Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 232594 judgments in total.

• GHULAM AKBAR SHAIKH Versus CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS1977 PLC(CS) 92 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• ABDUL HAMID Versus VICE-CHAIRMAN, P. W. RAILWAY, LAHORE ETC.1977 PLC(CS) 85 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-03-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus FINANCE SECRETARY, PAKISTAN1977 PLC(CS) 81 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-08-31Read full judgment →
• Members Syed HASANAT AHMED Versus NASIM AHMAD, SECRETARY INFORMATION, PAKISTAN1977 PLC(CS) 80 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• KAFAYAT ULLAH KBAN Versus DEPUNY DIRECTOR, R. VET & FARMS, RAWALPINDI1977 PLC(CS) 77 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• NASEEM AKHTAR NAIK Versus PAKISTAN AND OTHERS1977 PLC(CS) 73 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
• Members PAKISTAN Versus DILBER KHAN1977 PLC(CS) 69 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-08-12Read full judgment →
• Members SAJID ALI KHAN Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION RAWALPANDI1977 PLC(CS) 29 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-03-31Read full judgment →
• HIDAYATULLAH Versus DIRECTOR-GENEKAL, POST OFFICES1977 PLC(CS) 147 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-04-07Read full judgment →
• FIDA MUHAMMAD Versus MINISTRY OF DEFENCE1977 PLC(CS) 144 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-02-02Read full judgment →
• HABIB-UR-REHMAN Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH DEFENCE MINISTRY1977 PLC(CS) 141 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1975-03-22Read full judgment →
• Members CHAIRMAN, WAPDA Versus ABDUS SATTAR1977 PLC(CS) 140 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-01-27Read full judgment →
• Raja MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION1977 PLC(CS) 139 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-11-05Read full judgment →
• MAHMUDUR REHMAN Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, ETC.1976 PLC(CS) 58 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1976-04-15Read full judgment →
• M. A. IQBAL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1976 PLC(CS) 45 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1974-11-29Read full judgment →
• MUMTAZ ALI MIRZA Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1976 PLC(CS) 43 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1975-06-10Read full judgment →
• HABIBUR REHMAN Versus PAKISTAN1976 PLC(CS) 39 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1975-03-22Read full judgment →
• S. H. HAQQI Versus FINANCIAL ADVISER (DEFENCE), FINANCE DIVISION (MILITARY), ISLAMABAD1976 PLC(CS) 144 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1975-08-04Read full judgment →
• Sh. MASUD AHMED Versus PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT1976 PLC(CS) 142 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1975-05-22Read full judgment →
• AHMED RABBANI Versus PRESIDENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS1976 PLC(CS) 140 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1975-06-26Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKHTAR Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH EDUCATION MINISTRY AND 2 OTHERS1976 PLC(CS) 137 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER Versus SHABBIR HUSSAIN1976 PLC(CS) 135 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1975-08-11Read full judgment →
• M. Z. HAIDER Versus MESSRS HAFIZ TEXTILE MILLS LTD., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 555 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-09-08Read full judgment →
• Kazi HARUNUR RASHID Versus MESSRS CONTINENTAL TRADERS, CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 554 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-09-05Read full judgment →
• Kazi FAZLUL HUQ Versus PARSONS CORPORATIONS, CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 552 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-09-08Read full judgment →
• Versus DAWOOD SHIPPING CORPORATION LTD., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 550 · East Pakistan Labour CourtRead full judgment →
• ABUL KASHEM Versus E.P.F.I.D.C. WOOD TREATING AND PROCESSING INDUSTRIES, CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 549 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-08-17Read full judgment →
• ABDUL LATIF Versus GUL AHMED JUTE MILLS LTD., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 546 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-09-08Read full judgment →
• MD. SHAHIDUL HOQUE Versus MESSRS ART PRESS, CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 539 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-09-03Read full judgment →
• NADER HUSSAIN Versus MESSRS EASTERN CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 537 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-08-08Read full judgment →
• ALI AHMED MOLLA Versus MESSRS M. M. ISPAHANI LTD, CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 536 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-08-11Read full judgment →
• DHIRENDRA LAL DEY Versus AMINUR RAHMAN1971 PLC(CS) 535 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-06-11Read full judgment →
• KABIR AHMED Versus IBRAHIM MATCH WORKS, CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 533 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-08-30Read full judgment →
