Latest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND WEALTH TAX Versus MUHAMMAD ASIF1997 PLC(CS) 93 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal setting aside the removal from service of the respondent, a government driver who had been penalized under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 for allegedly forging his date of birth on his identity card. The core legal question concerned the validity of the Tribunal's reliance on official documents—such as a school leaving certificate, domicile certificate, and birth register extract—to verify the respondent's correct date of birth as 1969. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal committed no error in accepting these documents, noting that they were produced at the instance of the petitioner's own counsel who had inspected the originals without raising any objection or seeking verification time. The Court established that a party cannot challenge the evidentiary use of documents produced upon their own challenge and inspection when no opportunity for verification was requested at the relevant stage. Consequently, finding no question of public importance, the Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can rely on school leaving and domicile certificates to determine an employee's correct date of birth?
- Can a party object to the evidentiary value of documents produced at their own instance and inspected without objection before the Tribunal?
- Does a factual dispute regarding an employee's date of birth constitute a matter of public importance warranting leave to appeal?
- BASHARAT ALI Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION, LAHORE1997 PLC(CS) 817 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which partly allowed the appellant's service appeal by substituting his dismissal from service with removal from service for alleged misconduct regarding temporary embezzlement of government money. The core legal question was whether the department was justified in dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry based on the material available when the employee vehemently denied the charges. The Supreme Court held that where the allegations of misconduct are of a serious nature and are explicitly denied by the accused civil servant, a regular inquiry cannot be dispensed with, as disputed questions of fact cannot be resolved fairly without recording evidence and affording an opportunity of cross-examination. The Court set aside the impugned judgments, ordered the reinstatement of the appellant with back benefits subject to a gainful employment inquiry, and laid down the principle that the discretion to dispense with a regular inquiry under disciplinary rules must be exercised reasonably and fairly depending on the facts of each case.
Questions settled- Whether a regular inquiry can be dispensed with under the disciplinary rules when a civil servant categorically denies serious charges of misconduct involving disputed questions of fact?
- Does the discretion of an authorised officer to dispense with a regular inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, remain absolute or is it subject to fairness and reasonableness?
- What is the extent of the right to a fair hearing and cross-examination in departmental disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- NOOR ELAHI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1997 PLC(CS) 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition filed by a Head Clerk in the Pakistan Air Force (PAF) challenging an adverse Annual Confidential Report (ACR) recorded in 1991. The petitioner, having served for thirty-one years, contended that the adverse report was biased, as it was authored by a Reporting Officer under whom he served for only one year and who allegedly harbored a grievance against him. Furthermore, the petitioner argued that the communication of this adverse ACR was delayed by nearly four years, occurring only on August 15, 1994, which constituted a procedural violation of the specific instructions governing Confidential Reports for PAF Civilians. The core legal question before the Court was whether an adverse ACR communicated with significant, unexplained delay and allegedly motivated by personal bias should be expunged. Upon considering the petitioner's submissions regarding the procedural irregularities and the questionable circumstances of the report's issuance, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the validity of the adverse ACR and the potential violation of the governing administrative instructions.
Questions settled- Does a significant delay in communicating an adverse Annual Confidential Report to a civil servant constitute a violation of administrative procedure?
- Can an adverse Annual Confidential Report be challenged on the grounds of personal bias by the Reporting Officer?
- Are the instructions contained in the Confidential Reports for PAF Civilians mandatory for the validity of an adverse report?
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Versus GHULAM SARWAR KHAN1997 PLC(CS) 77 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH Versus UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF ENGINEERS, TAXILA1997 PLC(CS) 76 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Lecturer Assistant who served in Grade-11 for over ten years and subsequently obtained Selection Grade-17, grievance is that he was denied promotion against the post of Laboratory Supervisor Grade-16 within the sixty-seven percent quota. Instead, respondent No. 3 was brought from another department and posted as a temporary arrangement, which had been continuing for six years while the petitioner had six years remaining before superannuation. The core legal question is whether the petitioner is entitled to promotion against the quota post and whether the prolonged temporary arrangement denying such promotion is valid. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding his promotion entitlement. The key principle laid down is that prolonged temporary appointments cannot indefinitely frustrate the promotion rights of eligible departmental candidates entitled to quota posts.
Questions settled- Whether an eligible employee is entitled to promotion against a quota post instead of a prolonged temporary arrangement?
- Can a temporary appointment from another department continue indefinitely to the detriment of departmental promotees?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus NIAZ AHMAD1997 PLC(CS) 750 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUZAFFAR ABBAS Versus PAKISTAN1997 PLC(CS) 70 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by Muhammad Muzaffar Abbas concerning a dispute over seniority in Grade-18 based on the adjustment of seniority in Grade-17. The core legal question was whether a seniority list that was not circulated could form the final basis for determining aggrieved rights without affording an opportunity for representation. The Supreme Court noted the departmental representative's candid admission that the 1992 seniority list was never circulated. Holding that fairness requires proper circulation of the list to enable aggrieved persons to seek remedies, the Court set aside the impugned order. The ratio established is that a seniority list must be duly circulated to the affected personnel, allowing them to file departmental representations and subsequently approach the appropriate forum such as the Federal Service Tribunal if aggrieved.
Questions settled- Whether an uncirculated seniority list can be used to prejudice the service rights of an employee without providing an opportunity for representation?
- What is the proper procedure for an aggrieved civil servant to challenge a seniority placement after the circulation of a seniority list?
- ABDUL KHAIIQ Versus SECREATARY, SENATE SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD1997 PLC(CS) 7 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
- FARRUKH HUSSAIN MIRZA Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1997 PLC(CS) 60 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD1997 PLC(CS) 6 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
- ABDUL SATTAR Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1997 PLC(CS) 57 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-14Read full judgment →
- AZAD KHAN Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD1997 PLC(CS) 447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL1997 PLC(CS) 435 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD LQBAL Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF/SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AUQAF DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1997 PLC(CS) 416 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM CHAUDHRY Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, COMMUNICATIONS AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1997 PLC(CS) 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-18Read full judgment →
- GULFRAZ RAJA Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION1997 PLC(CS) 30 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
- NAZIR AHMAD Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE1997 PLC(CS) 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former J.V. Teacher, challenged the dismissal of his service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. Initially, the Tribunal dismissed his appeal on the grounds of non-exhaustion of departmental remedies and merits. Upon a previous remand by the Supreme Court, the Tribunal's Chairman found the departmental order irregular and ordered reinstatement, but the majority of the Tribunal members disagreed, holding that the appeal remained non-maintainable due to the petitioner's failure to exhaust departmental remedies before filing. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the interplay between Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Specifically, the Court sought to determine whether an appeal filed prematurely before a Service Tribunal becomes competent once the 90-day statutory period for departmental appeal processing has elapsed without a final decision. Furthermore, the Court aimed to clarify whether a question of maintainability, once addressed by the Supreme Court in a remand order, can be re-agitated before the Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does a premature appeal filed before a Service Tribunal become competent if the 90-day period for departmental appeal processing elapses before the Tribunal decides the case?
- Can a question of maintainability, once addressed by the Supreme Court in a remand order, be re-agitated before the Tribunal?
- Is an appeal before a Service Tribunal maintainable if the departmental appeal was pending but not finally decided at the time of filing?
- KHALID YUSUF KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1997 PLC(CS) 279 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-03Read full judgment →
- AIJAZ AHMAD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1997 PLC(CS) 27 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-26Read full judgment →
- GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL1997 PLC(CS) 174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by the General Manager, Pakistan Railways against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which expunged an adverse annual confidential report for the period from January 1, 1994, to December 31, 1994, characterizing respondent No.2 as an unwilling worker without pre-counselling as allegedly required under the rules. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal was justified in expunging the adverse entry when the department contended that pre-counselling was unnecessary due to fourteen other similar adverse reports issued against the employee advising him to improve, which were not produced before the Tribunal due to the absence of prior allegations. The Court granted leave to consider the contentions raised by the petitioner department regarding the necessity of pre-counselling and the existence of other adverse reports.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal was justified in expunging an adverse annual confidential report on the ground of lack of pre-counselling?
- Can the department rely on other adverse reports not produced before the Service Tribunal to justify the absence of pre-counselling?
- MUHAMMAD SALEEM SADDOZAI Versus CAHAIRMN, P.O.F., WAH1997 PLC(CS) 171 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal regarding seniority vis-a-vis respondent No. 3. The Tribunal had held that under section 9-A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971, respondent No. 3 was entitled to count his period of compulsory service for seniority. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that section 9-A applied only to employment under the Federal and Provincial Governments and did not extend to service under the Pakistan Ordnance Factories (P.O.F.), which did not constitute service under either government. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised a question requiring examination and accordingly granted leave to appeal to consider the applicability of the statutory provision.
Questions settled- Does section 9-A of the Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces Ordinance, 1971 apply to service under the Pakistan Ordnance Factories?
- Is service under the Pakistan Ordnance Factories considered service under the Federal or Provincial Government for the purpose of seniority determination?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus NOOR HUSSAIN PATHAN1997 PLC(CS) 164 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had allowed the appeal of respondent Noor Hussain Pathan and reinstated him in service with back benefits after he was dismissed for allegedly aiding and abetting the escape of a smuggler in his custody. The core legal question is whether the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal is sustainable in law and whether it properly appraised the entire record, including previous inquiry reports, statements of witnesses, and the respondent's own F.I.R. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the Tribunal failed to properly go through the entire record and the reasons provided by the authorised officer for disagreeing with the inquiry findings. The key principle laid down is that a service tribunal must conduct a comprehensive and proper appraisement of the entire evidentiary record before setting aside disciplinary action taken by competent authorities.
