necessarily raise a question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Can a government servant challenge the denial of 'move-over' benefits in a petition primarily concerning the imposition of a disciplinary penalty?
  • Is the Supreme Court required to grant leave to appeal in service matters where the departmental authority has already taken a lenient view of the misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN2002 PLC(CS) 956 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-10
  condonation of delaylimitationregistered coverpresumption of servicecertified copyservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal was filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Quetta, which had dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The petition before the Supreme Court of Pakistan was barred by limitation by 23 days, and the petitioner sought condonation of delay claiming he did not receive a certified copy of the judgment from the Tribunal according to the Rules until he applied for it himself. The Supreme Court considered whether the petitioner had established sufficient cause for condonation of delay regarding the receipt of the judgment copy. The Court held that under Rule 21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974, the Tribunal sends a certified copy under registered cover, and pursuant to Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, there is a legal presumption that service was duly effected upon the petitioner. The Court ruled that the burden shifted to the petitioner to rebut this presumption, which he failed to do. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does a legal presumption of valid service arise under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897 when a court or tribunal dispatches a judgment copy under registered cover?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie to demonstrate non-receipt of a judgment copy when an endorsement indicates it was dispatched via registered mail?
  • Can delay in filing an appeal be condoned merely on a bare assertion of non-receipt of a judgment copy sent by a tribunal pursuant to procedural rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir NAZIR AHMAD SHAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2002 PLC(CS) 953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-08
  service appealcondonation of delaycivil servant statusretrospective operationSection 2-AService Tribunals Actlimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former employee of the FATA Development Corporation, sought leave to appeal against the Federal Service Tribunal's dismissal of his service appeal. The petitioner had been removed from service for the alleged defalcation of cement bags. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal on two grounds: first, that the petitioner was not a civil servant at the time the impugned orders were passed, as Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which granted such status, was not retrospective; and second, that the appeal was time-barred. The Supreme Court, referencing established precedents regarding the fluid state of the law concerning the retrospective application of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, held that the Tribunal should have adopted a lenient approach toward the petitioner's application for condonation of delay. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and remanded the matter for a fresh, lenient reconsideration of the delay condonation application, with instructions to decide the appeal on its merits to avoid further remands.

  Questions settled

  • Should the Federal Service Tribunal take a lenient view when considering applications for condonation of delay regarding appeals filed after the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  • Does the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, have retrospective effect for employees dismissed prior to its enactment?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL, FRONTIER CORPS, N W.F.P., PESHAWAR2002 PLC(CS) 933 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-08
  Frontier Corpsdisciplinary forceservice disciplinedismissal from servicedepartmental inquirylawful ordersFederal Service Tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the removal of the petitioner, a Junior Clerk in the Frontier Corps, from service. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's boycott of a mandatory departmental examination, his instigation of other staff to boycott, and his refusal to participate in the subsequent disciplinary inquiry constituted sufficient grounds for dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner’s conduct was a clear violation of lawful orders and unbecoming of a member of a disciplinary force. The Court affirmed the removal, establishing that members of a disciplinary force are strictly obligated to obey the lawful orders of their command. Furthermore, the Court held that a subordinate cannot dictate the composition of an inquiry committee or demand the selection of specific examiners. As the petitioner intentionally violated discipline and sought to undermine the authority of his command, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, ultimately dismissing the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Can a member of a disciplinary force dictate the composition of an inquiry committee?
  • Does the boycott of a mandatory departmental examination by a member of a disciplinary force constitute valid grounds for removal from service?
  • Is a subordinate entitled to demand the selection of specific examiners for a departmental examination?
  Read full judgment →
• BADSHAH HASSAN Versus INTERIOR MINISTRY2002 PLC(CS) 930 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2002-01-10
  compulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingsmisconducthabitual absenceservice tribunalleave to appealfinding of fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the compulsory retirement of the petitioner, a government servant, following disciplinary proceedings for unsatisfactory performance and willful absence. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary action was conducted in accordance with mandatory legal formalities and whether the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the petitioner's misconduct warranted interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted properly, with all mandatory legal formalities under the relevant rules being satisfied and the petitioner afforded a proper opportunity of hearing. The Court found the petitioner's habitual absenteeism and lack of interest in official duties clearly established by the record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that the action taken by the competent authority was neither whimsical nor arbitrary. The key principle laid down is that where no substantial question of law of public importance is raised, findings of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal based on evidence and record are not subject to interference by the Supreme Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal where no substantial question of law of public importance is raised?
  • Is a disciplinary order of compulsory retirement valid if the mandatory formalities under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 were followed and the employee was afforded an opportunity of hearing?
  Read full judgment →