• Syed MAZHARUDDIN AHMED Versus PAKISTAN PAINTS LTD., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 531 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-08-15Read full judgment →
• SANTI GOPAL SAHA Versus BENGAL CONSTRUCTIONS LTD., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 530 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-08-10Read full judgment →
• ALI NABI KHAN Versus M. A. BARI, DXVISIONAL ENGINEER III, GAMMON (EAST PAKISTAN) LTD., CHITTAGONG1971 PLC(CS) 529 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-08-17Read full judgment →
• ABDUR RAHMAN Versus MESSRS ORIENT MOTORS, DACCA1971 PLC(CS) 494 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-10-26Read full judgment →
• SOBHAN Versus MESSRS BRAHMANBARIA GHEE DEPOT, DACCA1971 PLC(CS) 491 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-10-30Read full judgment →
• ABDUL RAZZAQUE Versus MESSRS PAK METAL INDUSTRIES, DACCA1971 PLC(CS) 490 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-10-24Read full judgment →
• K. P. D. ALDRIDGE Versus MESSRS VINNELZACHRYPERINI, DACCA1971 PLC(CS) 486 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-10-29Read full judgment →
• SHAMSUL HAQUE Versus MESSRS AMIN MATCH WORKS, DACCA1971 PLC(CS) 484 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-10-30Read full judgment →
• MD. HAFIZUDDIN MIAH Versus MD. BELAYET HUSSAIN1971 PLC(CS) 482 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-11-03Read full judgment →
• MOHAMMAD ABUL HASHEM Versus THE SECRETARY, ORIENTAL MUTUAL LIFE ASSURANCE Co. LTD., DACCA1971 PLC(CS) 480 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-11-03Read full judgment →
• SHAH FAZLUR RAHMAN Versus GENERAL MANAGER, HOTEL INTERCONTINENTAL, DACCA1971 PLC(CS) 478 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-11-09Read full judgment →
• HABIBUR RAHMAN Versus JAZIRA COLD STORAGE AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES, DACCA1971 PLC(CS) 472 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-11-13Read full judgment →
• JOAHER MALLIK Versus LI HUA DRY CLEANERS, DACCA1971 PLC(CS) 470 · East Pakistan Labour Court · 1970-11-10Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLC(CS) 8331988 PLC(CS) 833 · Board of Revenue, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa · 1987-11-12Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ Versus PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1983 PLC(CS) 818 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
• MUSA KHAN SILACHI Versus PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1980 PLC(CS) 70 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1978-06-14Read full judgment →
• GHULAM MUJTABA KHAN Versus PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND ANOTHER1979 PLC(CS) 1 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1978-09-10Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAWAZ CHAUDHRY Versus PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, FOOD1978 PLC(CS) 88 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1977-12-28Read full judgment →
• Miss SALEEMA HAMID ALI Versus PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH THE SECRETARY, EDUCATION1978 PLC(CS) 84 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1977-12-29Read full judgment →
• QADIR BAKHSH NAUSHERWANI Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY1978 PLC(CS) 80 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
• BAHADUR SHER LODHI Versus DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE1978 PLC(CS) 79 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1977-12-06Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBAR JAFFAR Versus GOVERNMENT OP BALUCHISTAN1978 PLC(CS) 56 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1978-01-21Read full judgment →
• SAEED MUHAMMAD KHAN Versus UNIVERSITY OF BALUCHISTAN1978 PLC(CS) 55 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1973-02-05Read full judgment →
• QAMARUDDIN Versus PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1978 PLC(CS) 52 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1977-10-26Read full judgment →
• ABDUL WAHID BALUCH Versus PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1978 PLC(CS) 45 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1977-11-15Read full judgment →
• IKRAM-UL-HAQUE Versus PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLC(CS) 44 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1977-09-29Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE, BALUCHISTAN AND 5 OTHERS1978 PLC(CS) 41 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1977-11-14Read full judgment →
• NAZIR AHMED Versus PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1978 PLC(CS) 38 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1977-09-27Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NASIM USMANI Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND 2 OTHERS1978 PLC(CS) 35 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1977-10-29Read full judgment →
• 1978 PLC(CS) 1061978 PLC(CS) 106 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1978-06-08Read full judgment →
• Samad, Members MUHAMMAD YUSUF Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN AND OTHERS1977 PLC(CS) 89 · Balochistan Service Tribunal · 1977-03-12Read full judgment →