Questions settled- Whether the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal is sustainable in law when it fails to properly appraise the entire record?
- Can an authorised officer disagree with the findings of an inquiry officer by recording cogent reasons in the show-cause notice?
- TAZA KHAN Versus GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL), RAILWAY HEADQUARTERS, LAHORE1997 PLC(CS) 161 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
- JAVED HUSSAIN SHAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1997 PLC(CS) 1215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an interim stay order passed by the Lahore High Court in a Constitutional petition. The petitioner challenged the High Court's jurisdiction, arguing that the dispute, which related to the terms and conditions of service, fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The petitioner had filed an application in the High Court to vacate the stay order based on this jurisdictional bar, but the High Court had not yet adjudicated that application. The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had issued the interim stay order without addressing the critical question of its own jurisdiction under Article 212. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and remanded the matter to the High Court with a specific direction to decide the stay application only after first determining whether it possessed jurisdiction in light of the constitutional bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a Constitutional petition regarding the terms and conditions of service in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Must a High Court decide the question of its own jurisdiction before passing an interim stay order in a service-related matter?
- MUHAMMAD RAMZAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1997 PLC(CS) 1175 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RIASAT, S.E.T. (SCIENCE) Versus SECRETARY OF EDUCATION, N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR1997 PLC(CS) 1095 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
- NASIMULHAQUEMALIK Versus CHIEFSECRETARYTOGOVERNMENTOFSINDH,KARACHI1996 PLC(CS) 921 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, challenging a Sindh Service Tribunal judgment that declared departmental promotees senior to direct recruits. The core legal question was whether the regularization of promotees in 1977, which exceeded the established 50:50 quota, conferred seniority over direct recruits, and whether the quota could be implicitly altered by executive action. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation. Relying on Section 9 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973, the Court ruled that departmental candidates are only eligible for promotion against posts reserved for them under the rules. Consequently, promotions made in excess of the quota are not regular from the date of the order but only from the date a vacancy within the quota becomes available. The Court affirmed that statutory quota ratios cannot be altered by implication or executive fiat without formal amendment of the relevant rules. Accordingly, the appeals were accepted, and the seniority list was ordered to be revised based on the prescribed quota and the dates of direct recruitment.
Questions settled- Can departmental promotees claim seniority over direct recruits if their promotion exceeded the prescribed quota?
- Does the phrase 'for the time being' in Section 9(1) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 allow for the implicit alteration of promotion quotas?
- Can a competent authority alter the promotion quota of civil servants without formally amending the relevant service rules?
- From what date is a promotion regularized if it was initially made in violation of the prescribed departmental quota?
- DIVISIONALSUPERINTENDENT,PAKISTANRAILWAYS,LAHORE Versus MUHAMMADHALIM1996 PLC(CS) 918 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-14Read full judgment →
- FARIDMUHAMMAD Versus SECRETARY,MINISTRYOFFOOD,AGRICULTUREANDCOOPERATIVES,GOVERNMENTOFPAKISTAN,ISLAMABAD1996 PLC(CS) 891 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three appeals arising from a Federal Service Tribunal judgment regarding the repatriation and seniority of a civil servant, Farid Muhammad, who sought to return to the Ministry of Food and Agriculture from the National Council for Conservation of Wildlife (NCCW). The core legal questions were whether the respondent retained a lien in his parent department after confirmation in another organization, whether his service appeal was time-barred, and whether the appeal was incompetent due to the non-joinder of affected parties. The Supreme Court held that upon confirmation in the NCCW, the respondent ceased to hold a lien in the Ministry, rendering his claim for repatriation legally unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court determined that the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by limitation and incompetent for failing to implead necessary parties, thereby violating the principle of audi alteram partem. Additionally, the Court affirmed that the respondent was ineligible for the Secretariat Allowance. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant’s lien in a parent department terminates upon regular confirmation in another organization, and service appeals must strictly adhere to limitation periods and joinder requirements.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant retain a lien in their parent department after being confirmed in a post in another organization?
- Is a service appeal incompetent if the appellant fails to implead parties whose seniority would be adversely affected by the relief sought?
- Does the termination of a departmental appeal trigger the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Is an employee of an Attached Department entitled to the Secretariat Allowance if the allowance is not specifically applicable to that class of personnel?
- MUHAMMADANWAR Versus CHIEFSECRETARYTOGOVERNMENTOFN.W.F.P1996 PLC(CS) 887 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-19Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBARKHAN Versus GOVERNMENTOFSINDH1996 PLC(CS) 862 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service matter concerns a seniority dispute where the appellant challenged the dismissal of his appeal by the Sindh Service Tribunal. The core questions were whether the appeal was time-barred, whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and whether uncommunicated adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report could justify denying seniority. The Supreme Court held that the burden of proving the communication of an adverse order lies with the government; having failed to prove such communication, the appellant's appeal was deemed timely. Furthermore, the Court held that the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction because the dispute concerned seniority determination under the relevant rules rather than fitness for promotion. The Court established the principle that uncommunicated adverse remarks are ineffective and cannot form the basis for denying seniority. Under Rule 13(iv) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, a civil servant not considered for promotion for reasons other than unfitness is entitled to seniority in the same batch as their juniors upon subsequent promotion.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proving the communication of an administrative order lie with the government when a civil servant denies receiving it?
- Is a dispute regarding seniority determination under the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975 barred by proviso (b) to section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Can uncommunicated adverse remarks in an Annual Confidential Report be used as a valid basis to deny a civil servant's seniority?
- Under Rule 13 of the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975, is a civil servant entitled to seniority in the same batch as their juniors if they were not considered for promotion for reasons other than unfitness?
- SAGHIRAHMADNAQVI Versus PROVINCEOFSINDH1996 PLC(CS) 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal examined whether the ad hoc appointment of a Civil Judge had matured into a regular appointment, thus excluding it from the Martial Law Order No. 55 of 1978, and whether constitutional petitions remain maintainable against interlocutory orders when a final order regarding service terms and conditions has been passed, attracting the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the appellant's post fell within the definition of ad hoc appointment under MLO 55, and once a final order of removal from service was passed by the competent authority, the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, as interim or pending orders cannot be challenged in constitutional jurisdiction to bypass exclusive statutory forums. The Court laid down the principle that the writ jurisdiction of superior courts cannot be invoked to challenge interlocutory service matters or defeat exclusive statutory forums, and that even constitutional issues relating to service terms must be raised before the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether an ad hoc appointment matures into a regular appointment so as to be excluded from the ambit of Martial Law Order No. 55?
- Does the High Court retain constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 once a final order regarding service terms and conditions has been passed, attracting Article 212 of the Constitution?
- Can constitutional petitions be maintained against interlocutory orders when the governing statute or Constitution provides an exclusive forum of appeal only against final orders?
- MUHAMMADISLAMQAMAR Versus ABDURRASHID1996 PLC(CS) 793 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
- ABDUL RASHIDKHAN Versus MUHAMMADSALEEMAKHTAR1996 PLC(CS) 791 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
- MUEENULLAH Versus MEDICALSUPERINTENDENT,DHQHOSPITAL,KASUR1996 PLC(CS) 759 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
- WATERANDPOWERDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY Versus FIDAMUHAMMADKHAN1996 PLC(CS) 700 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which converted the respondent employee's removal from service into compulsory retirement. The respondent, employed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), was removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958, following allegations of receiving illegal gratification without a formal inquiry. Upon appeal, the Tribunal altered the penalty, taking into account the return of the amount and the respondent's length of service. The core legal question examined was whether the Tribunal was justified in converting the punishment of removal to retirement on such grounds. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal possesses the appellate jurisdiction to alter, modify, or substitute departmental penalties where orders under Section 17(1-A) are passed without a regular inquiry or opportunity of hearing for misconduct. The key principle laid down is that while length of service alone may not suffice in cases of proved corruption through regular inquiry, the Tribunal can competently grant relief and modify punishments based on valid reasons and mitigating circumstances when summary penal powers are invoked without due inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to alter or substitute an order of removal from service passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 with an order of compulsory retirement?
- Can the length of service and the return of the disputed amount serve as valid grounds for the Service Tribunal to reduce a penalty awarded by the departmental authority?
- Does an employee removed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act 1958 without a regular inquiry into allegations of misconduct suffer condemnation without an adequate opportunity of hearing?
- SAJJADAHMEDJAVEDBHATTI Versus SECRETARY,ESTABLISHMENTDIVISION,ISLAMABAD1996 PLC(CS) 652 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal in limine. The petitioner, a civil servant, sought to challenge his previous supersession for promotion to Grade-19, arguing that the Central Selection Board had made a mistake in 1983 and subsequently recognized it. Having failed in previous litigation before the Tribunal and the Supreme Court regarding his seniority and promotion, the petitioner attempted to reopen the matter by invoking Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alleging fraud. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could initiate fresh proceedings to review final judgments based on claims of fraud regarding a past administrative decision. The Supreme Court held that the previous judgments were based on the valid record of the Central Selection Board at the time and contained no error justifying a review under Section 12(2). The Court affirmed the Tribunal's dismissal, establishing that final judicial orders cannot be reopened through such proceedings absent genuine grounds of fraud, though the dismissal does not preclude departmental remedies if otherwise available under the law.
