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.
- N.W.F.P. GOVERNMENT Versus Subedar ABDUL QAYYUM1976 PLC(CS) 22 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1975-03-01Read full judgment →
- Syed MIR MUHAMMAD Versus N.W. F. P. GOVERNMENT1976 PLC(CS) 17 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1975-01-30Read full judgment →
- DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PESHAWAR Versus SANAULLAH AND OTHERS1976 PLC(CS) 156 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1976-04-30Read full judgment →
- ABDUR RASHID NAWAZ Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.W. F. P. AND OTHERS1976 PLC(CS) 153 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1976-04-17Read full judgment →
- KISHWAR KHAN AND OTHERS Versus GOVERNMENT OF N. W. F. P. THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY AND OTHERS1976 PLC(CS) 146 · Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal · 1976-05-29Read full judgment →
- PARVEEN AKHTAR Versus MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN2025 PLC(CS) 981 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-18Read full judgment →
- NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF PAKISTAN Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED2025 PLC(CS) 941 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Intra Court Appeal challenges a judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chambers which set aside an order issued by the National Commission for Human Rights (NCHR). The core legal question concerns the extent of the NCHR's jurisdiction regarding employment and pension disputes of private bank employees. The court held that the NCHR lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate pension-related disputes of commercial bank employees, as such matters are contractual and governed by specialized employment laws and forums rather than human rights mandates. The court laid down the principle that the NCHR's statutory authority is restricted to investigating human rights violations, abetment, or negligence by public servants, and it cannot overreach into specialized employment or contractual disputes falling outside its statutory mandate.
Questions settled- Does the National Commission for Human Rights have the jurisdiction to adjudicate pension-related disputes of private bank employees?
- Whether employment and pension disputes of commercial bank employees fall within the statutory mandate of the National Commission for Human Rights?
- Can the National Commission for Human Rights interfere in matters governed by specialized employment laws and forums?
- MUHAMMAD JEHANGIR AWAN Versus HONOURABLE AUTHORITY through Registrar Islamabad2025 PLC(CS) 876 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-07-06Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus FEDERAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY through Director General, Islamabad2025 PLC(CS) 861 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 sought the upgradation of posts for Constables, Head Constables, and Assistant Sub-Inspectors in the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) from BPS-5 to 7, BPS-7 to 9, and BPS-9 to 11 respectively, on parity with similar law enforcement agencies. The core legal question was whether denying upgradation to FIA personnel while granting it to identical ranks in other federal and provincial police and intelligence organizations constitutes unlawful discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution. The Islamabad High Court held that the petitioners were indeed subjected to discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 25, as up-gradation policies must be implemented uniformly across equivalent classes of employees. The court ruled that upgradation is an administrative policy matter distinct from promotion, and its denial without intelligible differentia is arbitrary. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and respondents were directed to upgrade the petitioners' posts accordingly.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to adjudicate matters relating to the upgradation of civil servants' posts?
- Does the denial of post upgradation to FIA personnel while granting it to similar ranks in other law enforcement agencies violate the principle of equality under Article 25 of the Constitution?
- Is upgradation of a post considered a vested right of an employee or an administrative policy matter?
- Does the bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in service matters involving the general policy of post upgradation?
- NAWAB ALI Versus NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY2025 PLC(CS) 783 · Islamabad High Court · 2024-11-29Read full judgment →
- ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY (AIOU) through Registrar, Islamabad Versus Professor Dr. SYED ZAFAR ILYAS2025 PLC(CS) 1623 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD HASSAN MUSTAFA (Late) Versus OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (OGDCL), through Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer2025 PLC(CS) 1528 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-03Read full judgment →
- FARHAN KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Division, Islamabad2025 PLC(CS) 1510 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-04-23Read full judgment →
- ZAFAR ULLAH KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting2025 PLC(CS) 1462 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, retired employees of the Pakistan Television Corporation (PTVC), filed this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking the release of withheld commutation amounts. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of the petition against a public limited company and whether the denial of pensionary benefits, citing financial constraints and lack of Finance Division approval for internal rules, was lawful. The Court held that the petition was maintainable as PTVC operates under the effective control of the Federal Government and performs public functions. On merits, the Court ruled that pensionary benefits, including commutation, constitute a fundamental right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution and cannot be denied based on procedural lapses or internal financial issues. The Court affirmed that pension is a vested right earned through service, not a state bounty. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to process and pay the commutation amounts within two months, while declining the request to restrain the use of specific corporate funds due to the availability of alternate remedies.
Questions settled- Is a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 maintainable against a public limited company under the effective control of the Federal Government?
- Does the denial of pensionary benefits to retired employees constitute a violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Can an employer withhold pensionary benefits due to procedural lapses in rule approval or alleged financial constraints?