• REGISTRAR HIGH COURT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Quetta2025 PLC(CS) 566 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ILYAS Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN2025 PLC(CS) 523 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-11-22Read full judgment →
• AKHTAR HUSSAIN LANGOVE MEMBER PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Quetta2025 PLC(CS) 472 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-10-15Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALAM Versus The SECRETARY BISE (SCHOOL) DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA2025 PLC(CS) 1619 · Balochistan High Court · 2024-12-31
  constitutional petitionson quotadeceased quotarecruitment policylachesalternate remedydiscriminatory appointmentjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging the appointment of respondent No. 4 to the post of Chowkidar (B-01) at Government High School Khanai Baba. The petitioner, claiming entitlement based on a 'son quota' under Rule 12-A of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009, alleged that the respondent did not belong to the required union council and that the appointment violated recruitment policies. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the deceased/son quota policy and whether the appointment process violated recruitment rules. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's claim for appointment under the son quota lacked legal substance, as the Supreme Court has declared such policies discriminatory and ultra vires to the Constitution. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence that the post was restricted to the petitioner's union council. Additionally, the petition was dismissed on grounds of laches and failure to exhaust the mandatory alternate remedy before the Complaint Redressal Cell.

  Questions settled

  • Is the policy of appointing children of deceased or retired civil servants to government posts constitutional?
  • Does a constitutional petition remain maintainable if the petitioner fails to approach the Complaint Redressal Cell first?
  • Can a petition be dismissed on the grounds of laches when there is a significant delay in challenging an appointment?
  Read full judgment →
• RAHIB KHAN BULEDI Versus SECRETARY ENERGY POWER DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN ISLAMABAD2025 PLC(CS) 1602 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-08-28
  constitutional petitionre-advertisementC-Level positionshead-hunting firmQESCOdirectory guidelinesopen merit
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed challenging a re-advertisement for C-Level positions in Quetta Electric Supply Company (QESCO). The petitioner contended that the advertisement violated the State-Owned Enterprises (C-Level Appointments) Guidelines of 2024 issued by the Finance Division and the 219th Board of Directors (BoD) meeting decision by failing to outsource the recruitment process to a head-hunting firm.

  The High Court examined whether outsourcing recruitment to a head-hunting firm under the 2024 Guidelines was mandatory for a state-owned enterprise. The Court observed that the relevant clause utilized the word "may," indicating that the guideline is directory rather than mandatory. The BoD of QESCO possessed statutory authority under the State-Owned Enterprises (Governance and Operations) Act, 2023 to make C-Level appointments. As the BoD resolved to re-advertise the positions through open competitive public notice on merit without requiring a head-hunting firm, and no malice was shown, the Court held the procedure valid and dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Is a state-owned enterprise mandated to hire a head-hunting firm for C-Level recruitment when the applicable guidelines state that the Board 'may' outsource the process?
  • Whether the Board of Directors of a state-owned enterprise has the authority and discretion to directly re-advertise positions on open merit without third-party recruitment agencies?
  Read full judgment →
• PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi Versus Mst. SORATH FATIMA2025 PLC(CS) 1417 · Balochistan High Court · 2025-07-10
  family pensiondivorced daughterunmarried daughterexecutive circularright to lifegender discriminationcivil service rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition arose from a dispute where the daughter of a deceased government employee was denied the resumption of her father's family pension. After her father's death, she received the pension as an unmarried daughter, which was stopped upon her marriage. Following her divorce, she sought resumption of the pension, which the provincial government denied by relying on a Finance Department Circular. The Circular stipulated that a daughter is only entitled to family pension if she was divorced or widowed at the exact time of the pensioner's death. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that pension is a constitutional right protected under Article 9 of the Constitution as part of the right to life. The Court ruled that executive circulars cannot override or restrict statutory rules. It declared the restrictive Circular void ab initio, noting that tying a daughter's eligibility to her marital status at the time of the pensioner's death lacks statutory backing, perpetuates patriarchal dependency models, and violates constitutional guarantees of equality and dignity.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive circular or administrative directive override, amend, or curtail the scope of statutory pension rules?
