Pakistan Case LawLatest 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. 232,594 judgments in total.
- Ghulam Hussain and 2 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 779 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under sections 302 and 323 read with sections 337-A(1) and 337-E(ii)(a) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions involved the reliability of related and chance eyewitnesses, the effect of suppressing injuries sustained by the accused, the evidentiary value of an unproved motive and delayed weapon recoveries, and the failure of the prosecution to address a counter-version and discrepancies concerning the identity of the deceased. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to fatal discrepancies in the identity of the deceased, suppression of injuries on the accused by interested witnesses, lack of independent corroboration, and an ignored counter-first information report. The court laid down the principle that where the prosecution suppresses injuries on the accused, fails to resolve major contradictions regarding the deceased's identity, and ignores a counter-version, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to their acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether the failure of the prosecution to clarify a glaring discrepancy regarding the parentage and identity of the deceased entitles the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
- Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused by eyewitnesses render their testimony untrustworthy without strong independent corroboration?
- Whether the existence of a counter-version and a counter-FIR imposes a duty on the prosecution and the court to determine the actual aggressor?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish whose specific blow caused the fatal injury?
- Ghulam Haider vs Judge Family Court (Civil Judge Ist Class), Rahimyar1998 CLC 972 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider Bhatti vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 137 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Habib vs Hidayat Ullah Khan Afridi and 9 others1998 CLC 2033 · Election Tribunal · 1998-05-03Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid, Etc. vs (Mst.) Bibi, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 689 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Farid vs I. G. Railway Police, Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 102 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Asghar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 729 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-28Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs Sarfraz and 10 others1998 MLD 1347 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas vs Member (Judicial), Central Board Of Revenue, And OtherPTCL 1998 CL. 350 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abbas and others vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 494 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals against the termination of their employment by the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation. The core legal question concerns the effect and interpretation of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, inserted on 10th June 1997, which brought employees of statutory corporations under the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, and whether the Service Tribunal possesses jurisdiction to entertain appeals against termination orders passed prior to the said amendment, given that civil suits challenging the same had abated. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the questions regarding the appropriate forum for remedy and the jurisdictional competence of the Service Tribunal under the newly inserted section 2-A. The Court ordered that status quo regarding the service of the petitioners be maintained until the disposal of the appeals.
Questions settled- What is the effect of the insertion of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on the forum to seek remedy for employees of statutory corporations?
- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is vested with the power to entertain appeals against termination orders passed prior to the coming into force of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Ghulam Abbas and 23 others vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation1998 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals against the termination of their employment by the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation. The petitioners initially challenged their termination in the High Court of Sindh, securing interim orders that allowed them to remain in service. Following the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which brought employees of statutory corporations under the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, the High Court suggested that such suits abated, directing litigants to the Tribunal. However, the Federal Service Tribunal subsequently dismissed the petitioners' appeals, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the termination orders predated the amendment. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, identifying a significant question of law regarding the interpretation and effect of Section 2-A on the forum for seeking legal remedies. The Court held that the conflicting jurisdictional views between the High Court and the Tribunal created a legal vacuum, necessitating a definitive ruling on the Tribunal's authority. Consequently, the Court ordered the maintenance of the status quo regarding the petitioners' employment pending the final disposal of the appeals.
Questions settled- Does the insertion of Section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act 1973 mandate the abatement of pending civil suits filed by employees of statutory corporations?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal possess jurisdiction to entertain appeals against termination orders passed prior to the enactment of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- What is the appropriate legal forum for employees of statutory corporations to challenge termination orders issued before the commencement of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Ghulam Abbas Alias Mazhar Abbas vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 144 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-12Read full judgment →
- Ghu Lam Raza and others vs Town Committee, Khanqah Dogran1998 PLC (C.S.) 323 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-03Read full judgment →
- Ghotki vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1377 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-06Read full judgment →
- Ghazanfar Ally Effendi and 3 others vs Arif Effendi and another1998 CLC 1425 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-27Read full judgment →
- Ghafoor Khan vs Gul Faraz Khan and others1998 CLC 1800 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-03-08Read full judgment →
- Ghafoor Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 625 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
- Ghafoor Ahmad and 2 others vs Collector, Consolidation, Jhelum, Office at Attock, District Attock and 4 others1998 SCMR 2358 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' constitutional petition in limine. The core legal question concerned whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against mere apprehensions of adverse changes in the revenue record by revenue authorities. The Supreme Court held that the petitioners' apprehensions were misconceived as no final order had been passed against them and the respondents denied the allegations in their comments, rendering the writ petition premature and unwarranted. The Court laid down the principle that mere threats or apprehensions regarding potential changes to revenue entries, in the absence of a final adverse order, do not furnish a valid basis for invoking constitutional jurisdiction, and the appropriate remedy, if any valid grievance arises, lies in a civil suit rather than a constitutional petition.
