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.

• Dr. SHAMIM AKHTAR Versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINISTER PUNJAB, LAHORE/CONTROLLING AUTHORITY2022 PLC(CS) 1209 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-28Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD FAHEEM ZAFAR Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Accountant General, Punjab2022 PLC(CS) 1156 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-18Read full judgment →
• LATIF AHMED Versus The CHIEF SECRETARY PUNJAB, LAHORE2021 PLC(CS) 468 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL BRAR Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN2021 PLC(CS) 158 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-14
  bank employeedemotionfiduciary dutystatutory remedylachesservice matterRemoval from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves constitutional petitions challenging the demotion of bank employees from the post of Assistant Vice President to Officer Grade-I by the National Bank of Pakistan. The core legal questions were whether the impugned demotion orders were passed by an incompetent authority, whether the failure to serve a proper show-cause notice vitiated the proceedings, and whether the petitions were maintainable given the availability of alternative statutory remedies and the principle of laches. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the petitioners failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal as provided under the relevant law. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners' conduct, involving the flouting of bank policies, undermined the fiduciary relationship between the bank and its customers. The key principle laid down is that bank employees, as custodians of public money, are held to a high standard of conduct, and any dishonesty or slackness that shakes public confidence in the banking system warrants no leniency, particularly when the employee has failed to exhaust available statutory remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a service-related order when the petitioner has failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal?
  • Does the failure to follow internal bank policies by employees constitute valid grounds for disciplinary action despite the absence of direct misappropriation?
  • Can a high court interfere in service matters of bank employees where the petitioners have failed to avail the statutory remedy provided under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance 2000?
  Read full judgment →
• HAMID HAYAT Versus DIRECTOR GENERAL EXCISE AND TAXATION2021 PLC(CS) 1578 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-24
  civil servantdisciplinary proceedingsconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunalterms and conditions of serviceArticle 212inquiry officer
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant, filed a constitutional petition challenging an order passed by the Director General, Excise and Taxation Department, which declined his request to transfer a disciplinary inquiry from Hafizabad to Lahore. The petitioner alleged bias and infringement of his right to a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The core legal question was whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to an administrative order regarding the appointment or transfer of an inquiry officer in disciplinary proceedings, given the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution. The Court held that disciplinary proceedings, including the appointment or transfer of an inquiry officer, constitute an integral part of the terms and conditions of service. Consequently, such matters fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that the bar under Article 212 is absolute and inflexible, precluding the High Court from exercising constitutional jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant, regardless of whether the specific order is characterized as administrative or executive.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to an order regarding the appointment or transfer of an inquiry officer in disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
  • Do disciplinary proceedings, including the appointment of an inquiry officer, fall within the scope of terms and conditions of service under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Is an order refusing to transfer an inquiry officer from one region to another an administrative action exempt from the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD JAHAN ZAIB KHAN Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE KHAN2021 PLC(CS) 1435 · Lahore High Court · 2021-02-18Read full judgment →
• MOHAMMAD UMER KHALID Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2021 PLC(CS) 1417 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21
  contractual employeeregularization of serviceself-executory statutemaster and servantconstitutional jurisdictionwrit petitiontermination of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former contractual employee of the provincial health department, sought reinstatement and regularization of service following the termination of his contract. The core legal questions were whether a contractual employee can be reinstated in service through constitutional jurisdiction and whether the Regularization of Service Act, 2018, creates a self-executory right for regularization for eligible employees. The Court held that a contractual employee cannot seek reinstatement, as the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant, and such disputes are not maintainable in constitutional jurisdiction. However, the Court ruled that the Regularization of Service Act, 2018, is a self-executory statute. It established that employees who met the eligibility criteria—specifically the completion of three years of continuous service—at the time of the Act's promulgation acquired a vested right to be considered for regularization. The Court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner for regularization under the Act, independent of the disciplinary proceedings that led to his termination, emphasizing that the Act does not require supplementary legislation to be enforceable.

  Questions settled

  • Can a contractual employee seek reinstatement in service through a constitutional petition?
  • Is the Regularization of Service Act, 2018, a self-executory statute?
  • Does a contractual employee who has completed three years of service have a right to be considered for regularization under the Regularization of Service Act, 2018?