Questions settled- Can a final judgment of a court be reopened under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the basis of an alleged administrative mistake in a promotion board's decision?
- Does the dismissal of a petition for leave to appeal preclude a civil servant from seeking relief at the departmental level if otherwise entitled under the law?
- KHAWARMUNIRDAR Versus DIRECTOR-GENERAL,EXCISEANDTAXATICA,PUNJAB1996 PLC(CS) 463 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged the legality of the Punjab Service Tribunal's judgment dismissing his service appeal, on the ground that one of the members of the Tribunal who heard the appeal had retired prior to the announcement of the judgment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined whether a judgment signed by a Tribunal member before retirement but announced after his retirement constitutes a valid judgment of the Tribunal. The Court held that a judgment takes effect from the date of its announcement, and since the member had already retired by that date, he was no longer a member of the Tribunal, rendering the judgment invalid. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh rehearing.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment signed by a tribunal member before retirement but announced after retirement is valid?
- Does a judgment take effect from the date it is recorded or the date it is announced?
- What is the legal effect of an order pronounced by a tribunal member who has ceased to hold office?
- POSTMASTER-GENERAL,'AJK&FCISLAMABAD Versus MUHAMMADZORAB1996 PLC(CS) 398 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which modified the respondent's penalty of compulsory retirement to the stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal is justified in altering the quantum of punishment imposed by the departmental authority. The Supreme Court held that Service Tribunals are forums of appeal on both questions of law and fact with the power to uphold, set aside, or vary impugned orders, provided that the Tribunal gives cogent reasons satisfying standards of reasonableness to avoid arbitrariness. The Court found that the Tribunal had fully applied its mind, noted the lack of direct evidence, the lesser punishment awarded to the primary offender, and the disproportionate nature of compulsory retirement for mere supervisory negligence. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that the Supreme Court will only interfere with a Service Tribunal's decision on quantum of punishment if the order lacks application of mind or suffers from arbitrariness.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal has the power to alter or modify the quantum of punishment imposed by a departmental authority?
- What are the limitations on the Service Tribunal's power to interfere with factual conclusions and penalties in service appeals?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's decision regarding the reduction of a departmental penalty unless it is arbitrary or lacks application of mind?
- CHAIRMAN,WAPDA,LAHORE Versus GULBATKHAN1996 PLC(CS) 376 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals filed by the Chairman, WAPDA, against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified disciplinary penalties imposed on a respondent employee. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal is mandatorily required to remand a case to the disciplinary authority whenever an impugned order is found to be arbitrary or lacking sufficient reasons, or if the Tribunal possesses the authority to substitute the penalty itself. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal is not obligated to remand the case in every instance where an order is set aside. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal possesses the requisite power to set aside or substitute penalties. The principle laid down is that remand is not a routine matter to be adopted to allow authorities to fill lacunae or improve their case. Instead, where the record is sufficient and the facts are clear, the Tribunal may decide the matter on merits, particularly in cases involving lack of bona fides, bias, or arbitrariness.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have the power to substitute a penalty imposed by a disciplinary authority?
- Is the Service Tribunal legally obligated to remand a case to the disciplinary authority whenever an impugned order is found to be arbitrary or lacking reasons?
- Under what circumstances is it appropriate for the Service Tribunal to remand a case to the disciplinary authority rather than deciding it on the merits?
- SECRETARYTOGOVERNMENTOFPUNJAB,HEALTHDEPARTMENT,LAHORE Versus SARWARJEHANHAQ,NURSINGSUPERINTENDENT,DHQHOSPITAL,SHEIKHUPURA1996 PLC(CS) 357 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-17Read full judgment →
- WAPDA Versus MUHAMMADFARIDKHAN1996 PLC(CS) 355 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
- NAWAZKHAN Versus FEDERALGOVERNMENT1996 PLC(CS) 350 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-11Read full judgment →
- SECRETARYTOGOVERNMENTOFN.W.F.P.,ZAKAT/SOCIALWELFAREDEPARTMENT,PESHAWAR Versus SADULLAHKHAN1996 PLC(CS) 348 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
- SAEEDIBNEALITIRMIZI Versus PAKISTANWATERANDPOWERDEVELOPMENTAUTHORITY1996 PLC(CS) 345 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's challenge against his removal from service by the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, 1958. The appellant, a Transport Supervisor, had contested his removal, alleging that the action was motivated by his trade union activities and personal vendettas involving a superior officer. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, erroneously concluding that the appellant had neither alleged nor substantiated any mala fides in his pleadings. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the appellant had explicitly raised the issue of mala fides in his grounds of appeal before the Tribunal, detailing specific allegations against a Project Director. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's finding was factually unfounded and ignored material evidence on the record. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a fresh determination specifically on the question of whether the removal order was tainted by mala fides, emphasizing the necessity of addressing pleaded facts.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is required to adjudicate upon specific allegations of mala fides if they are pleaded in the grounds of appeal?
- Can an appellate tribunal dismiss an appeal on the basis that mala fides were not alleged when the record demonstrates such allegations were present?
- Does the failure of a tribunal to consider material evidence on the record regarding mala fides warrant a remand of the case?
- M.MUNEERHASSAN Versus CHANCELLOR,N.E.D.UNIVERSITYOFENGINEERINGANDTECHNOLOGY/GOVERNOROFSINDH,KARACHI1996 PLC(CS) 1229 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, the former Vice-Chancellor of the N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology, challenged the dismissal of his Constitution petition by the High Court, which had upheld his removal from office by the Chancellor prior to the expiration of his four-year term. The core legal question concerned whether the appellant's removal, effected during the Chancellor's pleasure, was legally sustainable given the statutory tenure, and whether the subsequent enactment of the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, necessitated the abatement of the current proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, as an officer of the University, fell within the definition of a civil servant under the amended Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, pursuant to the abatement provisions introduced by the 1994 Amendment Act, the Court ruled that the pending appeal must abate, as the matter regarding the terms and conditions of service now falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sindh Service Tribunal. The principle established is that where statutory amendments retrospectively classify university employees as civil servants, pending litigation in higher courts regarding their service terms must abate in favor of the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Does the Sindh Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1994, cause the abatement of pending litigation regarding the service terms of a university employee?
- Are employees of a university established by a provincial enactment considered civil servants for the purposes of the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- AFTAB AHMED Versus GENERAL MANAGER, WAPDA1995 PLC(CS) 871 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner, a Senior Engineer with WAPDA, was initially penalized with a reduction in his time-scale for misconduct. While his departmental appeal was pending, the authority issued a notice under Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1978, to reconsider the punishment. Subsequently, the authority dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged this dismissal, arguing that the order failed to provide reasons for the enhancement of the punishment, relying on precedent regarding the necessity of reasoned orders in disciplinary proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the contention that an order passed under Rule 12 must disclose valid reasons for enhancing a penalty. Finding that the legal question regarding the sustainability of an enhancement order lacking explicit reasoning required further examination, the Court granted leave to appeal to address whether the authority's failure to articulate reasons for the enhancement rendered the dismissal order legally unsustainable.
Questions settled- Does an order passed under Rule 12 of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Disciplinary) Rules, 1978, for the enhancement of a penalty require the disclosure of reasons for such enhancement?
- Is an order of dismissal sustainable if it fails to provide specific reasons for enhancing a previously imposed penalty?
- SAFIA AZIZ Versus DIL ARA MALIK1995 PLC(CS) 852 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- SHAHID IQBAL Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD1995 PLC(CS) 846 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- ANWAR MUHAMMAD Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE1995 PLC(CS) 803 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal regarding adverse remarks in his Annual Confidential Report (A.C.R.) on the grounds of limitation. The appellant had initially submitted a representation to an incompetent authority (the Divisional Superintendent) rather than the General Manager, as required by the performance evaluation guidelines. Years later, he submitted a fresh representation to the General Manager, which was rejected on merits rather than limitation. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal as time-barred when the competent authority had already adjudicated the representation on merits. The Supreme Court held that since the initial representation was made to an incompetent authority, the subsequent representation to the General Manager was the first valid one. Furthermore, because the General Manager decided the representation on merits without raising a limitation objection, the delay was impliedly condoned. The Court established that a tribunal cannot dismiss an appeal on limitation grounds when the competent authority has already waived that objection by deciding the matter on its merits.
Questions settled- Can a service tribunal dismiss an appeal on the ground of limitation if the competent authority previously decided the underlying representation on its merits?
- Does a decision on merits by a competent authority constitute an implied condonation of delay?
- Is a representation filed before an incompetent authority legally valid for the purpose of calculating limitation periods?
- IMRAN RAZA ZAIDI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1995 PLC(CS) 802 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a miscellaneous application seeking a stay order, which had previously been refused at the time leave to appeal was granted. During the proceedings, counsel for both parties agreed that the retention of the original record by the Supreme Court was unnecessary as the paper books were prepared and relevant documents could be incorporated. Consequently, the Court directed that the record be returned to the Service Tribunal. Furthermore, upon the joint request of the parties, the Court ordered that the main appeal be scheduled for an out-of-turn hearing. As a result of these directions, the miscellaneous application for a stay was rendered infructuous and was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a miscellaneous application for a stay be dismissed as infructuous if the parties agree to an expedited hearing of the main appeal?