- AMBREEN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2025 PLC(CS) 1401 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
- TARIQ MEHMOOD Versus SHAZIA MUNIR2025 PLC(CS) 1254 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-06-30Read full judgment →
- Professor Doctor HAMID MEHMOOD Versus Shaheed ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO MEDICAL UNIVERSITY2025 PLC(CS) 1090 · Islamabad High Court · 2025-03-24Read full judgment →
- MASOOD ALAM NIAZI Versus SECRETARY MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTION GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD2024 PLC(CS) 10 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-12-06Read full judgment →
- Captain (R) MUHAMMAD ALI ZULQARNAIN KIANI Versus ISLAMABAD ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY (IESCO) through Chief Executive Officer, Islamabad2023 PLC(CS) 886 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-06Read full judgment →
- TASLIM MUMTAZ, ASSISTANT VICE-PRESIDENT Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2023 PLC(CS) 863 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
- AFNAN FARID Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2023 PLC(CS) 837 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-09-29Read full judgment →
- Syed MOHSIN SHAH Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law and Justice, Islamabad2023 PLC(CS) 1467 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-06-15Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD RASHEED MIRZA Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2023 PLC(CS) 1246 · Islamabad High Court · 2023-03-24Read full judgment →
- SAIRA RUBAB NASIR Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Law and Justice2023 PLC(CS) 103 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves multiple consolidated writ petitions challenging the vires of the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, and the legality of appointments made to the Medical and Dental Council. The core legal questions concern whether the Act violates fundamental rights, whether employees of the erstwhile Pakistan Medical and Dental Council (PMDC) possess vested rights to continued employment, and whether the appointment process for Council members was transparent. The Court held that the PMC Act, 2020 is intra vires and constitutional. It determined that employees of the erstwhile PMDC are governed by non-statutory rules, possessing no vested right to permanent employment or superannuation. However, the Court declared the appointment of the specific Council members (respondents 3-9) illegal due to a lack of transparency and merit-based selection. Consequently, Rule 8 of the Appointment of Members (Council and Board) Rules, 2021, which sought to validate these appointments, was struck down as ultra vires. The judgment establishes that legislative intent regarding service terms is paramount and that judicial review of administrative appointments requires adherence to transparent, merit-based procedures.
Questions settled- Is the Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020, ultra vires the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Do employees of the erstwhile Pakistan Medical and Dental Council possess a vested right to continued employment under the new Pakistan Medical Commission?
- Does the Medical Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction to hear appeals against decisions of the Pakistan Medical Commission prior to a formal notification by the Federal Government?
- Can the executive validate illegal appointments of statutory body members through retrospective rule-making?
- ABID CNG STATION Versus OIL AND GAS REGULATORY AUTHORITY2022 PLC(CS) 1169 · Islamabad High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought post-arrest bail for the petitioner accused of offences under Sections 377 and 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the delay in FIR registration and the evidentiary sufficiency regarding the alleged sexual abuse. The Court dismissed the bail petition, holding that although the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, bail may still be refused where there is a risk of repetition of the offence or tampering with evidence. The Court further clarified that under Section 377-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, physical penetration is not a prerequisite for establishing the offence of sexual abuse under Section 377-B, as the provision encompasses acts such as stroking, caressing, and exhibitionism. The delay in lodging the FIR was deemed inconsequential, as the matter was previously under investigation by the Federal Investigation Agency under the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016.
Questions settled- Does the offence under Section 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require proof of physical penetration to constitute sexual abuse?
- Can bail be refused in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the recognized exceptions for refusing bail in offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause?
- NARGIS SHAZIA CHAUDHRY Versus FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION2021 PLC(CS) 689 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-01-11Read full judgment →
- SIKANDAR HAYAT MAKEN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Establishment Divisions Government of Pakistan2021 PLC(CS) 1450 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-09-29Read full judgment →
- AYAZ AHMED KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Interior, Islamabad2021 PLC(CS) 1394 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Director General in the Capital Development Authority (C.D.A.), filed this writ petition seeking a writ of quo warranto to remove the Chairman of the C.D.A., alleging his appointment violated the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was currently facing disciplinary proceedings and criminal charges initiated by the C.D.A. under the respondent's administration, was a bona fide litigant entitled to the discretionary relief of quo warranto. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioner’s conduct demonstrated the petition was vexatious and motivated by personal vendetta rather than genuine public interest. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is discretionary and equitable. A writ of quo warranto is not issued as a matter of course; the Court must scrutinize the relator's motives to prevent the abuse of judicial process. Where a petition is filed to settle personal scores, the Court must refuse relief to maintain the integrity of its proceedings.
Questions settled- Is the issuance of a writ of quo warranto a matter of course or a discretionary power of the High Court?
- Can the High Court consider the conduct and motives of a petitioner when deciding whether to grant a writ of quo warranto?
- Should a writ petition filed under the guise of public interest be dismissed if it is found to be motivated by personal vendetta?
- WAQAS RAFI AWAN Versus NATIONAL ENGINEERING AND SCIENTIFIC COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD2021 PLC(CS) 1309 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-05-06Read full judgment →
- ALTAF HUSSAIN Versus FEDERAL PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION2020 PLC(CS) 1558 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-07-30Read full judgment →
- FAZAL REHMAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2020 PLC(CS) 1294 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-05-14Read full judgment →
- GHULAM SARWAR Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology2020 PLC(CS) 1211 · Islamabad High Court · 2020-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns multiple writ petitions filed by retired employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL) who had previously opted for the Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS). The petitioners sought directions for the payment of pensionary benefits and periodic increases, arguing that their terms of service were protected by statute and that they were coerced into the VSS. The core legal question was whether these employees could invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge the terms of a non-statutory scheme they had voluntarily accepted. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable. It reasoned that the VSS was a non-statutory contract, and disputes arising therefrom are governed by the principle of master and servant, not by statutory rules. Consequently, such grievances cannot be agitated under Article 199. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitions suffered from inordinate delay (laches), as they were filed years after the VSS was executed. The key principle laid down is that Constitutional jurisdiction is unavailable for enforcing rights arising from non-statutory voluntary separation schemes.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition is maintainable against the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited regarding terms of a non-statutory Voluntary Separation Scheme?
- Does the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court extend to disputes arising from a voluntary separation agreement between an employer and employee?