  • Can disciplinary proceedings against a contract employee preclude their consideration for regularization under the Regularization of Service Act, 2018?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASIR Versus CHAIRMAN BANK OF PUNJAB2021 PLC(CS) 1377 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-21
  compulsory retirementdisciplinary proceedingsembezzlementdue processmisconductconstitutional petitionbank employee
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenges the dismissal of the Petitioner from his position as a Cash Officer at the Bank of Punjab, following an order of compulsory retirement. The core legal question was whether the disciplinary proceedings, including the inquiry and the subsequent order of compulsory retirement, were conducted in accordance with due process and whether the findings of embezzlement and misconduct were substantiated. The Court held that the Petitioner was afforded a fair opportunity of hearing, participated in the inquiry proceedings without objection, and admitted to failing to execute responsibilities in accordance with Bank Standard Operating Procedures. The Court found that the allegations of embezzlement and gross negligence were proven through a thorough audit and inquiry. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition in limine, upholding the disciplinary action. The key principle laid down is that where an employee admits to misconduct, a formal inquiry may not be strictly necessary, yet providing an opportunity of hearing satisfies the requirements of due process and natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a formal inquiry strictly necessary when an employee admits to failing to execute responsibilities in accordance with standard operating procedures?
  • Can a court interfere with a disciplinary order where the employee was afforded a full opportunity of personal hearing and defense?
  • Does the act of redepositing embezzled funds from personal resources constitute evidence of personal use and misconduct?
  Read full judgment →
• RAFI AHMAD Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB2021 PLC(CS) 1283 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD TAYYAB NAZIR Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB2021 PLC(CS) 1246 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-20
  Intra Court AppealmaintainabilityLaw Reforms Ordinancestatutory appealquo warrantooriginal orderconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Intra Court Appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing a constitutional petition in the nature of Quo Warranto challenging the reinstatement of certain respondents by the Punjab Curriculum and Textbook Board. At the threshold, the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the Intra Court Appeal, contending that it was barred under the first proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, because Section 28 of the Punjab Curriculum and Textbook Board Act, 2015, provided an adequate remedy of appeal to the Government against any direction or order of the Board. The core legal question was whether an Intra Court Appeal is competent against an order passed in constitutional jurisdiction when the underlying law provides a statutory right of appeal against the original order, regardless of whether such remedy was actually availed. The Lahore High Court held that the Intra Court Appeal was not maintainable, sustaining the preliminary objection and dismissing the appeal. The court laid down the principle that under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, if the law applicable to the original proceedings provides for at least one appeal, revision, or review against the original order, an Intra Court Appeal is completely barred, irrespective of whether the aggrieved party actually availed that remedy or whether the right of appeal was available to both parties.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Intra Court Appeal is competent against an order of a Single Judge under Article 199 of the Constitution when the underlying statute provides a right of appeal against the original order?
  • Does the bar against an Intra Court Appeal under the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 apply if the statutory remedy of appeal was not actually availed by the appellant?
  • Whether the availability of a statutory appeal to 'any person aggrieved' under the Punjab Curriculum and Textbook Board Act, 2015 excludes the filing of an Intra Court Appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• NISAR AKHTAR Versus MINISTRY OF WATER AND POWER, through Secretary, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad2021 PLC(CS) 1174 · Lahore High Court · 2012-07-14Read full judgment →
• SHAFIQ-UL-HASSAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Energy (Power Division), Islamabad2020 PLC(CS) 1593 · Lahore High Court · 2020-10-09Read full judgment →
• WAQAS DEVELOPERS Versus ENGR. LT. COL. (RETD.) HAQNAWAZ2020 PLC(CS) 150 · Lahore High Court · 2019-06-26
  constitutional petitionengineering firm renewalsalary payment verificationConstruction and Operation of Engineering Works Bye-Lawsregulatory compliancebank transaction evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges a letter issued by respondent No. 1, which required engineering firms to provide evidence of salary payments to engineers exclusively through bank transactions between the firm's account and the engineer's salary account as a condition for firm renewal. The petitioner argued that this requirement contradicted the Construction and Operation of Engineering Works Bye-Laws, 1987, specifically sub-bye-law 5 clause (d)(iv) of bye-law 2(A), which permits alternative methods of proof, including the personal appearance of the engineer. The Court examined the impugned directive against the relevant bye-laws and concluded that while the bye-laws list multiple modes of proof, the requirement for bank-based transaction evidence is a valid regulatory measure. The Court held that in the current administrative system, reliance on oral statements or personal appearances to confirm salary payments has become redundant and less reliable. Consequently, the Court upheld the respondent's demand for documentary evidence of bank transactions as a strict and proper compliance with the law, noting that firms had previously undertaken to provide such documentation. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a regulatory body mandate proof of salary payments through bank transactions for the renewal of an engineering firm's registration?