  • Whether the right to receive an accrued pension is protected as a fundamental right under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a divorced daughter entitled to the resumption of her deceased parent's family pension if her divorce occurred after the death of the pensioner?
  • Does conditioning a daughter's eligibility for family pension solely on her marital status at the time of the pensioner's death violate constitutional guarantees of equality?
  Read full judgment →
• NIAZ ALI Versus PRESIDENT ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED2024 PLC(CS) 863 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-06-20Read full judgment →
• Syed TAQVEEM SHAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, CHIEF SECRETARY, QUETTA2024 PLC(CS) 849 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-12Read full judgment →
• JAVED IQBAL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Communication, Civil Secretariat, Islamabad2024 PLC(CS) 65 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-29
  frequent transferservice tenureadministrative regulationsconstitutional petitionretirement age postingpublic governance
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an office notification transferring him from his post as Deputy Director (Maint) to another station within eight months of his previous posting, contending it violated service regulations and judicial dicta against frequent transfers. The core legal questions revolved around whether an administrative authority can transfer an employee before the completion of the normal tenure prescribed by regulations without recording compelling reasons, and whether special protections regarding posting near the native station for employees aged 57 or above were violated. The Balochistan High Court held that the impugned transfer order, issued without recording any special circumstances or compelling reasons to deviate from the National Highway Authority Administrative Regulations, 2002, was illegal, void, and without lawful authority. The key principle laid down is that specified tenures for postings must be respected, and frequent transfers without written, justifiable reasons or in disregard of age-based posting protections amount to bad governance and are judicially reviewable.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee be transferred before the expiration of the normal tenure of posting without recording compelling reasons?
  • Whether the transfer of an employee aged 57 or more away from the nearest station of his native town violates service regulations?
  • Does an executive authority have the obligation to assign reasons when disturbing the prescribed normal tenure of a public servant's posting?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. MALALA BIBI Versus INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA2024 PLC(CS) 107 · Balochistan High Court · 2023-03-27
  death compensationretrospective effectcivil servantCovid-19discriminationaccrued rightexecutive policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 by the widow of a deceased Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) who died of Covid-19 on June 2, 2020. The petitioner sought a declaration that her husband was entitled to a compensation package of Rs. 10 million under the Balochistan Civil Servants' and Employees Benefits and Death Compensation Policy 2020, which was promulgated on August 11, 2020. The respondents argued that the policy was prospective and did not apply to deaths occurring prior to its notification. The High Court of Balochistan dismissed the petition, holding that executive policies and notifications operate prospectively unless they expressly provide for retrospective application. Since the petitioner's husband died before the policy came into force, no right had accrued to the petitioner, and she could not claim discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an executive policy or notification can be applied retrospectively in the absence of an express provision to that effect?
  • Can a petitioner claim to be an aggrieved person under Article 199 of the Constitution if the underlying beneficial policy was not in field at the time the cause of action arose?
  • Does a claim of discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution lie when the petitioner's case is governed by a different timeline relative to the promulgation of a policy?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN KAKAR Versus VICE-CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA2023 PLC(CS) 938 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-12-19Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD ALI ZAHOOR, ZONAL DIRECTOR (BISP) Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Benazir Income Support Programme Islamabad2023 PLC(CS) 826 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-11-24
  deputationrepatriationvested rightcivil servantservice lawBISPconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a government servant on deputation to the Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP), challenged his premature repatriation to his parent department, arguing that the notification lacked cogent reasons and was issued with ulterior motives. The core legal question was whether a deputationist possesses a vested right to complete the full term of their deputation or if they can be repatriated at any time without cause. The Balochistan High Court dismissed the petition in limine. Relying on established jurisprudence, the court held that a deputationist does not have a vested right to remain on a post for the entire stipulated period. Consequently, the borrowing or lending organization may order repatriation at any time without the obligation to assign reasons. The principle laid down is that deputation is a temporary arrangement, and the status of a deputationist does not confer a permanent or protected right to the tenure of the deputation, rendering the repatriation notification valid regardless of the absence of specific reasons.

  Questions settled

  • Does a deputationist have a vested right to remain on a post for the entire stipulated period of deputation?