- Is it permissible for the Supreme Court to direct the return of the record to the Service Tribunal when paper books are ready?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus SHALIIDA SHAH1995 PLC(CS) 801 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, RAWALPINDI1995 PLC(CS) 799 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1995 PLC(CS) 795 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding the reversion of the appellant from the post of Staff-car Driver to Naib-Qasid on allegations of misconduct involving the damage and replacement of vehicle tyres. The core legal question was whether a major penalty of reversion based on allegations amounting to theft and gross negligence could be imposed without conducting a regular departmental inquiry. The Supreme Court held that where the charge involves serious allegations such as theft, a regular inquiry must be held to record evidence and afford the accused an opportunity of cross-examination, especially in the absence of a written decision by the authorized officer dispensing with the inquiry. The appeal was accordingly accepted, the impugned judgment set aside, the appellant's employment as Driver restored, and a direction issued for a regular inquiry to be conducted in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Whether a regular inquiry is mandatory before imposing a major penalty for misconduct involving allegations of theft?
- Can an employee be penalized for misconduct without being afforded an opportunity of hearing and cross-examination?
- Is it necessary for the authorized officer to record written reasons for dispensing with a regular inquiry?
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus ABDUL RASHID1995 PLC(CS) 792 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which allowed the respondent's appeal directing the department to consider him for promotion to the post of Director-General (BPS-20). The core legal question was whether an outsider could be appointed to a promotional post by transfer without first considering an eligible departmental candidate for promotion according to the applicable recruitment rules. The Supreme Court held that under the recruitment rules, the post was to be filled primarily by promotion, and resorting to other methods of recruitment such as transfer was permissible only if no departmental officer was eligible. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the Government could not induct an outsider without first considering the eligible respondent, and consequently dismissed the petition as it raised no substantial question of law of public importance.
Questions settled- Whether an outsider can be appointed to a promotional post without first considering eligible departmental candidates under the recruitment rules?
- Does a service tribunal have the authority to direct the department to place an eligible employee's case before the selection board for promotion?
- Whether the induction of an officer by transfer is permissible when eligible candidates for promotion are available within the department?
- FALAK SHER KHAN Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE1995 PLC(CS) 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding a service seniority dispute. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction and proper scope of proceedings before the Punjab Service Tribunal upon remand by the Supreme Court, specifically whether the Tribunal could direct the Provincial Government to decide a representation rather than inquiring into the maintainability and fulfillment of statutory preconditions of the appeal. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the Tribunal erred by directing the Provincial Government to decide the matter, clarifying that the Tribunal must itself determine the maintainability of the appeal based on the expiration of the statutory ninety-day period following departmental representation. The key principle laid down is that service tribunals must strictly adhere to the scope of remand orders and independently resolve jurisdictional prerequisites concerning departmental remedies under the relevant service laws rather than remitting matters back to the executive authorities.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal can direct the Provincial Government to decide a pending departmental representation instead of determining the maintainability of the service appeal itself?
- What is the effect of the expiration of the ninety-day period after moving a departmental representation under the Punjab Service Tribunal Act?
- ABDUL RASHID Versus RIAZUDDIN , Mumtaz Khan, A.S.D.E.O.1995 PLC(CS) 744 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged a judgment declaring his appointment as a Chowkidar in a Government Primary School void ab initio. The appointment had been made in 1988 following the termination of the respondent, who had previously served as a part-time Bhishti-cum-Chowkidar. The petitioner's appointment was secured based on the recommendation of a Member of the Provincial Assembly (MPA). The core legal question was whether an appointment to a government post made solely on the recommendation of a political representative, such as an MPA, is legally sustainable. Relying on the precedent established in Munawar Khan v. Niaz Muhammad and others (1993 SCMR 1287), the Supreme Court held that the allocation of appointment quotas to Ministers, MNAs, or MPAs, and any appointments made pursuant to such recommendations, are illegal and void ab initio. Consequently, the Court upheld the impugned judgment, affirming that such political interference in the recruitment process is impermissible, and refused to grant leave to appeal, thereby maintaining the invalidation of the petitioner's appointment.
Questions settled- Are appointments to government posts made on the recommendation of an MPA legal?
- Does the allocation of appointment quotas to political representatives like MNAs or MPAs render resulting appointments void ab initio?
- MEHTAB GUL Versus COMMISSIONER, AFGHAN REFUGEES, PESHAWAR1995 PLC(CS) 743 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-12-06Read full judgment →
- KARAMAT HUSSAIN Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1995 PLC(CS) 640 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQ MALIK Versus PUNJAB SERVICE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE1995 PLC(CS) 638 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which denied the appellant's request for five advance increments under the Government of Punjab, Finance Department memo dated 6-12-1975. The core legal question was whether the appellant, a diploma holder, was entitled to these increments, given the Tribunal's restrictive interpretation of the eligibility criteria. The Supreme Court, relying on the precedent established in 'Government of Punjab and another v. Muhammad Amin', held that the Tribunal erred in distinguishing the appellant's case based on his diploma status, as the A.B. Course AMIE (Pakistan) is also a diploma course. The Court determined that the appellant's entitlement was fully covered by the cited precedent, which established that the benefit of advance increments applies to incumbents of posts where the prescribed qualification is graduation, regardless of whether the specific incumbent is a graduate or holds a recognized diploma equivalent. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and affirmed the appellant's entitlement to the five advance increments.
Questions settled- Is a diploma holder entitled to five advance increments under the Government of Punjab Finance Department memo dated 6-12-1975?
- Does the precedent in 'Government of Punjab and another v. Muhammad Amin' apply to diploma holders seeking advance increments?
- Can a Service Tribunal deny advance increments to an employee by distinguishing their qualification from that of a graduate when the underlying course is equivalent?
- DIRECTOR, SMALL INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, QUETTA Versus HAMEEDULLAH KHAN1995 PLC(CS) 623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Balochistan Service Tribunal judgment that expunged adverse remarks recorded in the respondent’s Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) for 1989 and 1990. The core legal question concerned whether the Service Tribunal was justified in disregarding the adverse remarks of the second countersigning officer, given the established principle of hierarchical precedence in ACR assessments. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal’s decision. The Court held that while the opinion of the highest reporting officer generally prevails in a hierarchical bureaucracy, this principle does not shield remarks proven to be the result of bias, prejudice, or mala fide intent. An ACR tainted by bias lacks legal validity, regardless of the rank of the officer recording it. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while procedural delays in recording ACRs do not automatically vitiate them, significant unexplained delays may undermine their authenticity. Ultimately, the Service Tribunal retains the jurisdiction to scrutinize the validity of ACRs to ensure they are based on objective assessment rather than personal vendetta or improper motives.
Questions settled- Does the principle of hierarchical precedence in ACRs apply when the remarks are proven to be biased?
- Can a Service Tribunal expunge adverse remarks from an ACR if it finds the reporting officer acted with mala fide intent?
- Does a delay in recording an Annual Confidential Report automatically render the remarks invalid?
- Is the opinion of the highest reporting officer in an ACR assessment absolute?
- ABDUL ALI Versus ABDUL RAZIQ1995 PLC(CS) 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal claiming seniority against respondent No.1 regarding the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. The core legal question involves whether the Balochistan Public Service Commission could recommend respondent No.1 as the principal candidate and relegate the petitioner based on zonal allocation, despite the petitioner securing the higher merit position, and how seniority is to be determined under the applicable service rules. The court held that these questions require consideration and granted leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that selection and subsequent seniority must strictly adhere to the advertised merit position and relevant service rules without arbitrary shifts in zonal allocation.
Questions settled- Whether the Public Service Commission can alter a candidate's merit position by applying zonal allocation policies contrary to the initial advertisement?
- How is seniority to be determined between officers selected for the same training course under different recommendations?
- Whether a service tribunal erred in dismissing an appeal regarding seniority based on flawed Public Service Commission recommendations?
- KHALID KHAN Versus SENIOR MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE1995 PLC(CS) 1142 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the selection of Naib-Tehsildars from the ministerial quota under the West Pakistan Naib Tehsildari and Tehsildari Service Rules, 1962. The core legal question is whether the selection of candidates on merit is valid without standardized criteria or minutes showing comparative evaluation, and whether the relaxation of the upper age limit for certain respondents was lawful. The Supreme Court held that leave to appeal should be granted to examine these administrative and statutory questions, noting that discretionary powers delegated by a legislative body require meaningful standards. The key principle laid down is that where discretionary power is exercised in administrative appointments, standards and manifest principles must guide the evaluation of candidates' comparative merits.
Questions settled- Whether selection on merit from amongst members of ministerial service to the post of Naib-Tehsildar is valid without manifestly laying down criteria for comparative evaluation?
- Whether the relaxation of the upper age limit granted to a candidate is covered under the applicable delegation of powers and circulars?