  • Does the Construction and Operation of Engineering Works Bye-Laws, 1987 allow for the exclusion of oral statements as proof of salary payment?
  • Is a requirement for documentary evidence of salary transactions consistent with the Construction and Operation of Engineering Works Bye-Laws, 1987?
  Read full judgment →
• ZAKA ULLAH KHAN Versus SECRETARY PRIMARY AND SECONDARY HEALTHCARE2020 PLC(CS) 1398 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-19Read full judgment →
• ARSHAD ALI Versus WAPDA2020 PLC(CS) 1226 · Lahore High Court · 2020-08-21Read full judgment →
• QAMAR AZIZ Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB2019 PLC(CS) 932 · Lahore High Court · 2018-09-04
  recruitment policyeducational equivalencejudicial reviewpolicy matterHigher Education Commissionservice laweligibility criteria
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order by the Secretary School Education Department, which refused to recognize the petitioners' "Shahadat-ul-Almia" Sanad as equivalent to an M.A. degree for recruitment to the posts of ESE (Arts), SESE (Arts), and SSE (Arts). The core legal question was whether the Higher Education Commission's (HEC) equivalence certificate for this religious degree compels the provincial government to accept it as a valid qualification for specific government teaching positions. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the prescription of educational qualifications for government posts constitutes a policy matter within the exclusive domain of the government. The Court ruled that HEC equivalence certificates, issued under the Higher Education Commission Ordinance 2002, are intended for academic purposes and do not bind the government in its recruitment criteria. The key principle laid down is that courts should not interfere with the government's determination of eligibility criteria for public employment, as such matters are policy decisions that fall outside the scope of judicial review unless proven to be illegal, arbitrary, or mala fide.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Higher Education Commission's equivalence certificate for a degree binding on the provincial government for the purpose of recruitment to government posts?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with the educational qualifications prescribed by the government for public employment?
  • Is the prescription of educational qualifications for a government post considered a policy matter within the exclusive domain of the government?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus SECRETARY FINANCE2019 PLC(CS) 893 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-06Read full judgment →
• SHAKEEL AHMED BHATTI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary2019 PLC(CS) 729 · Lahore High Court · 2018-11-09
  civil servantdeputationtransferconstitutional petitionmaintainabilityjurisdictionservice tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a civil servant presently serving on deputation as Director Administration in the Lahore Development Authority, challenging his transfer order to the post of Director C&I within the same authority. The core legal question was whether a civil servant ceases to be a civil servant when transferred on deputation to a statutory authority, thereby removing the bar on constitutional petitions under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that the petitioner remains a civil servant for all intents and purposes since the exclusion clause in Section 2(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 applies only to persons sent on deputation *to* the province from the Federation, another province, or authority, not to provincial civil servants sent on deputation. The court laid down the principle that a provincial civil servant does not lose their civil servant status while on deputation within the province, and matters relating to their transfer remain subject to the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil servant ceases to be a civil servant if transferred through deputation to a statutory authority?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan apply to a civil servant serving on deputation within the province?
  • Who is covered under the exclusion clause of Section 2(b)(i) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 regarding deputation?
  • Are Lahore Development Authority service rules statutory or non-statutory in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• NOOR BADSHAH Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED2019 PLC(CS) 1433 · Lahore High Court · 2019-03-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SHAHID JAVED Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab2019 PLC(CS) 1414 · Lahore High Court · 2019-04-18
  civil service promotioneligibility vs fitnessservice tribunal jurisdictionconstitutional jurisdictionprovincial selection boardjudicial reviewterms and conditions of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the promotion of respondent No. 5 and the evaluation process conducted by the Provincial Selection Board (PSB). The petitioners alleged that respondent No. 5 lacked the requisite eligibility under the Punjab Labour and Manpower Department (Manpower and Training) Service Rules, 1993, and that their own performance evaluation was arbitrary and lacked transparency. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the eligibility of a civil servant for promotion or if such matters are exclusively within the domain of the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that questions regarding the eligibility of a civil servant for promotion relate to the terms and conditions of service and fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The Court affirmed that while it may exercise judicial review in cases of colourable exercise of authority or patent arbitrariness, it cannot substitute its own opinion for the subjective assessment of the competent authority regarding fitness and suitability.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 to determine the eligibility of a civil servant for promotion?