  • Is an organization required to assign reasons when repatriating a deputationist to their parent department?
  • Can a deputationist be repatriated before the expiry of the initial deputation period?
  Read full judgment →
• KHALID MEHBOOB Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan, Civil Secretariat, Quetta2023 PLC(CS) 705 · Balochistan High Court · 2022-08-01Read full judgment →
• AKHTAR MUHAMMAD Versus SHABANA2023 PLC(CS) 301 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-03-18Read full judgment →
• HATIM AMEER BALOCH Versus SHAHBANA KHUDA BAKHSH2022 PLC(CS) 535 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-08-13Read full judgment →
• SAIRA ATTA Versus The GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN2022 PLC(CS) 1326 · Balochistan High Court · 2021-05-31Read full judgment →
• IMRAN RAHIM DURRANI Versus PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariate, Quetta2022 PLC(CS) 1192 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-06-28Read full judgment →
• MUNIR AHMED KHAN KAKAR Versus PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN2020 PLC(CS) 847 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-06-04
  civil servantstransfers and postingsrules of businesstenure of postingexecutive authoritygood governanceconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 187(2) read with Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 was filed seeking the implementation of judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the terms, transfers, and postings of civil servants and policy decisions of the executive. The core legal questions revolved around whether provincial ministers have the authority to transfer civil servants under notifications contrary to the Balochistan Government Rules of Business, 2012, and whether frequent, premature transfers made on political considerations violate constitutional governance and Supreme Court rulings. The Balochistan High Court held that notifications empowering ministers to transfer civil servants are ultra vires the rules and void ab initio, and that transfers must strictly adhere to the established tenure, rules of business, and guidelines laid down in the Anita Turab case. The court laid down mandatory procedural requirements for processing transfers, including the submission of comprehensive summaries, maintenance of prescribed tenures, and the establishment of a committee led by the Chief Secretary for exceptional premature transfers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether provincial ministers have the legal authority under the Rules of Business to order the transfer and posting of civil servants?
  • Can executive notifications empowering ministers to transfer civil servants override the statutory Rules of Business framed under the Constitution?
  • Whether frequent and premature transfers of civil servants made on political considerations violate the principles enunciated in the Anita Turab judgment?
  • Does a High Court have the jurisdiction under Article 199 to issue directions for the implementation of Supreme Court judgments regarding civil service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• BIBI KALSOOM Versus The GENERAL PUBLIC2020 PLC(CS) 684 · Balochistan High Court · 2018-11-12Read full judgment →
• SADIA ANWAR Versus SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT2020 PLC(CS) 650 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-02-24Read full judgment →
• RUQQIYA ATTA Versus SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, CIVIL SECRETARIAT QUETTA2020 PLC(CS) 368 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-09-16Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AKBER Versus The SECRETARY, EDUCATION GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN2018 PLC(CS) 29 · Balochistan High Court · 2017-01-09Read full judgment →
• REHMAT SANOBER Versus BALOCHISTAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION2015 PLC(CS) 1246 · Balochistan High Court · 2015-06-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. SABA DURRAZAI Versus CHAIRMAN HOUSE ALLOTMENT COMMITTEE/SECRETARY S&GAD GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN2011 PLC(CS) 988 · Balochistan High Court · 2011-02-25Read full judgment →
• SUO MOTU CASE NO.24 OF 2010 AND HUMAN RIGHTS CASES NOS. 57701-P, 57719-G, 57754-P, 58152-P, 59036-S, 59060-P, 54187-P AND 58118-K OF 2010 Versus2011 PLC(CS) 541 · Balochistan High Court · 2011-01-27
  suo moture-employment on contractcivil servantsFIA investigationHajj scampromotion blockagerule of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an interim order passed in a suo motu matter and human rights cases concerning the Hajj scam investigation and the re-employment of retired police officers on contract basis. The core legal questions relate to the legality of appointing investigating officers without formal statutory induction, and whether the re-employment of retired civil servants on contract basis violates relevant statutory provisions, service rules, and judgments. The court observed that prima facie, the re-employment of various police officers on contract after superannuation was made without considering Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and relevant instructions in the Esta Code, which also blocks promotions of serving officers. The court adjourned the matter to enable the Government to rectify any omissions and examine all contract re-employments in accordance with the law, while directing the Federal Investigation Agency to continue its investigation into the Hajj scam and submit weekly progress reports.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an officer can supervise an investigation under the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 without being formally appointed to the organization in terms of the relevant statutory provisions?