- SHAHID M. AKHTAR Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1994 PLC(CS) 988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals challenge the Federal Service Tribunal's decision regarding the removal of Executive Engineers from the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA). The appellants, removed under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958, alleged discriminatory treatment, arguing that other officers involved in similar irregularities faced only minor disciplinary actions. The core legal questions concerned whether this differentiation constituted illegal discrimination and whether the removal orders were factually sound. The Supreme Court held that the Authority possessed a reasonable basis to distinguish between categories of officers, as the appellants were identified as primary culprits who ignored prior warnings. Consequently, the Court upheld the removal of most appellants, affirming that judicial review under Section 17(1-A) is limited to assessing competency, amenability, and mala fides. However, the Court set aside the removal of one appellant, finding the order was based on the factually incorrect premise that he had absconded while on authorized leave. The judgment establishes that administrative actions are not discriminatory if based on reasonable distinctions in conduct and that orders predicated on non-existent facts are unsustainable.
Questions settled- Is the removal of an employee under Section 17(1-A) of the Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 subject to judicial review on the grounds of discrimination?
- Does the categorization of delinquent officers for different disciplinary actions constitute illegal discrimination if the conduct of the officers is not identical?
- Can an administrative order of removal be sustained if it is based on a factually incorrect premise regarding the employee's conduct?
- HADI BUX Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH1994 PLC(CS) 924 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the Sindh Service Tribunal's dismissal of an appeal filed by an employee of the Sindh Provincial Assembly Secretariat regarding his service termination. The core legal question was whether employees of the Provincial Assembly Secretariat constitute "civil servants" entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the appellant, as an employee of the Assembly Secretariat, holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province and thus falls within the definition of "civil servant" under Section 2(a) of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Court reasoned that the definition of "civil servant" does not require appointment under a specific Act of the Assembly, nor does the existence of separate recruitment rules preclude the status of a civil servant. By virtue of Rule 13 of the Sindh Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment) Rules, 1974, which incorporates provincial secretariat rules by reference, the appellant is subject to the civil service framework. Consequently, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter on merits.
Questions settled- Are employees of the Provincial Assembly Secretariat considered civil servants under the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973?
- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear appeals filed by employees of the Provincial Assembly Secretariat?
- Does holding a post in the Provincial Assembly Secretariat constitute holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province?
- MILITARY ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL RAWALPINDI Versus CH. AZIZ-UD-DIN1994 PLC(CS) 790 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 24-11-1992, which had allowed the respondent's appeal regarding the payment of a special allowance. The core legal question concerns the interpretation and application of Fundamental Rule 17 regarding the entitlement of a civil servant to draw pay and allowances attached to a post. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that under Fundamental Rule 17, an officer begins to draw pay and allowances from the date they assume the duties of the post, and the respondent was not entitled to the special allowance from a date prior to his actual promotion and assumption of charge. The key principle laid down is that entitlement to pay and allowances for a particular post strictly commences from the date of assumption of the duties of that post pursuant to Fundamental Rule 17.
Questions settled- From which date is a civil servant entitled to draw pay and allowances attached to a post under Fundamental Rule 17?
- Whether an officer can claim special pay for a period prior to assuming the duties of the post in question?
- Did the Federal Service Tribunal correctly interpret Fundamental Rule 17 regarding the commencement of allowances?
- MUHAMMAD FAKHRUDDIN KHAN Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD1994 PLC(CS) 654 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service matter concerns the seniority and pensionary benefits of a former East Pakistan government employee repatriated to Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the period spent by the appellant waiting for posting after repatriation (18-9-1974 to 22-10-1976) should be treated as on duty for the purposes of seniority and pension under Ordinance XI of 1983. The Federal Service Tribunal had previously dismissed the appellant's claim as time-barred. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the waiting period must be counted as duty for seniority and pensionary benefits, consistent with the precedent established in Federation of Pakistan v. Zaki Ahmad Siddiqui. The Court further held that since the departmental authority had decided the appellant's representation on merits, the appeal before the Tribunal was not time-barred. The key principle laid down is that the period spent by repatriated employees waiting for posting after arrival in Pakistan constitutes service on duty for the purpose of determining seniority and pensionary entitlements.
Questions settled- Should the period spent by a repatriated former East Pakistan employee waiting for posting in Pakistan be counted as duty for seniority and pension purposes?
- Does a departmental authority's decision on the merits of a representation reset the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Is the period spent by a repatriated employee as a prisoner of war (POW) countable towards seniority and pensionary benefits?
- MUHAMMAD BAKHSH Versus MUHAMMAD JAN , Muhammad Younas1994 PLC(CS) 623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUL KHALIQ Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA)1994 PLC(CS) 594 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Line-Superintendent employed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA), challenged a disciplinary penalty of reversion to a lower post for three years. The disciplinary action stemmed from allegations that the petitioner had authorized an unauthorized electricity connection in a village. The petitioner admitted to the act but contended he acted under the verbal orders of his Sub-Divisional Officer. Following unsuccessful departmental representations and a failed appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, the petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether the petitioner had acted under the orders of his superior, which the Court identified as a pure question of fact. The Supreme Court observed that the Sub-Divisional Officer had not supported the petitioner's assertion of having received such orders. Consequently, the Court held that the petition did not raise any substantial question of law of public importance. Leave to appeal was refused, affirming the disciplinary outcome.
Questions settled- Does a contention regarding the factual basis of a disciplinary order raise a substantial question of law of public importance?
- Can an employee justify unauthorized official actions by claiming they were performed under the verbal orders of a superior who denies giving such orders?
- MUHAMMAD USMAN QURESHI Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, LAHORE1994 PLC(CS) 499 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
- MUHARNMADASLAMKHAN Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION1994 PLC(CS) 497 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's claim for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (BPS-16) with retrospective effect from June 1985. The petitioner, having obtained a B.Sc. degree in 1985, contended he fulfilled the eligibility criteria for promotion under the relevant service rules. The Tribunal had previously held that the petitioner was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in 1988 and found unsuitable, leading to his eventual promotion in 1991 on a seniority-cum-fitness basis. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal misread the record regarding the petitioner's consideration by the DPC in 1988. The Supreme Court observed that the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner was considered and rejected in 1988 was a misreading of the record, as the department's position was that he was not eligible for consideration at that time. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the petitioner was prima facie eligible for consideration for promotion against the 25 percent quota from 1985.
Questions settled- Does the mere possession of requisite qualifications for a promotional post automatically entitle a civil servant to promotion?
- Can a Service Tribunal's finding based on a misreading of the record regarding a Departmental Promotion Committee's proceedings be set aside?
- Is a civil servant eligible for consideration for promotion against a quota once they acquire the necessary educational qualifications?
- SARWAR ALI KHAN Versus CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH1994 PLC(CS) 411 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for salary and benefits of the post of Registrar (BS-18) for the period he served in that capacity on his own pay and status. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, appointed to a higher post on his own pay and status for an extended period while fully qualified for regular promotion, is entitled to the salary of that higher post. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was entitled to the salary and benefits of the higher post from the date of his initial appointment. The Court reasoned that the statutory provision allowing for special pay in lieu of the higher salary is intended for temporary arrangements where the appointee lacks necessary qualifications. Since the appellant was fully qualified and performed the duties of the higher post for three years without valid justification for the delay in his regular promotion, denying him the salary was inequitable. The Court established that a civil servant performing the full duties of a higher post for which they are qualified cannot be deprived of the corresponding salary.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant entitled to the salary of a higher post if they are appointed to it on their own pay and status while fully qualified for regular promotion?
- Can the provision for special pay under the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 be used to deny the salary of a higher post to a qualified civil servant serving in that capacity for an extended period?
- Does the failure to challenge an initial notification of appointment on own pay and status bar a subsequent service appeal for salary arrears?
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus SAEED AHMED KHAN1994 PLC(CS) 331 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
- AMANULLAH KHAN Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY1994 PLC(CS) 1623 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a review petition filed under Article 188 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, read with Order XXVI of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, seeking review of an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court which had dismissed the petitioner's civil petition. The core legal question involved whether the petitioner, an employee transferred from the Provincial Government to WAPDA and subsequently dismissed for securing unauthorized foreign employment during ex-Pakistan leave, was improperly proceeded against and whether grounds for review existed. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was a permanent employee of WAPDA whose lien with the provincial government stood abolished upon permanent absorption, and that he had committed misconduct by securing employment abroad in violation of his express undertaking. The court concluded that no error or ground for review was made out. The petition was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming the legality of the departmental disciplinary action and the previous judgment.
Questions settled- Whether a review petition under Article 188 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the dismissal of a service appeal without showing a patent error?
- Does the lien of a provincial government employee transferred to WAPDA remain intact after permanent absorption?
- Whether obtaining foreign employment during ex-Pakistan leave without permission constitutes misconduct warranting dismissal from service?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PAK. RAILWAYS1993 PLC(CS) 972 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a service matter where the appellant, a Grade-12 railway employee, was removed from service following a departmental inquiry that found him guilty of inefficiency and causing a significant shortage of ballast. The appellant challenged the proceedings, contending that the Divisional Engineer (a Grade-18 officer) was incompetent to issue the charge-sheet, as the relevant rules designated the Deputy Head of the department (a Grade-19 officer) as the competent 'Authorised Officer', thereby rendering the entire proceedings without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court observed that while this argument was raised, the question was a mixed one of law and fact, confined to the appellant's specific case and lacking general public importance. Consequently, the Court held that Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was not attracted. Additionally, the Court rejected the appellant's plea of unequal treatment regarding harsher punishment compared to colleagues, ruling that a rightly punished individual cannot claim benefits erroneously allowed to others. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a mixed question of law and fact confined to the specific circumstances of an individual appellant satisfies the requirement of a question of law of public importance under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a civil servant challenge a validly imposed disciplinary punishment on the ground of discrimination if other guilty colleagues received lighter penalties or were not proceeded against?