  • Is the question of a civil servant's eligibility for promotion a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  • Can a court substitute its own opinion for the subjective assessment of a competent authority regarding the fitness and suitability of a candidate for promotion?
  • Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution apply to disputes regarding the eligibility of a civil servant for promotion?
  Read full judgment →
• Ms. NAZIA MUNIR Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB2019 PLC(CS) 1077 · Lahore High Court · 2019-01-11
  ad-hoc appointmentregularization of servicelegitimate expectancytermination of serviceopportunity of hearingconstitutional petitionsubstantial justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the termination and refusal to regularize the services of the petitioner, who served as a Statistical Officer (BS-17) on an ad-hoc basis for over eight years. The core legal question was whether an ad-hoc employee whose service tenure has been repeatedly extended for a prolonged period, creating a legitimate expectancy, can be arbitrarily terminated without a show-cause notice or hearing, and whether such service can be regularized. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioner's termination without notice or an opportunity of hearing was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of natural justice. The Court ruled that prolonged service creates a legitimate expectancy of retention and that employees should not suffer for the administrative lapses or mechanical acts of appointing authorities. The Court laid down the principle that technicalities of law and rules shall not operate as a bar to doing substantial justice in hardship cases, and public functionaries must act fairly and justly without discrimination.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ad-hoc employee whose service tenure has been repeatedly extended for over eight years acquires a legitimate expectancy for regularization?
  • Can a public authority terminate the services of an ad-hoc employee without issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity of hearing?
  • Do technicalities of law and rules operate as an absolute bar in the way of the court to prevent substantial justice in hardship cases?
  • Are civil servants to be blamed and made to suffer for the lack of following prescribed recruitment procedures by the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMED Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB2019 PLC(CS) 1020 · Lahore High Court · 2019-02-12
  regularization of servicecontract employeesdevelopment and non-development sideproject employeesconstitutional petitionservice appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the rejection of the petitioners' service appeals for the regularization of their employment as contract staff at the Punjab Institute of Agriculture Marketing. The core legal question revolves around whether project-based contract employees are entitled to regularization in service under government policies and applicable precedents when the project is subsequently transferred from the development side to the non-development side as a permanent government department. The court held that since the petitioners were originally recruited through a transparent and fair selection process and the project itself was converted from a time-bound development project to a permanent non-development department, the refusal to regularize their services was unlawful, arbitrary, and in disregard of binding judicial precedents. The key principle laid down is that contract employees appointed through due process in a project that is subsequently converted into a permanent non-development department cannot be denied regularization merely on the ground of their initial project-based induction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract employees of a project are entitled to regularization when the project is transferred from the development side to the non-development side?
  • Does a regularization policy excluding project-based employees apply when the project's status has been permanently converted prior to the policy's issuance?
  • Can the competent authority refuse regularization without considering binding judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan on identical matters?
  Read full judgment →
• JAMAT ALI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2018 PLC(CS) 831 · Lahore High Court · 2018-05-07Read full judgment →
• ALI RAZA Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Kashmir Affairs2018 PLC(CS) 574 · Lahore High Court · 2018-03-07Read full judgment →
• CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus Dr. SAJJAD HUSSAIN Muhammad Ijaz , Mansoor Usman Awan and Murtaza Hussain2018 PLC(CS) 532 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-12Read full judgment →
• SADAF MUBEEN Versus GENERAL MANAGER TEVTA2018 PLC(CS) 480 · Lahore High Court · 2017-12-13Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD ZAFAR IQBAL2018 PLC(CS) 152 · Lahore High Court · 2017-05-16Read full judgment →
• ALI HAMZA Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2018 PLC(CS) 1103 · Lahore High Court · 2017-08-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YOUSAF Versus CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION2017 PLC(CS) 752 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-11Read full judgment →
• Dr. KUMAIL ABBAS RIZVI Versus UNIVERSITY OF PUNJAB2017 PLC(CS) 569 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-20Read full judgment →