  • Does the re-employment of retired civil servants on contract basis violate Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and instructions contained in the Esta Code?
  • Whether the re-employment of retired officers on contract without adhering to applicable laws and superior court judgments adversely affects the promotion prospects of serving officers?
  Read full judgment →
• PROCTOR AND GAMBLE PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED Versus PROVINCE OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary, Labour Union2010 PLC(CS) 234 · Balochistan High Court
  ad hoc appointmentregularizationvested rightterms and conditions of serviceconstitutional jurisdictionservice tribunal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, appointed on an ad hoc basis as Inspectors in the Collectorate of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, challenged the termination of their services following the expiry of their extended contract period, seeking regularization and declaring the termination discriminatory and unconstitutional. The core legal questions involved whether ad hoc employees possess a vested legal right to regularization and whether the constitutional petition was barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The court held that ad hoc appointees hold a stop-gap arrangement, possess no vested legal right to be confirmed or regularized, and that the petition was barred under Article 212 relating to terms and conditions of service. The court laid down the principle that ad hoc employment creates no vested right to regularization, though the authorities should consider past experience and training sympathetically when filling future vacancies through regular selection processes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ad hoc employee has a vested legal right to be regularized or confirmed in service?
  • Does a constitutional petition under Article 199 regarding the terms and condition of service lie in the face of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the termination of an ad hoc employee upon the expiry of a contractual stop-gap arrangement be termed discriminatory and without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD NAEEM Versus GENERAL MANAGER, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK CIRCLE OFFICE, QUETTA and another2007 PLC(CS) 580 · Balochistan High Court · 2007-06-19Read full judgment →
• MAQBOOL-UR-REHMAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE2006 PLC(CS) 512 · Balochistan High Court · 2005-10-10Read full judgment →
• AHMED KHAN Versus SECRETARY, HEALTH DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, QUETTA2001 PLC(CS) 794 · Balochistan High Court · 2001-03-17
  constitutional petitionservice tribunal jurisdictiondepartmental appealreinstatementcivil servantappellate authoritymandatory and directory provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a constitutional petition filed by a driver whose services were terminated by the Director Health (respondent No. 3) and subsequently reinstated on appeal by the Director-General Health (respondent No. 2). Respondent No. 3 refused to implement the reinstatement order, contending that the High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution, that the appeal was not entertainable as it was not routed through him, and that respondent No. 2 was not the competent appellate authority. The Balochistan High Court held that since the final order was in the petitioner's favor, he was not an aggrieved person before the Service Tribunal, making the constitutional petition maintainable. The Court further held that the requirement to submit an appeal through the head of the office is directory rather than mandatory, that the Director-General Health was the proper appellate authority, and that respondent No. 3 was legally obligated under the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1983 to give effect to the appellate order. The petition was allowed with a clarification that the department was not precluded from conducting a proper inquiry into the alleged misconduct.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the bar on the jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan operates when a civil servant succeeds in a departmental appeal and the final order is in their favor?
  • Is the requirement under the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1983 to submit a departmental appeal through the head of the office mandatory or directory?
  • Whether a subordinate authority is legally bound to implement an order passed by an appellate authority under the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1983?
  Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD AMJAD DURRANI Versus CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN, CIVIL SECRETARIAT, QUETTA2001 PLC(CS) 756 · Balochistan High Court · 2001-03-19Read full judgment →
• WALTON TOBACCO COMPANY (PVT.) LTD Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU& KASHMIR1993 PLC(CS) 1615 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-06-23Read full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD GUL KAKAR Versus PROVINCE OF BALUCHISTAN1986 PLC(CS) 560 · Balochistan High Court · 1978-11-21Read full judgment →
• NISAR AHMAD KAYANI Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR1990 PLC(CS) 762 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
• SHABBIR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR GOVERNMENT1990 PLC(CS) 512 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR1990 PLC(CS) 510 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1990-01-20Read full judgment →
• 1988 PLC(CS) 8461988 PLC(CS) 846 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1988-04-05Read full judgment →