- Can an employee who has accepted benefits under a Voluntary Separation Scheme subsequently challenge the scheme's terms on the ground of coercion?
- Is a delay of several years in filing a petition for pensionary benefits sufficient ground for dismissal on the basis of laches?
- Prof. Dr. ABDUL WAHEED Versus RECTOR, COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, ISLAMABAD2019 PLC(CS) 672 · Islamabad High Court · 2018-10-08Read full judgment →
- Dr. ALI BAT KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment Division2019 PLC(CS) 1391 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the appointment and repeated contractual extensions of a retired civil servant as an Advisor/Consultant in a government project. The petitioner contended that the respondent's appointment and subsequent nine extensions were unlawful, arguing that they bypassed mandated procedures, lacked proper approval, and exceeded age limits. The court examined whether the extensions, granted by the Secretary of the Planning and Development Division rather than the Evaluation Committee, were valid. The court held that the Establishment Division's Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 17.08.2010, which purported to authorize the Secretary to grant extensions, was of no legal effect because it departed from established policy without the requisite Prime Minister's approval, violating the Rules of Business, 1973. Consequently, the court declared the extensions granted without the Evaluation Committee's recommendation unlawful. The court affirmed that while a retired civil servant may compete for contract posts, such appointments must strictly adhere to procedural mandates. The principle established is that any departure from established government policy regarding contract extensions requires explicit approval from the Prime Minister to be legally valid.
Questions settled- Can a government department depart from an established policy regarding contract extensions without the approval of the Prime Minister?
- Does the Rules of Business, 1973 require Prime Minister approval for departures from established policy?
- Is a retired civil servant prohibited from competing for a contract-based project post in the public sector?
- Are extensions of contract appointments for project posts valid if granted by a Secretary without the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee?
- MUHAMMAD ZARYAB ALI Versus MINISTRY OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS, through Secretary, Islamabad2019 PLC(CS) 1361 · Islamabad High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Versus Dr. MUHAMMAD ARIF2018 PLC(CS) 907 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns Intra Court Appeals filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a single bench judgment that set aside the Central Selection Board's (CSB) promotion recommendations and the Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 10.02.2014. The core legal questions were whether writ petitions against CSB recommendations are maintainable and whether the O.M.'s formula, specifically the five discretionary marks for "Integrity/General Reputation/Perception," is legally valid. The Court held that writ petitions challenging mere CSB recommendations are not maintainable as they are advisory and inchoate. However, challenges to the vires of the O.M. are maintainable. The Court struck down the five discretionary marks, ruling that the CSB's discretion was unfettered, arbitrary, and violated the principles of natural justice. The key principle laid down is that any adverse finding regarding a civil servant’s integrity must be based on tangible material, and the officer must be confronted with such material before being superseded or deferred. The Establishment Division was directed to reframe the promotion formula to ensure objectivity and transparency, removing the overriding effect of the discretionary marks.
Questions settled- Are writ petitions maintainable against the recommendations of the Central Selection Board?
- Does the allocation of discretionary marks for integrity in the promotion policy violate the principles of natural justice?
- Is a civil servant entitled to be confronted with adverse material before being superseded by the Central Selection Board?
- Can an Office Memorandum issued by the Establishment Division be challenged in writ jurisdiction?
- RASHID AMEER Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior2018 PLC(CS) 822 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-12-29Read full judgment →
- SAJJAD HUSSAIN ALI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2018 PLC(CS) 1110 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-08-07Read full judgment →
- Syed TALLAH SHAH Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2017 PLC(CS) 973 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an employee of the Utility Stores Corporation (USC), challenged his supersession by a junior officer in a promotion exercise to BPS-20. The USC contended that the petitioner was deferred by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) due to a need for further assessment of his suitability, while the junior officer was deemed fit. The court addressed two primary issues: the maintainability of the writ petition against the USC and the legality of the DPC's decision. The court held that the USC, being a public service entity fully controlled and financed by the Federal Government, is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. On the merits, the court found the DPC's decision to defer the petitioner—despite his extensive record of performance awards, special increments, and lack of adverse remarks—to be arbitrary, discriminatory, and a colorable exercise of authority. The court emphasized that promotion is a vested right based on merit and seniority, and the DPC's failure to act impartially constituted a breach of trust. The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to reconsider the petitioner's promotion from the date his junior was promoted.
Questions settled- Is the Utility Stores Corporation a public service entity amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Can a Departmental Promotion Committee defer an employee's promotion despite a consistent record of performance awards and no adverse remarks?
- Does the promotion of a junior officer over a senior, qualified employee without valid justification constitute a violation of the right to equal treatment under the law?
- NAZEER-UD-DIN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Passport and Immigration Department2017 PLC(CS) 578 · Islamabad High Court · 2016-12-26Read full judgment →
- Dr. MUHAMMAD USMAN Versus COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY2017 PLC(CS) 1434 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-01-31Read full judgment →
- Syed IJAZ HUSSAIN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2017 PLC(CS) 115 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-07-27Read full judgment →
- NOOR WALI KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2017 PLC(CS) 1113 · Islamabad High Court · 2017-01-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. Rana MUHAMMAD AKHLAQ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Cabinet Division2015 PLC(CS) 568 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Deputy Animal Husbandry Commissioner, invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court challenging various illegalities, corrupt practices, and procedural violations regarding food security, the import and export of livestock, quota allocations, and the unlawful appointment of respondent No.4. The core legal questions involved the legality of importing a rejected sheep consignment from Australia, the mandatory requirement of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) and quarantine procedures under quarantine laws, the existence of diseases in the imported sheep, and the validity of appointing an officer in basic pay scale 19 to a scale 20 post. The court held that the diversion, offloading, and subsequent culling of the diseased sheep consignment were tainted with mala fides and illegalities, that the NOC and quarantine rules must be strictly adhered to, and that the appointment of respondent No.4 to a BS-20 post by the Secretary without the Prime Minister's approval was illegal. The petition was accepted, and authorities were directed to initiate legal and disciplinary action against respondents Nos.2 to 5.