• ZOHAIB HASSAN Versus The INSPECTOR GENERAL OF PRISON2017 PLC(CS) 507 · Lahore High Court · 2017-01-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AZIM KHAN LEGHARI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2017 PLC(CS) 336 · Lahore High Court · 2016-12-05Read full judgment →
• GHULAM ABBAS Versus CHIEF SECRETARY2016 PLC(CS) 87 · Lahore High Court · 2014-11-19Read full judgment →
• Dr. MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Department of Agriculture2016 PLC(CS) 1164 · Lahore High Court · 2015-04-22Read full judgment →
• Syed RIAZ ALI ZAIDI Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Lahore2015 PLC(CS) 831 · Lahore High Court · 2015-02-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab2015 PLC(CS) 1503 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-19Read full judgment →
• SAMI ULLAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary Education, Punjab, Lahore2015 PLC(CS) 1073 · Lahore High Court · 2015-03-05Read full judgment →
• NIDA TAHIR Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Schools2014 PLC(CS) 413 · Lahore High Court · 2013-05-30Read full judgment →
• KHALID HABIB Versus PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION LTD.2014 PLC(CS) 203 · Lahore High Court · 2012-12-18Read full judgment →
• KARAMAT NAZIR BHANDARI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2014 PLC(CS) 1184 · Lahore High Court · 2014-03-25Read full judgment →
• MUDASSAR KHAN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL POLICE, PUNJAB2013 PLC(CS) 269 · Lahore High Court · 2012-09-27
  departmental promotionPolice Order 2002rule-making powerofficial gazettestatutory interpretationultra viresage limit
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, serving Constables and Head Constables in the Punjab Police, challenged the validity of the Assistant Sub-Inspector (Appointment, Promotion and Condition of Service) Rules, 2011, which imposed an upper age limit of 35 years for departmental promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. The core legal question was whether the Provincial Police Officer, under the rule-making powers granted by the Police Order, 2002, could impose an age restriction not explicitly contained in the parent statute, and whether the specific rules in question were procedurally valid. The Court held that while the Provincial Police Officer possesses the authority to frame rules under Article 112 of the Police Order, 2002, such rules must be notified in the official gazette to be enforceable. Since the respondents admitted that the impugned rules were never gazetted, the Court declared them to be without lawful authority and invalid. The key principle laid down is that rules framed under a statute requiring notification in the official gazette are not valid or enforceable until such publication has occurred.

  Questions settled

  • Can rules framed under the Police Order, 2002 be enforced if they have not been published in the official gazette?
  • Does the Provincial Police Officer have the authority to frame rules regarding age limits for departmental promotions under the Police Order, 2002?
  • Are rules that have not been gazetted considered valid and enforceable?
  Read full judgment →
• WASEEM ALI Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AUQAF, PUNJAB2011 PLC(CS) 1630 · Lahore High Court · 2011-09-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD DAWOOD KHAN Versus DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, MIANWALI2010 PLC(CS) 310 · Lahore High Court · 2010-01-15Read full judgment →
• PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION LIMITED Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM M. Amin Feroz Khan2009 PLC(CS) 703 · Lahore High Court · 2008-10-20Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE2009 PLC(CS) 580 · Lahore High Court · 2009-01-30Read full judgment →
• LIAQUAT ALI Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Education, Lahore2008 PLC(CS) 768 · Lahore High Court · 2008-03-12
  service mattersannual incrementsP.T.C. teachersconstitutional jurisdictionbinding precedentimplementation of judgmentpay fixation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves several writ petitions filed by untrained P.T.C. Teachers seeking the implementation of a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment, which was subsequently upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioners were entitled to annual increments for the period they served as untrained teachers and whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to enforce this claim despite the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The Court held that the respondents were obligated to implement the previous judicial decisions, which had already settled the legal position regarding the entitlement of P.T.C. teachers to annual increments under Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The Court emphasized that under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution, all authorities are bound by Supreme Court decisions. Consequently, the petitions were allowed, and the respondents were directed to release the arrears and fix the petitioners' pay accordingly, rejecting the objection regarding the maintainability of the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Are untrained P.T.C. teachers entitled to annual increments for the period of their service as untrained teachers?
  • Does the bar of Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 prevent the High Court from enforcing settled law regarding service benefits?