- SECRETARY; COMMUNICATION AND WORKS DEPARTMENT, LAHORE Versus RIAZ AHMAD , Ejaz Ahmad Khan1993 PLC(CS) 969 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, an Executive Engineer, was dismissed from service after abandoning his post. Following a successful appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal, he was reinstated, with the intervening period treated as extraordinary leave without pay. Subsequently, the respondent sought to count this period of extraordinary leave towards his increments and pension, a request the Tribunal granted. The department appealed this decision to the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether extraordinary leave could be counted towards increments and pension under the applicable civil service rules. The Supreme Court held that under Rule 4.9 of the Civil Service Rules, extraordinary leave generally does not count for increments, except where the leave was beyond the civil servant's control. The Court allowed the period after the respondent reported for duty to count towards increments but denied the period of his voluntary absence. Regarding pension, the Court held that Rule 2.7 of the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules strictly excludes extraordinary leave from qualifying service, granting no discretion to authorities to include it. The Tribunal’s order regarding pension was therefore set aside.
Questions settled- Does extraordinary leave count towards increments under Rule 4.9 of the Civil Service Rules (Vol. I, Part I)?
- Can a civil servant claim increments for a period of absence that was within their own control?
- Does Rule 2.7 of the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules allow for the inclusion of extraordinary leave in qualifying service for pension purposes?
- Does the competent authority have discretion to count extraordinary leave towards pension under the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules?
- SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT, LAHORE Versus ABDUL MAJID MIRZA Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court (absent) and Sh. Masud Akhtar , Tanvir Ahmad1993 PLC(CS) 965 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These eight appeals by special leave arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the seniority and promotion rights of diploma-holder Overseers in the Irrigation Branch who were promoted as Sub-Divisional Officers on an officiating basis between 1959 and 1969. The respondents claimed substantive status in Class-II Service from the dates of continuous officiation, entitlement to corresponding seniority, and eligibility for promotion to Class-I as Executive Engineers. The Service Tribunal accepted their claims. The Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the cases, holding that mere length of officiating service does not automatically convert officiating appointments into substantive or permanent appointments where statutory service rules fix a specific quota for promotees. The Court held that permanent absorption into Class-II requires determination of whether vacancies fell within the prescribed promotee quota and obtained requisite Public Service Commission approval. Consequently, eligibility for promotion to Class-I could not be decided without first establishing proper Class-II induction and identifying corresponding Class-I vacancies.
Questions settled- Does continuous officiating service in a post automatically convert an appointment into a substantive or permanent appointment when a statutory quota applies to promotees?
- Can a Service Tribunal declare civil servants to have been appointed on a permanent basis without first ascertaining whether available vacancies fell within the prescribed promotee quota?
- Can eligibility of non-graduate engineers for promotion to Class-I service be determined prior to properly settling their substantive induction into Class-II service against available quota vacancies?
- AHSANULLAH A. MEMON Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH1993 PLC(CS) 937 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Sindh Service Tribunal judgment that upheld the retrospective permanent absorption of a deputationist as an Executive Engineer in the Education Department. The appellant, an existing civil servant, contended that this retrospective absorption, which occurred years after his initial induction, adversely affected his seniority and promotion prospects. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Government could invoke Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, to grant such retrospective benefits in a manner that violated statutory rules and prejudiced the rights of other civil servants. The Supreme Court, by majority, allowed the appeal, holding that the retrospective absorption was unsustainable. The Court established the principle that while the government possesses plenary powers under Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, to provide relief in just and equitable cases, this authority is not absolute. It cannot be exercised to impair the vested statutory rights of other civil servants or to bypass mandatory service rules, as such actions would constitute an arbitrary exercise of power rather than a valid redressal of hardship.
Questions settled- Can the government use its plenary powers under Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, to retrospectively absorb a deputationist if it adversely affects the seniority of existing civil servants?
- Does a civil servant have locus standi to challenge a notification that indirectly affects their seniority even before a formal seniority list is published?
- Can the government exercise its power under Section 24 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, to bypass the requirement of Departmental Promotion Committee recommendations for permanent absorption?
- GOVERNMENT OF SINDH Versus SAIFUL HAQ HASHMI1993 PLC(CS) 912 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from cross-appeals challenging the Sindh Service Tribunal's judgment, which had set aside the removal from service (later converted to compulsory retirement) of a Senior Civil Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Saiful Haq Hashmi, for alleged misconduct, inefficiency, and corruption in judicial proceedings. The respondent had been proceeded against under Rule 5(3) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 through show-cause notices without a formal inquiry, based on orders passed in a civil suit and an execution application. The core legal questions involved whether dispensing with a formal inquiry was valid under the rules, whether the principle of merger applied to original judicial orders, and the extent of disciplinary liability for a judicial officer's quasi-judicial decisions. By a majority opinion authored by Saleem Akhtar, J. (Sajjad Ali Shah, J. dissenting), the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the authorised officer possessed the discretion under Rule 5(3) to dispense with a formal inquiry when matters could be determined on documentary records, and that a judicial officer is liable to disciplinary action if judicial jurisdiction is exercised with bad faith, dishonesty, or corruption rather than bona fide error. The appeal of the Government of Sindh was allowed and the disciplinary penalty restored.
Questions settled- Whether the authorised officer has the discretion under Rule 5(3) of the Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 to dispense with a regular departmental inquiry?
- Can a judicial officer be subjected to disciplinary proceedings for mistakes committed in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions in the absence of bad faith, dishonesty, or corruption?
- Does the principle of merger obliterate the original judicial order for the purpose of investigating a judicial officer's misconduct in passing it?
- Whether the omission to hold a formal inquiry vitiates disciplinary proceedings where the case depends entirely on undisputed documentary records and pleadings?
- SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD MUHAMMAD IQBAL SOLANGI Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL SOLANGI1993 PLC(CS) 877 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal addresses a service dispute concerning a civil servant who sought to have his period of study abroad under a cultural exchange programme treated as deputation with full pay and allowances, despite having originally proceeded on the express condition that his absence involved no financial liability for the government. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in setting aside departmental rejections and directing that the study period be treated as deputation based on a precedent, and whether the appeal before the Tribunal was barred by limitation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that while the Tribunal's discretion to condone delay was unexceptionable, the Tribunal erred in directly granting relief instead of remanding the matter. The Court partly accepted the appeal, setting aside the direct order and remanding the case to the Finance Division for fresh re-examination in light of relevant policies and precedents. The key principle laid down is that terms and conditions for studies abroad must be settled beforehand, and where administrative reconsideration is warranted, courts or tribunals should remand the matter to the competent departmental authorities rather than usurping their administrative function.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal can condone delay in filing an appeal when the employee was continuously agitating the matter departmentally?
- Is a civil servant who proceeded abroad for studies on the explicit condition of no financial liability entitled to claim deputation allowance retrospectively?
- Whether the Service Tribunal should remand a matter to departmental authorities for re-examination rather than directly granting financial benefits?
- GHULAM ALI Versus PAKISTAN1993 PLC(CS) 874 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- ABBAS Versus HONOURABLE CHIEF JUSTICE1993 PLC(CS) 866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the justiciability of a service dispute involving an employee of the Sindh High Court Establishment. The appellant challenged his reversion from the post of Superintendent before the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal, holding that the matter did not relate to terms and conditions of service under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and that the appellant failed to exhaust proper departmental remedies. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the High Court Establishment Rules constituted rules under the Act, thereby invoking the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The Court held that pursuant to Section 26 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973, and Article 241 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the High Court Establishment Rules are deemed to be rules under the Act, making violations justiciable before the Service Tribunal. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the Tribunal should have adopted a liberal approach regarding the misaddressed departmental appeal. Consequently, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a decision on merits. The principle established is that High Court establishment rules are deemed rules under the Civil Servants Act, ensuring service disputes are justiciable before Service Tribunals.
Questions settled- Are High Court Establishment Rules deemed to be rules under the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Does a Service Tribunal have jurisdiction over service disputes involving employees governed by High Court Establishment Rules?
- Should a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal on the ground that the departmental appeal was incorrectly addressed if the remedy was otherwise sought?
- LAL DIN Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM1993 PLC(CS) 860 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-02-02Read full judgment →
- FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Versus RAIS KHAN1993 PLC(CS) 852 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the counting of ad hoc service for promotion purposes. The respondent, initially appointed on an ad hoc basis in BPS-17, was later regularized and subsequently appointed to BPS-18 on a current charge basis. The core legal question was whether the period of ad hoc service, followed by regular service in the same scale without a break, could be computed towards the minimum length of service required for promotion to a higher grade. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that such ad hoc service must be counted for promotion eligibility. The Court reasoned that neither the Civil Servants Act 1973 nor the relevant rules prohibited counting ad hoc service for length-of-service requirements. Furthermore, government office memoranda clarified that such service should be reckoned for promotion purposes. The principle laid down is that ad hoc service, when followed by regular service in the same scale, constitutes valid service for satisfying the length-of-service criteria for promotion to a higher scale, provided there is no break in service.
Questions settled- Can ad hoc service, followed by regular service in the same scale, be counted towards the length of service required for promotion to a higher scale?