Questions settled- Whether an animal consignment rejected by a foreign state can be imported into Pakistan without complying with mandatory statutory quarantine and NOC requirements?
- Can an officer in basic pay scale 19 be appointed to a basic pay scale 20 post by the Secretary without the approval of the Prime Minister of Pakistan?
- Does the deviation from established economic and quota policies for livestock export amount to illegal and mala fide exercise of authority?
- Whether the culling of imported livestock based on contradictory and unauthorized laboratory reports is lawful?
- IFTIKHAR RASHID Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2015 PLC(CS) 1259 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-05-29Read full judgment →
- Major (R) WAQAR ALI SHAH Versus NAWAB ALI2015 PLC(CS) 1137 · Islamabad High Court · 2015-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves several Intra Court Appeals challenging a judgment that declared the regularization of contract and contingent employees by a Cabinet Sub-Committee as void ab initio. The core legal question concerned the validity of the regularization process and the appropriate mechanism for addressing the status of these employees. The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment, holding that the matter should be resolved through a newly constituted Committee established by the Cabinet Division. This Committee is mandated to examine each case on its merits in accordance with the 2008 regularization policy guidelines. The Court established that while the government has the authority to regularize employees, such actions must comply with prescribed qualifications and policy criteria. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that departments retain the liberty to initiate proceedings against illegally regularized employees, provided that any adverse action strictly adheres to the principles of due process and the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Questions settled- Can a department take action against an employee regularized under a policy if the appointment was illegal or based on forged documents?
- Does the right to due process under Article 10-A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 apply to administrative actions affecting the employment status of regularized workers?
- Is the regularization of contract and contingent employees by a Cabinet Sub-Committee subject to review by a specialized committee to ensure compliance with policy guidelines?
- ADNAN QURESHI Versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY2015 PLC(CS) 1030 · Islamabad High Court · 2012-01-31Read full judgment →
- SOHAIL NAJEEB Versus MINISTRY OF FINANCE2014 PLC(CS) 750 · Islamabad High Court · 2014-01-23Read full judgment →
- RASHEED BAIG Versus ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED2013 PLC(CS) 1444 · Islamabad High Court · 2013-05-16Read full judgment →
- SHOAIB MEHMOOD AWAN Versus OMBUDSMAN (MOHTASIB), AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR2025 PLC(CS) 540 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2024-06-10Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD SAJJAD Versus SECRETARY HIGHER EDUCATION AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR MUZAFFARABAD2023 PLC(CS) 735 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-05-10Read full judgment →
- SHABRAZ SHABIR Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (MALE) ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION, MUZAFFARABAD2023 PLC(CS) 718 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-06-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YASEEN ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR (ASI) Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR2023 PLC(CS) 54 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-04-28Read full judgment →
- AQIB ALI Versus CHIEF ENGINEER (POWER) STATION MANGLA MIRPUR2022 PLC(CS) 1294 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974, seeking to restrain respondents from making appointments except from District Mirpur, to set aside an impugned advertisement for the post of Cleaner (BPS-2), and to prevent the petitioner's displacement from his current posting. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 44 against Pakistan WAPDA officials operating within Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the petitioner's locus standi as a contingent employee, and the applicability of the quota policy. The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974 because WAPDA is established under Pakistan law and its officials do not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The court laid down the principle that no writ can be issued under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution against authorities, institutions, or organizations established under the authority of the Government of Pakistan that do not act in connection with the affairs of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974 is maintainable against officials of Pakistan WAPDA?
- Do organizations established under the authority of the Government of Pakistan perform functions in connection with the affairs of the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir for the purpose of writ jurisdiction?
- Can a contingent paid employee challenge recruitment advertisements through a constitutional petition when the employing authority is governed by Pakistani federal legislation?
- MUHAMMAD QASIM, MECHANIC Versus SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER PUBLIC HEALTH ENGINEERING/BUILDING (NORTH) POONCH DIVISION RAWALKOT AZAD KASHMIR2022 PLC(CS) 1270 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-02-14Read full judgment →
- MOHAMMAD JUNAID KHAN Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR UNIVERSITY2022 PLC(CS) 1146 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-12-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD YOUNIS Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR2019 PLC(CS) 856 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2018-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by employees of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Election Commission Secretariat seeking the extension of a 20% special allowance granted to employees of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Secretariat. The petitioners relied on a 1991 Government Notification, which entitled Election Commission employees to all pay, allowances, and benefits admissible to their counterparts in the Civil Secretariat. The core legal question was whether the denial of this specific allowance to the petitioners, despite the 1991 parity notification, constituted unlawful discrimination. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to the allowance, reasoning that the 1991 notification created a binding entitlement to future benefits granted to Civil Secretariat staff. Citing the principle that similar treatment must be accorded to similarly situated employees, the Court determined that withholding the benefit was discriminatory and lacked a reasonable rationale. The petition was accepted, directing the respondents to extend the 20% special allowance to the petitioners effective from July 1, 2010, ensuring equitable treatment in line with established judicial precedents regarding parity in service benefits.