  • Are executive authorities bound to follow the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Kh. MUHAMMAD ANIS Versus SARDAR SHER AFGHAN, ADDITIONAL SECRETARY (ADMN.), CHIEF MINISTER'S SECRETARIAT, PUNJAB, LAHORE2008 PLC(CS) 75 · Lahore High Court · 2004-12-08Read full judgment →
• Rana ASIF NADEEM Versus EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER, EDUCATION, DISTRICT NANKANA2008 PLC(CS) 715 · Lahore High Court · 2008-03-12
  contract employeestermination of servicemaster and servantaudi alteram partemlocus poenitentiaewrit petitionright of hearingback benefits
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves a batch of writ petitions filed by contract teachers whose appointments were abruptly cancelled by the education department alleging irregularities in the original selection process. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of constitutional petitions against termination of contract employees under the master-servant principle, the applicability of natural justice, and whether employees can be penalized for administrative irregularities without a regular inquiry or opportunity of hearing. The Lahore High Court held that the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is maintainable to scrutinize arbitrary state action, even in contractual or master-servant contexts, particularly where termination orders contain allegations of illegality or misconduct. The Court established that where an adverse order carries stigmatic allegations, the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem are mandatory, requiring a show-cause notice and a regular inquiry. Furthermore, the Court ruled that employees cannot suffer for administrative flaws or illegalities committed by the authorities during recruitment, and that a valuable right accrued through joining service cannot be arbitrarily recalled in violation of the locus poenitentiae principle. All petitions were accepted, setting aside the termination orders and reinstating the petitioners with back pay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against the termination of contract employees governed by the rule of master and servant?
  • Does an employee have a vested right to a show-cause notice and a regular inquiry before the cancellation of an appointment order on allegations of irregularity?
  • Can employees be penalized or ousted from service for administrative irregularities committed by the authorities at the time of their initial recruitment?
  • Whether the principle of locus poenitentiae bars the authorities from recalling appointment orders after the employees have joined service and performed duties?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAZIM SHAHZAD Versus CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, LAHORE2008 PLC(CS) 713 · Lahore High Court · 2008-02-26Read full judgment →
• GHULAM HAIDER CHAUDHRY, INSPECTOR BOILERS, BAHAWALPUR CIRCLE Versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO CHIEF MINISTER, PUNJAB, LAHORE2008 PLC(CS) 62 · Lahore High Court · 2007-09-26Read full judgment →
• Malik MUHAMMAD ASLAM AWAN Versus EMPLOYEES OLD-AGE BENEFIT INSTITUTION through Chairman, E.O.B.I.2008 PLC(CS) 145 · Lahore High Court · 2007-06-11Read full judgment →
• SADIA NAWAZ Versus PUNJAB VOCATIONAL TRAINING COUNCIL, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2008 PLC(CS) 143 · Lahore High Court · 2007-09-21Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD SAEED Versus DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER; BAHAWALPUR2007 PLC(CS) 896 · Lahore High Court · 2006-05-29Read full judgment →
• SANA ULLAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Lahore2007 PLC(CS) 675 · Lahore High Court · 2007-03-14
  contractual employmenttermination of servicedue processdiscriminatory treatmentconstitutional petitionright to equalityservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a batch of constitutional petitions challenging the mass termination of contractual employees (BS-1 to BS-4) by the Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Government of Punjab. The core legal question is whether the government can annul appointments made through a formal recruitment process via a blanket order without issuing show-cause notices or providing an opportunity for a hearing to the affected employees, particularly when no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation exist against them. The Court held that the termination order was unlawful. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court ruled that where candidates are otherwise qualified, their appointments cannot be terminated merely to cover up administrative lapses by the appointing authority. Furthermore, the Court found the selective termination of lower-grade employees while retaining higher-grade appointments to be discriminatory and a violation of the right to equality. The key principle laid down is that the state cannot terminate employees in a sweeping manner without due process, especially when the employees were not privy to any alleged procedural violations during their recruitment.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government terminate the services of contractual employees in a sweeping manner without issuing show-cause notices?