- Does the appointment of a civil servant on a current charge basis, when they are eligible for regular promotion, constitute a valid exercise of authority?
- Is the period of ad hoc service, when followed by regular service in the same scale, to be excluded from the length of service prescribed for promotion under the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1973?
- NAZAR AHMAD Versus MEMBER (REVENUE), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE , S. Abul Aasim Jafferi, Ejaz Ahmad Khan & Nemo1993 PLC(CS) 848 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the appellants' service appeals concerning their seniority. The appellants initially joined service under the Thal Development Authority, which was later managed by the Provincial Government as the Thal Project Colony, and subsequently transferred to the District Administration upon the colony's winding up. The core legal question involved the determination of the appellants' seniority upon their transfer and merger into the district establishment, and whether the Board of Revenue could subsequently alter a settled seniority rule to the detriment of the appellants. The Supreme Court held that the appellants' seniority was rightly governed by Rule 9(1)(b) of the West Pakistan Revenue Department District Ministerial Services Rules, 1964, based on continuous appointment, and that the Board of Revenue's initial decision reflecting this rule was correct and could not be arbitrarily altered retrospectively to affect vested seniority rights. The appeal was accordingly accepted, setting aside the Service Tribunal's judgment and restoring the earlier seniority determination.
Questions settled- Whether the seniority of staff merged from a dissolved project colony into district establishments is to be determined from the date of continuous service in their cadre?
- Whether the Board of Revenue is competent to alter a settled rule of seniority so as to adversely affect the vested rights of civil servants retrospectively?
- How does Rule 9(1)(b) of the West Pakistan Revenue Department District Ministerial Services Rules, 1964 govern the seniority of persons appointed otherwise than by initial recruitment?
- ALAMGIR Versus DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MULTAN1993 PLC(CS) 845 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service matter concerns disciplinary proceedings initiated against two forest department employees accused of conniving in the illicit felling of trees. The core legal question was whether the "shorter procedure" of a show-cause notice under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, was legally sufficient when the factual allegations were actively controverted by the accused. The Supreme Court held that the departmental authorities erred by bypassing a full-fledged inquiry in favor of the shorter procedure. The Court established the principle that where charges involve disputed questions of fact requiring the recording of evidence and the opportunity for cross-examination, the shorter procedure is inappropriate. Findings based on preliminary investigations conducted behind the back of the accused, without proper evidentiary support, are legally unsustainable as they rely on conjecture rather than established material. Consequently, the Court set aside the punishment imposed on the appellants, while granting the competent authority the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings through a formal, full-fledged inquiry to determine the allegations.
Questions settled- Is the shorter procedure of a show-cause notice under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, appropriate for resolving controverted questions of fact?
- Can disciplinary punishment be sustained when findings are based on a preliminary inquiry conducted without associating the accused?
- When is a full-fledged inquiry mandatory in disciplinary proceedings against civil servants?
- WAPDA Versus ZAHOOR AHMED1993 PLC(CS) 842 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by WAPDA challenges the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal which had converted the respondent employee's removal from service into retirement. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal could decide a case on merits and alter the punishment without first determining the question of limitation upon remand by the Supreme Court, and whether removal under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act constitutes a punishment subject to interference without a finding of mala fides. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred in granting relief on merits without first deciding the limitation issue as directed on remand, and that removal under section 17(1-A) cannot ordinarily be treated as a punishment justifying interference absent a finding of mala fides. The Court laid down the principle that Service Tribunals, possessing exclusive jurisdiction and bound by judicial norms, must explicitly address preliminary questions like limitation before entering the merits, and their decisions must be supported by conscious application of mind and cogent reasons.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal decide a case on merits without first resolving the question of limitation when the matter has been specifically remanded for that purpose?
- Whether an order of removal of an employee from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act can be described as a punishment calling for interference by the Tribunal?
- Does a Service Tribunal's decision altering a penalty require a finding of mala fides and cogent reasons supported by a conscious application of mind?
- MUNAWAR KHAN Versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD , K.MA. Samdani, Alamdar Raza, Qazi M. Alimullah, M. Afsar, M. Yusuf Khan & Abdul Ghafoor1993 PLC(CS) 797 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
- NAZIR HUSSAIN Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH1993 PLC(CS) 36 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which upheld the appellant's reversion from a Grade-17 post to a Grade-16 post. The reversion was based on a recommendation by a Select Committee constituted under Martial Law Order 55 of 1978, which reviewed ad hoc appointments. The committee deemed the appellant unfit for the Grade-17 post because he held a third-division Master's degree, whereas the post required a second-division degree. The core legal question was whether the Select Committee acted within its mandate under Martial Law Order 55, which authorized the review of appointments made in violation of or through incorrect relaxation of service rules. The Supreme Court held that the committee failed to address whether the Governor's initial relaxation of the qualification requirement was improper or unjustified. Instead, the committee erroneously focused solely on the appellant's lack of the prescribed degree division. The Court ruled that the committee's recommendation was outside its purview and vitiated by this failure, setting aside the reversion order and restoring the appellant to Grade-17.
Questions settled- Does a Select Committee reviewing ad hoc appointments under Martial Law Order 55 have the authority to revert an employee solely based on a lack of prescribed qualifications if those qualifications were previously relaxed by a competent authority?
- Is a recommendation by a Select Committee under Martial Law Order 55 valid if it fails to determine whether the relaxation of service rules was made in violation of the law?
- Can a Select Committee ignore a valid relaxation of service rules granted by the Governor when reviewing the suitability of an ad hoc appointee?
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD IJAZ RASHID, ASSISTANT T&T DIRECTORATE-GENERAL, ISLAMABAD1993 PLC(CS) 338 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These consolidated appeals by leave of the Court challenge judgments of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and departmental promotees to the post of Assistant. The core legal question concerns whether the general seniority principle—providing that promotees as a class are senior to direct recruits appointed in the same year—overrides statutory quotas and regular appointment dates against specific vacancies. The Supreme Court held that direct recruits appointed against reserved vacancies that fell vacant prior in time rank senior to promotees, even if the promotees held officiating or temporary appointments earlier. Conversely, where a promotee is regularly appointed against an actual vacancy within the departmental quota, their seniority from that regular appointment date is maintained. The Court laid down that seniority must be determined with regard to the specific availability of vacancies within the respective direct recruitment and promotion quotas, and that promotees occupying positions beyond their quota or against direct recruitment vacancies cannot claim seniority over rightful direct appointees.
Questions settled- Whether promotees as a class are invariably senior to direct recruits appointed in the same year?
- Does a direct recruit appointed against a reserved vacancy falling vacant earlier in time rank senior to a promotee who was promoted earlier?
- What is the legal effect of a departmental promotion made in excess of the quota reserved for promotees?
- How is inter se seniority determined between direct recruits and promotees under the Civil Servants Act 1973?
- GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB Versus SHAMIM WAHEED SHEIKH1993 PLC(CS) 1599 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had set aside a notification promoting the petitioner to Grade-17 and altering his seniority and group placement in the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA). The core legal question was whether a previous judgment of the Supreme Court, obtained without hearing affected colleagues, operated as a judgment in rem and barred their subsequent service appeals, and whether an ad hoc appointment in Grade-16 could be regularized in Grade-17 contrary to recruitment rules and Federal Public Service Commission rejection. The Supreme Court held that judgments in service matters do not operate as judgments in rem and only bind the actual parties thereto, and that initial appointment to Grade-17 without Public Service Commission clearance is unlawful. The court established that administrative concessions or flawed previous orders cannot override statutory appointment rules and service tribunal jurisdictions, ultimately refusing leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a judgment of the Supreme Court in a service matter operates as a judgment in rem against persons who were not parties to the proceedings?
- Can an ad hoc appointee in Grade-16 be regularized in Grade-17 contrary to the findings and criteria of the Federal Public Service Commission?
- Does an executive concession in court validate an otherwise illegal promotion and seniority list affecting other civil servants?
- SHAMSHER ALI KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1993 PLC(CS) 1591 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a Punjab Service Tribunal order directing the Provincial Government to grant an 'out of turn promotion' to a civil servant. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to issue a direct order for such promotion from a specific date, and whether the Provincial Selection Board correctly applied the criteria under Section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Supreme Court held that while the Service Tribunal erred by issuing a direct mandate for promotion, the Provincial Selection Board had also misdirected itself by applying routine promotion criteria rather than the specific, extraordinary performance standards mandated by Section 8-A. The Court clarified that 'out of turn promotion' is a special provision based solely on exemplary integrity and extraordinary performance, rendering standard comparative service records irrelevant. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter to the Provincial Selection Board for a fresh decision, emphasizing that the Tribunal cannot usurp the executive's authority to grant promotions by issuing specific directions.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to issue a direct order to the Provincial Government to grant an out of turn promotion to a civil servant?