Questions settled- Are employees of the Election Commission Secretariat entitled to the same pay and allowances as employees of the Civil Secretariat based on a parity notification?
- Does the denial of a special allowance to one group of government employees, while granting it to another group performing similar duties, constitute unlawful discrimination?
- Can a government notification granting future benefits to one class of civil servants be enforced by another class of employees claiming parity?
- SHAHISTA NOREEN Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad2017 PLC(CS) 1453 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2017-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, seeking a writ of prohibition against the transfer of the petitioner, an Assistant Professor (B-18), from her current posting in Muzaffarabad. The core legal question was whether the government is bound by its own policy notifications regarding the posting of spouses at the same station. The petitioner argued that her husband is a government employee stationed in Muzaffarabad and that government policy mandates, as far as possible, the posting of spouses at the same station. The court examined the relevant government notifications dated 25.08.1998 and 03.07.2006. Referring to the explanation of section 51 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, the court held that such notifications constitute law. Consequently, the court accepted the petition, restraining the respondents from transferring the petitioner from Muzaffarabad as long as her husband remains posted there. The key principle laid down is that government policy notifications regarding the posting of spouses have the force of law and must be adhered to by authorities.
Questions settled- Do government policy notifications regarding the posting of spouses have the force of law?
- Can a civil servant invoke writ jurisdiction to enforce a government policy regarding spousal posting?
- Are government authorities required to post spouses at the same station under the relevant government policy?
- INHABITANTS OF VILLAGE NINGA PANI NARIYOLA, DISTRICT BAGH Versus DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (FEMALE), BAGH, AZAD KASHMIR2015 PLC(CS) 330 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2014-09-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, seeking to direct respondent No.4 to join her place of posting at the Government Girls Primary School Ninga Pani Nariyola, and to quash an impugned order dated May 15, 2012, which shifted the school to another location. The core legal question was whether a government-established educational institution could be arbitrarily shifted by a District Education Officer in violation of established government policy and site selection rules. The High Court held that the impugned order issued by the District Education Officer shifting the school was coram non judice, without lawful authority, and void, as an institution established by the Government cannot be relocated without the recommendations of the designated Site Selection Committee. The court laid down the principle that void and without jurisdiction orders do not create any vested rights and can be ignored, and that public authorities must strictly comply with governing departmental notifications and lawful directives of superior authorities regarding institutional infrastructure.
Questions settled- Whether a government-established educational institution can be shifted to another location without recommendations from the Site Selection Committee?
- Does a void or without jurisdiction order create any legal right or vest any title?
- Can inhabitants of a locality maintain a constitutional petition in the public interest regarding the unauthorized shifting of a village school?
- Prof. Dr. KHALID MAHMOOD Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad2014 PLC(CS) 968 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2013-12-17Read full judgment →
- NOSHEEN HAMEED Versus BANK OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR2007 PLC(CS) 1292 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2007-08-08Read full judgment →
- SYED ZAMAN ALI SHAH Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1990 PLC(CS) 733 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1990-06-19Read full judgment →
- IRFAN HUSSAIN Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT2025 PLC(CS) 907 · Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal · 2024-10-03Read full judgment →
- JAVED SHEIKH Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT2025 PLC(CS) 1148 · Gilgit Baltistan Service Tribunal · 2025-05-06Read full judgment →
- ALI MUHAMMAD Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan Civil Secretariat, Gilgit2025 PLC(CS) 891 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under Article 86(2) of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order, 2018, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Sub-Engineer (BS-11) under the Prime Minister Family Assistance Package following the death of his brother, a government employee. The core legal question was whether a deceased government employee's brother, nominated by the widow, is eligible for appointment under the Family Assistance Package when the deceased's children are minors and the widow declines the position. The Court held that the petitioner, being the sole breadwinner supporting the deceased's family and possessing the requisite qualifications, was entitled to the appointment. The Court found that the respondents had previously appointed brothers of deceased employees in similar circumstances, and denying the petitioner's claim constituted discriminatory treatment. The key principle laid down is that where the primary beneficiaries (widow/children) of the Family Assistance Package are unable or unwilling to take the appointment, the government cannot arbitrarily deny the appointment to a nominated family member who is otherwise qualified and supporting the deceased's dependents.
Questions settled- Is the brother of a deceased government employee eligible for appointment under the Prime Minister Family Assistance Package if nominated by the widow?
- Does the appointment of a deceased employee's brother under the Family Assistance Package constitute a valid claim if the government has previously made similar appointments?
- Can the government deny an appointment under the Family Assistance Package to a qualified nominee who is the sole breadwinner for the deceased's family?
- ZEESHAN AHMED Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit Baltistan, Gilgit2025 PLC(CS) 1213 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2024-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed under Article 86(2) of the Government of Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018, seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as an LDC (BS-11) in the Treasury Department under the Prime Minister/Chief Minister’s Family Assistance Package for deceased government employees. The petitioner, claiming to be the adopted son of a deceased unmarried government servant, argued that he was entitled to the appointment based on a Gilgit-Baltistan Cabinet decision dated 16th June 2020. The core legal question was whether an adopted son of a deceased unmarried government servant qualifies for employment under the Assistance Package. The Court held that the Assistance Package, specifically the Cabinet decision, restricts eligibility to the real children of the deceased's parents in the event of an unmarried employee's death. The Court found that the petitioner, being an adopted son, did not meet the criteria of a 'real child' and that the petition contained misleading statements regarding the status of the deceased's parents. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, establishing that an adopted child is ineligible for appointment under the Assistance Package.