  • Does the termination of lower-grade employees while retaining higher-grade appointments violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
  • Are constitutional petitions filed by contractual employees regarding termination barred by Article 212 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Prof. ANWAAR A. KHAN, CHAIRMAN AND DEAN, SHAIKH ZAYED POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL INSTITUTE, LAHORE Versus Prof. MUHAMMAD SAEED, PROFESSOR OF GYNAE/OBST. SHAIKH ZAYED POSTGRADUATE MEDICAL INSTITUTE, LAHORE2007 PLC(CS) 168 · Lahore High Court · 2006-10-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD YAR PATWARI Versus DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, SAHIWAL2006 PLC(CS) 989 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs BILQEES AKHTAR, NURSING INSTRUCTOR Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB through Secretary2006 PLC(CS) 952 · Lahore High Court · 2006-01-19Read full judgment →
• Mrs. SURRAYA KHANUM Versus MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT, PUNJAB INSTITUTE OF CARDIOLOGY, LAHORE2006 PLC(CS) 666 · Lahore High Court · 2006-04-18Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR KHAN HOTI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2006 PLC(CS) 619 · Lahore High Court · 2006-03-21Read full judgment →
• Sardar ZAFAR IQBAL DOGAR Versus SECRETARY OF THE GOVERNEMNT OF THE PUNJAB HOME DEPARTMENT, LAHORE2006 PLC(CS) 164 · Lahore High Court · 2005-11-22Read full judgment →
• Dr. TARIQ IQBAL Versus Dr. HAMEED-UD-DIN2006 PLC(CS) 107 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• NISAR AHMED BUTT Versus HASAN NAWAZ TARAR, SPECIAL SECRETARY EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), PUNJAB, LAHORE2005 PLC(CS) 986 · Lahore High Court · 2004-06-16
  contempt of courtservice lawpro forma promotionante-dating promotionservice rules interpretationdepartmental promotion committeecivil service
  Summary & questions settled

  This contempt petition arose from the failure of the Education Department to implement a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment directing the ante-dating of promotions for the petitioners to BS-18 and BS-19. The departmental authorities contended that petitioners 8 to 10 were ineligible for such promotion due to the lack of an M.A./M.Sc. degree, citing the Punjab Education Department (Schools Education) Recruitment Rules, 1987. The Court examined the rules and determined that the qualification requirement did not apply to the petitioners, who had already been promoted as Headmasters prior to the rule changes. Furthermore, the Court noted that the specific restriction in the rules regarding M.A./M.Sc. degrees did not extend to the petitioners' specific promotion path. Holding that the authorities had misinterpreted the rules and failed to comply with previous judicial directions, the Court discharged the contempt notice but ordered the authorities to place the petitioners' cases before the Departmental Promotion Committee and Provincial Selection Board for immediate compliance. The Court affirmed that any ambiguity in service rules must be resolved in favor of the civil servant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Punjab Education Department (Schools Education) Recruitment Rules, 1987 require an M.A./M.Sc. degree for the promotion of existing Headmasters to BS-18?
  • Should ambiguity in service rules be resolved in favor of the civil servant?
  • Can new qualification requirements in service rules be applied retrospectively to employees already promoted to a post?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. AFTAB AHMAD MALIK Versus UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY2005 PLC(CS) 97 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Professor Miss RABIA NOOR Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2005 PLC(CS) 836 · Lahore High Court · 2005-02-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. MUJAHID ALI MANSOORI Versus UNIVERSITY OF THE PUNJAB and others2005 PLC(CS) 694 · Lahore High Court · 2005-02-21Read full judgment →
• FARID ULLAH KHAN Versus FEDERAL TAX OMBUDSMAN2005 PLC(CS) 1199 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• RAFIQUE AHMAD Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER2005 PLC(CS) 1193 · Lahore High Court · 2004-03-30Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD KHALID MIRZA Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2004 PLC(CS) 800 · Lahore High Court · 2003-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mian ATTA MUHAMMAD ZAFAR Versus SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LOCAL GOVT. AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, LAHORE2004 PLC(CS) 742 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rana MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus DIRECTOR FOOD PUNJAB2004 PLC(CS) 567 · Lahore High Court · 2004-01-26Read full judgment →
• ZAHEER-UL-HASSAN Versus PAKISTAN POSTAL OFFICE2004 PLC(CS) 369 · Lahore High Court · 2003-11-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD PERVAIZ Versus THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NAROWAL2004 PLC(CS) 201 · Lahore High Court · 2003-11-20Read full judgment →
• Prof. KAMRAN AZIZ Versus CHIEF EXECUTIVE, ALLAMA IQBAL MEDICAL COLLEGE, LAHORE2003 PLC(CS) 296 · Lahore High Court · 2002-04-11
  official accommodationbody corporatemedical institutionvacation of premisesadministrative managementallotment policyservice law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an Intra-Court Appeal and several writ petitions challenging notices issued by the Allama Iqbal Medical College, Lahore, requiring former employees to vacate official accommodations following their transfer. The core legal question was whether the Medical Institution, as a body corporate under the Punjab Medical and Health Institutions Act, 1998, possessed the legal authority to manage and reclaim residential property, given that the title to the property remained vested in the Provincial Government. The Court held that the Medical Institution, being a body corporate with the power to hold and dispose of property, possessed the inherent authority to manage its affairs, including the allotment and vacation of residential premises for its employees. The Court reasoned that the administration and management of the institution necessarily included the power to regulate accommodation, regardless of the underlying title ownership by the Provincial Government. Furthermore, the Court observed that the petitioners were contractually bound by the terms of their original allotment orders, which mandated vacation upon transfer. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, and the appellants were granted one month to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Does a medical institution established as a body corporate under the Punjab Medical and Health Institutions Act 1998 have the authority to manage and reclaim residential property even if the title remains with the Provincial Government?