- What are the criteria for granting an out of turn promotion under Section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- Is it legally permissible to compare the service records of other officers when considering a candidate for an out of turn promotion under Section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- KHAN HEN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN , Maqbool Ellahi Malik, Advocate and Kh. Mushtaq Ahmed1993 PLC(CS) 1497 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns service appeals filed by WAPDA against the Federal Service Tribunal's decision, which had set aside the removal of two respondents from service. The respondents had initially been exonerated by a subordinate authority, but WAPDA, exercising suo motu revisional powers under the WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978, subsequently removed them from service. The Tribunal invalidated this removal, citing the Authority's failure to record reasons for reversing the exoneration order. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal, upon finding that the Authority committed a technical error by failing to record detailed reasons in its order, should have invalidated the order entirely or remanded the matter for a fresh, reasoned decision. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal erred by not remanding the case. The Court established the principle that where an administrative or quasi-judicial authority fails to record sufficient reasons in its order, the proper course for an appellate forum is to remand the matter to the original authority for a fresh, detailed decision rather than summarily setting aside the order without further inquiry.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate tribunal, upon finding that an administrative authority failed to record reasons for its decision, should set aside the order or remand the matter for a fresh decision?
- Does the failure of an authority to repeat material contained in departmental files within the text of its final order constitute a fatal illegality requiring the order to be set aside?
- Is it incumbent upon a service tribunal to examine the merits of a case or remand the matter when the original authority's order lacks sufficient reasoning?
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL1993 PLC(CS) 1381 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the recruitment policy of the Public Service Commission, which treated subsequent requisitions for government posts as separate selections from a single competitive examination, effectively bypassing merit-based allocation for candidates on a waiting list. The core legal question was whether such piecemeal recruitment, which relegated higher-merit candidates to lower-preference posts while accommodating lower-merit candidates in newly created posts, was legally permissible. The Supreme Court held that a competitive examination constitutes a single, unified selection process that cannot be bifurcated into multiple selections. The Court ruled that the Commission's practice of maintaining a waiting list to fill subsequent vacancies without re-advertisement or proper merit-based re-allocation was arbitrary, unfair, and lacked transparency. The Court emphasized that all vacancies arising from a single examination must be filled based on the original merit list. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that public authorities must publicly advertise vacancies to uphold the fundamental right to freedom of profession. Consequently, the appellants were granted the right to be restored to their preferred service options based on their original merit ranking, subject to suitability and zonal allocation.
Questions settled- Can a Public Service Commission treat subsequent requisitions for posts as separate selections from a single competitive examination?
- Is the practice of maintaining a waiting list to fill vacancies after a competitive examination legally permissible?
- Does the failure to advertise government vacancies violate the fundamental right to freedom of profession?
- Are candidates who have already accepted appointments precluded from challenging the allocation process as a past and closed transaction?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ BUTT, EX-LS-II, WAPDA ELECTRICITY SUB-DIVISION WAZIRABAD1993 PLC(CS) 1198 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals regarding the jurisdiction of service tribunals over former employees of the Punjab Family Planning Board whose services were federalised and subsequently transferred to the Provincial Government under statutory provisions. The core legal question is whether federal employees transferred to a provincial government under the Transfer of Population Welfare Programme (Field Activities) Ordinance, 1983 lose their status as federal civil servants and fall under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Service Tribunal or the Federal Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that despite their transfer to the provincial administration for field activities, such employees retain their status as civil servants of the Federal Government, as ultimate control, finances, policy-making, and rule-making remain with the Federation. The key principle laid down is that the mere administrative transfer of federal employees to a provincial government for executing transferred field activities does not convert them into provincial civil servants or oust the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether federal government employees whose services are transferred to a provincial government under the Transfer of Population Welfare Programme (Field Activities) Ordinance, 1983 cease to be civil servants of the Federal Government?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain appeals filed by federal employees whose services were transferred to the Provincial Government in connection with field activities?
- Do provincial governments acquire rule-making and disciplinary control powers independently over federal employees transferred under the Population Welfare Programme ordinances?
- SARFRAZ KHURSHID Versus SECRETARY, POPULATION WELFARE DIVISION1993 PLC(CS) 1180 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the entitlement of a WAPDA employee to pensionary benefits following his removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958. The appellant was removed on 30-4-1978 but remained in service until 7-7-1982 due to judicial stay orders. The Federal Service Tribunal denied pensionary benefits, reasoning that the removal effectively occurred on 7-7-1982, by which time an amendment to the Pension Rules had disqualified employees removed under Section 17(1-A) from receiving such benefits. The Supreme Court held that the removal order was effective from the date of its issuance, 30-4-1978. The Court ruled that judicial stay orders merely suspend the operation of an administrative order and do not constitute a setting aside or a fresh passing of the order. Consequently, the appellant had acquired a vested right to pensionary benefits prior to the 1982 amendment. The Court set aside the Tribunal’s judgment and declared the appellant entitled to all pensionary benefits, consistent with the principle established in WAPDA v. Irteqa Rasool Hashmi.
Questions settled- Does a judicial stay order against a removal from service effectively change the date of removal for the purpose of calculating pension eligibility?
- Can an employee removed under Section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act 1958 be deprived of pensionary benefits by a subsequent amendment to the Pension Rules?
- Does the receipt of emoluments during the period of a stay order constitute a setting aside of the original removal order?
- MIAN MAHMOOD Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA)1993 PLC(CS) 1175 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service matter originated from an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal in limine on the ground that the Reporting Officer was not impleaded as a necessary party. The appellant challenged this dismissal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal questions were whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police was a necessary party when the allegation was that he was not the Reporting Officer, and whether the failure to implead him warranted the dismissal of the appeal. The Supreme Court held that the impugned order was unsustainable. The Court noted that the competent authority and the Superintendent of Police were already impleaded, and the Tribunal possessed the authority to direct the appellant to implead necessary parties rather than summarily dismissing the appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's order, and remanded the case for a fresh hearing, emphasizing that procedural defects regarding the impleadment of parties should be cured through directions rather than immediate dismissal of the proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the failure to implead a party in a service appeal automatically render the appeal incompetent and liable for dismissal in limine?
- Does a Service Tribunal have the power to direct an appellant to implead a necessary party instead of dismissing the appeal?
- Is a Reporting Officer necessarily a required party in a service appeal where the competent authority has already been impleaded?
- JAN MUHAMMAD Versus GENERAL MANAGER, KARACHI TELECOMMUNICATION REGION, KARACHI Rasheed A. Razvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M.A.I. Qarni , M. Umar Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S.M. Abbas1993 PLC(CS) 1140 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal with leave challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal against his compulsory retirement from government service. The appellant, serving as a Lower Selection Grade Clerk, was assigned additional work, which he represented against through his immediate superior officer who recommended sparing him due to heavy workload. Subsequently, the appellant was suspended, charge-sheeted for misconduct involving disobedience, subjected to an inquiry conducted via questionnaire without examining witnesses, and compulsorily retired. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary inquiry and subsequent penalty of compulsory retirement were vitiated due to non-compliance with the prescribed statutory inquiry procedure. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the inquiry failed to follow the mandatory procedure of examining witnesses in support of the charge as required under the rules. The Court laid down the principle that the imposition of major penalties requires strict adherence to the statutory inquiry procedure, including the recording of evidence and examination of witnesses, and failure to do so renders the penalty unsustainable.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to examine witnesses in support of the charge during a departmental inquiry vitiates the imposition of a major penalty under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Does conducting an inquiry merely through a questionnaire satisfy the mandatory requirements of Rule 6 of the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Can an order of compulsory retirement passed without following the prescribed inquiry procedure be sustained by the Service Tribunal?
- S. MANZOOR RAZA Versus MEMBER (ADORN.), CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD1993 PLC(CS) 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner, an Assistant Income-tax Officer, challenged a departmental order imposing the penalty of withholding four increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner was charge-sheeted for accepting a belated income-tax return and finalizing an assessment within one day while investigation proceedings were allegedly pending against the assessee. Although the Inquiry Officer exonerated the petitioner regarding the first charge, he found the petitioner guilty of the second charge, a decision subsequently upheld by the departmental authority and the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question presented for the Supreme Court's consideration is whether, given the assessee's past history and the nature of the complaint received, the petitioner's actions in finalizing the assessment under the relevant tax laws were legally justified or constituted misconduct warranting disciplinary action under the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the petitioner's conduct violated established rules and regulations.
Questions settled- Was the petitioner justified in making an assessment under Section 59 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 given the past history of the assessee?
- Did the petitioner's act of finalizing an assessment constitute a violation of law or rules sufficient to attract the provisions of the Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973?
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION Versus SHAHABUDDIN1993 PLC(CS) 1 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-appeals arising from a Federal Service Tribunal judgment regarding the dismissal of a Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) employee for misconduct. The core legal questions were whether the dismissal order was issued by a competent authority under the PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, and whether the Tribunal was justified in reducing the punishment from dismissal to removal. The Supreme Court held that the Regulations, having never been published in the official Gazette nor laid before the National Assembly as mandated by Section 31 of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Act, 1956, lacked statutory status. Consequently, the employment relationship was governed by the Master and Servant doctrine rather than the Regulations. Regarding the quantum of punishment, the Court affirmed the Tribunal's authority to modify penalties for cogent reasons, finding the Tribunal's decision to reduce the punishment to be a valid exercise of discretion. The key principle established is that internal regulations not published or laid before the legislature as required by the enabling statute do not constitute statutory rules, rendering the employment relationship subject to common law principles.
Questions settled- Does the failure to publish regulations in the official Gazette and lay them before the National Assembly deprive them of statutory status?
- Is the employment relationship of a PIAC employee governed by statutory rules or the Master and Servant doctrine in the absence of validly enacted regulations?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by a departmental authority?