Questions settled- Is an adopted son of a deceased unmarried government servant eligible for appointment under the Prime Minister/Chief Minister's Family Assistance Package?
- Does the Gilgit-Baltistan Cabinet decision dated 16th June 2020 allow for the appointment of a grandchild or adopted child under the Assistance Package?
- Can the parents of a deceased unmarried government servant nominate a grandchild for appointment under the Assistance Package?
- REHMAT KARIM Versus GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan2024 PLC(CS) 96 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-06-12Read full judgment →
- UMAR JAN Versus ABDUL JABBAR2024 PLC(CS) 79 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2023-04-19Read full judgment →
- MARIAM BEGUM Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary, Gilgit-Baltistan2019 PLC(CS) 1304 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2019-03-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by two petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to confirm their services as Nursing Assistants in the Health Department of Gilgit-Baltistan, along with the release of back benefits and salaries. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, who possessed diplomas in 'Midwifery', were qualified for the posts of 'Nursing Assistant' for which they were initially appointed. The respondents argued that the petitioners lacked the requisite qualification, as the 'Midwifery' diploma is distinct from the 'Nursing Assistant' diploma and does not cover the necessary medical training. The Court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their 'Midwifery' qualification was equivalent to the required 'Nursing Assistant' diploma. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, ruling that candidates who do not possess the mandatory educational or technical qualifications prescribed for a specific post cannot claim a right to confirmation or regularization in that position. The judgment establishes that appointment conditions, such as verification of diplomas, are binding, and a lack of requisite qualification precludes a claim for service confirmation.
Questions settled- Can a candidate claim confirmation of service if they lack the specific educational or technical qualification prescribed for the post?
- Is a diploma in Midwifery equivalent to a diploma in Nursing Assistant for the purpose of government employment?
- Does the failure to verify required diplomas as per the terms of an appointment letter justify the refusal to confirm services?
- MOHAMMAD ALI AKHTAR Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF GILGIT-BALTISTAN2017 PLC(CS) 40 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2016-04-28Read full judgment →
- SABIR ALI Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF G.B.2016 PLC(CS) 979 · Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court · 2015-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a writ petition filed before the Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court, wherein the petitioner sought to set aside an impugned order dated 28/08/2015 and sought regularisation of his service on a contract post. The core legal question was whether a second writ petition is maintainable on the same cause of action where the earlier writ petition challenging the contractual service termination was already dismissed in limine, and whether an administrative order regarding stoppage of salary for absence from duty constitutes a termination of service. The court held that the impugned orders merely constituted simple disciplinary actions by the competent authority for unauthorized absence from duty and did not create a fresh cause of action distinct from the previously dismissed writ petition. Consequently, the court refused admission of the petition in limine, establishing the principle that a fresh writ petition cannot be entertained on identical grounds or where the underlying cause of action was already available and adjudicated upon in earlier proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether a second writ petition is maintainable on the same cause of action when an earlier petition has already been dismissed?
- Does an administrative order directing the stoppage of salary due to absence from duty amount to termination of service?
- Can a contractual employee challenge a disciplinary action without exhausting departmental remedies or explaining their absence?
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM GHUMAN, ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2015 PLC(CS) 179 · Federal Shariat Court · 2014-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Shariat petition challenged Section 19(2) of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 and Rule 3(1), Chapter 11 of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Service Regulation, alleging they violated the principle of audi alteram partem and Islamic injunctions by employing the master and servant concept and creating discriminatory service standards. The core legal question was whether the challenged provisions were repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam and whether they provided adequate safeguards and fair procedures for removal and termination. The Federal Shariat Court held that the petition had become infructuous because the Supreme Court of Pakistan had already declared Rule 3(1) of the SECP Service Rules ultra vires the Constitution and the Act, while Section 19(2) of the Act contained no provisions contrary to Islamic injunctions as it expressly mandated an inquiry by an impartial person and afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether Section 19(2) of the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act, 1997 is repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
- Does the master and servant principle in employment violate Islamic principles?
- Whether a petition challenging service rules already declared ultra vires by the Supreme Court becomes infructuous?
- Flt. Lt. FARRUKH RASHID Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD2008 PLC(CS) 517 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2008-01-14Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD IRFAN Versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, MULTAN2008 PLC(CS) 185 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2007-09-06Read full judgment →
- MUSLIM ABBAS KHAN Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (DEFENCE DIVISION) PAK SECTT.,RAWALPINDI CANTT2008 PLC(CS) 152 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2007-09-06Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD IQBAL ARSHAD Versus WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA House, Lahore2008 PLC(CS) 1290 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2004-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was filed by a former Sub-Divisional Officer who was removed from service on December 18, 1999, on allegations of running a private school during duty hours and misusing official transport. The appellant contended that he had already been compulsorily retired from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act on July 15, 1999, making the subsequent removal order void ab initio. The respondent department argued that under the WAPDA Employees Pension Rules, disciplinary proceedings could be finalized within one year of retirement. The Tribunal examined the WAPDA Employees Pension Rules and held that pending disciplinary proceedings and inquiries abate upon an employee's retirement. It clarified that the rule allowing actions within one year of retirement is meant only for withholding pension/gratuity to recover departmental dues, not for imposing major penalties like removal on an already retired employee. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned removal order.
Questions settled- Can a major penalty of removal from service be imposed on an employee who has already been compulsorily retired from service?
- Do pending disciplinary proceedings and inquiries against a WAPDA employee abate upon their retirement?
- What is the scope of the rule allowing departmental inquiries to be finalized within one year of a WAPDA employee's retirement under the WAPDA Employees Pension Rules?