  • Does the power of a medical institution to hold property include the authority to allot and regulate the vacation of premises for its employees?
  • Are employees of a medical institution bound by allotment terms requiring them to vacate official housing upon transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD QUSAIN NAQVI Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB2003 PLC(CS) 128 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ch. EHSAN SABRI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2003 PLC(CS) 113 · Lahore High Court · 2002-08-05Read full judgment →
• Dr. NIGHAT BILAL Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH2003 PLC(CS) 1018 · Lahore High Court · 2002-12-02Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF CHAUDHRY Versus CHAIRMAN. CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE2001 PLC(CS) 781 · Lahore High Court · 2001-03-01Read full judgment →
• FIAZ MUHAMMAD QURESHI, DSP (LEGAL), MULTAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB, LAHORE2001 PLC(CS) 672 · Lahore High Court · 2001-01-12Read full judgment →
• ARSHAD ALI KHAN Versus SECRETARY, ESTA LISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD,2000 PLC(CS) 84 · Lahore High Court · 1999-07-08Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR BARLAS Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2000 PLC(CS) 1165 · Lahore High Court · 2000-03-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KHANEWAL2000 PLC(CS) 1127 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD SARFRAZ KHAN JHAWARI,ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, RAWALPINDI1999 PLC(CS) 958 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-11Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMMAD MUMTAZ Versus UMRA BEVI1999 PLC(CS) 793 · Lahore High Court · 1999-02-12Read full judgment →
• NAILS IQBAL Versus D.E.O., GUJRANWALA1999 PLC(CS) 46 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
• CHAMBER OF COMMERCE .AND INDUSTRIES, FAISALABAD Versus M.D. CHAUDHARY1999 PLC(CS) 161 · Lahore High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
• ABDUL SHAKOOR Versus PRINTING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD1999 PLC(CS) 114 · Lahore High Court · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYA; Versus HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB,LAHORE1999 PLC(CS) 106 · Lahore High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM TAHIR Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE1998 PLC(CS) 832 · Lahore High Court · 1998-04-16Read full judgment →
• TARIQ MAQSOOD Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1998 PLC(CS) 810 · Lahore High Court · 1998-02-23Read full judgment →
• SAMINA YOUNAS Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB1998 PLC(CS) 556 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-17Read full judgment →
• JAMEEL AHMAD Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAHAWALPUR1998 PLC(CS) 448 · Lahore High Court · 1998-01-13Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD QADEER Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1998 PLC(CS) 409 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-19Read full judgment →
• JAVED MAQBOOL BHATTI Versus SECRETARY, IRRIGATION AND POWER DEPARTMENT1998 PLC(CS) 208 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• NASIRA NAHEED Versus SHEIKHPURA SHUJ ARA DISTRICT COUNCIL1998 PLC(CS) 1272 · Lahore High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
• GHULAM FARID Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL, RAILWAY POLICE1998 PLC(CS) 1202 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
• MANZOORHUSSAIN,NAIB-TEHSILDAR Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, LAYYAH , Tahir Haider Wasti, A.A.-G.1997 PLC(CS) 965 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ZIA-UL-HAQ Versus DEPUTY DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, TEHSIL KAMALIA, DISTRICT TOBA TEK SINGB1997 PLC(CS) 927 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-15Read full judgment →
• INTISAR SHAMIM AHMED Versus SECRETARY, LABOUR AND MANPOWSER,GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE1997 PLC(CS) 860 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD INTIZAR-UL-HASSAN Versus UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, FAISALABAD1997 PLC(CS) 855 · Lahore High Court · 1996-07-01Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR BHATTI Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1997 PLC(CS) 84 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-22Read full judgment →