- ASADULLAH Versus GENERAL MANAGER (OPERATIONS) PAKISTAN RAILWAYS2007 PLC(CS) 942 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2004-10-14Read full judgment →
- EJAZ AHMAD Versus PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN2007 PLC(CS) 934 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2004-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the removal of an Officer Grade-III from the National Bank of Pakistan, who was dismissed following charges of embezzlement, unauthorized transfer of funds to avoid Zakat, and unauthorized issuance of Call Deposit Receipts. The primary legal questions concerned whether the charges were substantiated by evidence and whether the appeal, filed beyond the limitation period, warranted condonation. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the appeal was maintainable, condoning the delay because the appellant's conduct was the foundational issue in connected appeals of other employees. On merits, the Tribunal found that the charges were baseless: the withholding tax was not embezzled but held in a bank account; fund transfers were executed upon the instructions of account-holders; and the allegations regarding Call Deposit Receipts lacked evidence from the affected parties. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the removal order, reinstating the appellant with back-benefits. The judgment emphasizes that disciplinary authorities must base findings on concrete evidence rather than mechanical assumptions and that terminology in service penalties must strictly adhere to statutory provisions, avoiding imprecise terms like degradation.
Questions settled- Can a service appeal be entertained despite being time-barred if the appellant's conduct is central to other pending related appeals?
- Does the failure to record statements of affected account-holders invalidate charges of unauthorized financial transactions in disciplinary proceedings?
- Can an employee be penalized for embezzlement if the funds in question were held in a bank's sundry account and not misappropriated for personal gain?
- Is the term 'degradation' a legally recognized penalty in service law?
- Dr. IMRAN MASOOD Versus ZONAL HEAD (G&P) STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE ZONE, Lahore and 2 others2007 PLC(CS) 471 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2004-12-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a former Deputy Manager at the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, challenged the respondent's refusal to pay back benefits following his reinstatement by the Federal Service Tribunal. Although the Tribunal had previously set aside his termination, the respondent treated the intervening period as leave without pay (E.O.L.) and denied him increments, bonuses, and consideration for promotion. The core legal question was whether the respondent's interpretation of the reinstatement order, which excluded back benefits and treated the service gap as leave without pay, was legally sustainable, particularly in light of discriminatory treatment compared to similarly situated employees. The Tribunal held that the respondent's actions violated the spirit of the reinstatement order. It ruled that back benefits inherently include annual increments, bonuses, and consideration for promotion. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of non-discrimination, directing the respondent to grant the appellant the same benefits provided to other evenly placed employees, thereby ensuring the full implementation of the original reinstatement judgment.
Questions settled- Does an order of reinstatement with back benefits entitle an employee to annual increments, bonuses, and consideration for promotion during the intervening period?
- Can an employer treat the period between termination and reinstatement as leave without pay when the termination was set aside by a Tribunal?
- Is an employee entitled to the same benefits as a similarly situated colleague who received relief for the same intervening period?
- TALAT QAMAR Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE and another2007 PLC(CS) 265 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2006-05-16Read full judgment →
- GHULAM KAIDER Versus MANAGING DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES PAKISTAN2006 PLC(CS) 980 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2004-04-22Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NOOR SHAIKH Versus THE MANAGER (POWER) WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE LAHORE2006 PLC(CS) 845 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2005-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal challenged the imposition of a penalty of "censure" against the appellant, a former Store Manager, regarding alleged shortages of LTPCC Poles during his tenure at HESCO. The core legal questions concerned whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and whether the findings of the Enquiry Committee were legally sustainable. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the disciplinary action was vitiated by material irregularities. Specifically, the Tribunal found that the appellant was never associated with the enquiry proceedings, was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses or confront complainants, and was not afforded a personal hearing before the imposition of the penalty. Furthermore, the record indicated that no shortage occurred during the appellant's tenure. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders of censure and the subsequent rejection of the departmental appeal. The judgment reaffirms the principle that disciplinary proceedings conducted behind an employee's back, without providing an opportunity for personal hearing or association with the enquiry, are legally infirm and void.
Questions settled- Is a disciplinary order valid if the accused employee was not associated with the enquiry proceedings?
- Does the failure to grant a personal hearing before imposing a penalty render a disciplinary order illegal?
- Can disciplinary action be sustained based on an enquiry report where the accused was not confronted with witnesses or complainants?
- MUHAMMAD SHAHZAD ALI KHAN and another Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR-GENERAL, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS POLICE2006 PLC(CS) 826 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2005-01-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants, who were serving as Constables in the Pakistan Railways Police, were dismissed from service following disciplinary inquiry proceedings under the Pakistan Railways Police (E&D) Rules 1996. The disciplinary action was initiated after they absented themselves from scheduled escort duty on a train, during which a dacoity occurred. The appellants admitted their absence but cited medical emergencies as justification. They challenged their dismissal before the Federal Service Tribunal, arguing that the inquiry was procedurally defective due to a lack of cross-examination opportunities, non-provision of the inquiry report, and the absence of a final show-cause notice. The Tribunal observed that while procedural discrepancies existed in the inquiry, the appellants' unauthorized absence without prior intimation to their superiors was established by their own admissions. However, noting that there was no allegation of collusion or involvement in the dacoity, the Tribunal held that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionately harsh. Consequently, the Tribunal modified the penalty to the withholding of increments for three years and ordered their reinstatement with back-benefits.
Questions settled- Whether procedural defects in a disciplinary inquiry warrant a remand for de novo proceedings if the employee has admitted the core allegation of unauthorized absence?
- Can a major penalty of dismissal from service be modified to a minor penalty by the Service Tribunal if the punishment is found to be disproportionately harsh relative to the established negligence?
- Does the admission of unauthorized absence by a civil servant shift the burden of proving a reasonable cause for such absence onto the employee?
- Sardar ABID HUSSAIN Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD2006 PLC(CS) 722 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2005-06-16Read full judgment →
- JOSEPH PRASHAD and 6 others Versus CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL PRESS TRUST, ISLAMABAD2006 PLC(CS) 489 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2004-10-07Read full judgment →
- Mr. MUHAMMAD MUNAWAR Versus PAKISTAN STEEL through Chairman2006 PLC(CS) 456 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2005-06-02Read full judgment →
- Prof. MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN Versus HAMDARD UNIVERSITY2006 PLC(CS) 437 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2005-07-25Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL, OFFICER-I, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SUKKUR2006 PLC(CS) 399 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2004-12-08Read full judgment →
- Ch. MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS2006 PLC(CS) 1035 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2003-09-12Read full judgment →
- ABDUL JABBAR CHANNA Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN2004 PLC(CS) 713 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2002-08-20Read full judgment →
- Syed ABID HUSSAIN SHAH Versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION2004 PLC(CS) 1003 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2003-11-05Read full judgment →
- MURID KAZIM SHAH Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN2002 PLC(CS) 491 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2000-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal concerns the refusal of the Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan to antedate the appellant's promotion to the position of Director, despite the promotion of junior officers under an accelerated promotion policy. The core legal question was whether the Bank's accelerated promotion policy, which lacked Federal Government approval, was legally valid under the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance, 1961. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the accelerated promotion policy was illegal, null, and void because it violated the mandatory proviso of Section 39 of the Ordinance, which requires prior Federal Government approval for any regulations concerning terms and conditions of service. The Tribunal reasoned that this requirement acts as a necessary check against nepotism and arbitrary discretion. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, ruling that the appellant could not claim benefits under an unlawful policy. The key principle laid down is that any regulation or policy change regarding the terms and conditions of service of Bank employees must receive prior approval from the Federal Government to be legally effective, and failure to obtain such approval renders the resulting actions void.
Questions settled- Does the accelerated promotion policy of the Agricultural Development Bank require prior approval from the Federal Government?
- Are promotions granted under an unapproved policy legally valid under the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance, 1961?
- Is the requirement for Federal Government approval under Section 39 of the Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance, 1961, a recurring obligation for new regulations?
- FUAD ASADULLAH KHAN Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment2002 PLC(CS) 480 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2000-08-16Read full judgment →
- KHUSHI MUHAMMAD Versus WAPDA2002 PLC(CS) 1423 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2001-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal claiming financial benefits and arrears of pay and allowances from 20-8-1991, the date from which he was granted pro forma promotion as Junior Engineer (Civil) vide departmental order dated 25-9-1997, following earlier successful litigation before the Tribunal and the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether an employee granted pro forma promotion is entitled to the financial benefits and salary of the higher post for the period when they did not actually render service on that post due to being wrongly prevented from doing so. The Tribunal held that an employee wrongly prevented from rendering service on a higher post through no fault of their own is entitled to the financial benefits and arrears of pay from the date of pro forma promotion. The key principle laid down is that the grant of pro forma promotion entails entitlement to consequential financial benefits and back-salary of the higher post from the effective date.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant granted pro forma promotion entitled to the financial benefits and salary of the higher post from the date of such promotion?
- Does an employee wrongly prevented from rendering service on a higher post through no fault of their own have a right to arrears of pay?
- Whether financial benefits follow the grant of pro forma promotion and seniority?
- AMANULLAH Versus CHAIRMAN, WAPDA, WAPDA HOUSE LAHORE2001 PLC(CS) 845 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-02-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal was filed by the appellant, an Attendant/Line Superintendent in WAPDA, challenging his reversion from BPS-11 to BPS-9 for a period of two years. The appellant was proceeded against under the WAPDA (E&D) Rules, 1978 on allegations of corruption, delaying the implementation of an electricity disconnection order, and tampering with consumer meters. The core legal questions involved whether the summary procedure under Rule 5 was validly adopted without a formal inquiry, and whether an employee could be legally reverted to a post lower than the one to which he was initially appointed. The Federal Service Tribunal held that the summary procedure under Section 5 was correctly applied based on strong preliminary evidence and that the appellant was afforded due process through a show-cause notice and personal hearing. However, the Tribunal held that an employee cannot be lawfully reverted to a post lower than their initial appointment. The Tribunal accordingly upheld the finding of guilt but modified the penalty to reduction to the initial pay stage of BPS-11 with cumulative effect.
Questions settled- Whether an employee can be proceeded against through a summary procedure under the WAPDA (E & D) Rules, 1978 without holding a formal inquiry?
- Can an employee be lawfully reverted to a post lower than the one to which he was initially appointed?
- Whether failure to hold a formal inquiry vitiates disciplinary proceedings where strong preliminary evidence exists?
- ABDUL GHANI CHANNA Versus THE PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN2001 PLC(CS) 702 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-07-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAZIQ Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION , Pir Muhammad Shah, DAS for Respondent.2000 PLC(CS) 994 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-12-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAZIQ Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION , Pir Muhammad Shah, DSA2000 PLC(CS) 442 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1998-12-05Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus WAPDA2000 PLC(CS) 30 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1999-03-25Read full judgment →
- SAIF ALI Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN2000 PLC(CS) 287 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1999-02-03Read full judgment →