Questions settled- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against mere apprehensions of changes in the revenue record?
- Does a party have a cause of action for a constitutional petition in the absence of a final adverse order?
- What is the appropriate legal remedy when a party apprehends detrimental entries in the revenue record?
- Ghaffar Impex, Karachi vs Mst. Hajira1998 MLD 788 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-29Read full judgment →
- George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 3427 · Gauhati High Court · 1996-08-21Read full judgment →
- Geoffrey Manners & Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 813 · Bombay High Court · 1995-12-14Read full judgment →
- General Manager/S.A.A. Pakistan Ordnance . Factory, Wah Cantt. vs1998 PLC 191 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Telecommunication Corporation , Lahore Region, Lahore vs Jamaluddin, Telephone Technician, P.T.C., Lahore1998 PLC 354 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Southern Telecommunication Region- I.I.I., Chundrigar Road, Karachi And Another vs Full Bench of. N.I.R.C 11, Egarton Road Lahore And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 74 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- General Manager, Pakistan Railways, Headquarters Office, Lahore1998 PLC (C.S.) 897 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a service dispute involving the removal of a Permanent Way Inspector (BPS-16) from Pakistan Railways. The employee was removed from service following disciplinary proceedings, with the removal order issued by the Member, Mechanical Engineering, a Grade-21 officer. The Federal Service Tribunal subsequently set aside this removal, holding that the General Manager (BPS-21) was the designated 'Authority' for employees in BPS-16, and therefore, the Member, Mechanical Engineering, lacked the requisite jurisdiction to pass the order. The petitioners, representing Pakistan Railways, contended that because the General Manager had previously acted as the 'authorized officer' by issuing the charge-sheet, he recused himself, and the Chairman of the Railway Board nominated the Member, Mechanical Engineering, to act as the 'Authority'. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether the Member, Mechanical Engineering, was lawfully nominated as the 'Authority' and whether the removal order suffered from a lack of jurisdiction. The Court suspended the Tribunal's order pending a final decision on the legality of the nomination process and the delegation of authority.
Questions settled- Can the Chairman of the Railway Board designate an officer to act as the 'Authority' in disciplinary proceedings when the designated 'Authority' recuses himself?
- Does an order of removal passed by an officer not designated as the 'Authority' under the relevant rules suffer from a lack of jurisdiction?
- Is the nomination of a substitute 'Authority' by the Chairman of the Railway Board legally valid in the absence of a specific provision for such delegation?
- General Manager Packages Ltd. and others vs Punjab Labour Appellate1998 SCMR 1250 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the reinstatement and back benefits of an employee dismissed for misconduct. The core legal questions concern whether an employee, who failed to plead or prove joblessness during the termination period, is entitled to a remand for evidence on back benefits, and whether the status of a "workman" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, can be established through presumption rather than evidence. The Supreme Court, noting the arguments regarding the impropriety of allowing a party to fill evidentiary lacunae and the necessity of proving manual or clerical duties to qualify as a workman, found these contentions substantial. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine these issues, maintaining the interim stay order. The judgment establishes that contentions regarding the improper exercise of writ jurisdiction to permit evidence-filling and the evidentiary burden to prove "workman" status are substantial legal questions requiring further adjudication by the apex court.
Questions settled- Can a court in writ jurisdiction remand a case to allow a party to fill evidentiary lacunae regarding back benefits?
- Is the status of a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 determinable by presumption or must it be proven by evidence of manual or clerical duties?
- Does the failure to plead or prove joblessness during the period of dismissal preclude an employee from claiming back benefits?
- General Manager (Personnel), Pakistan Railways, Lahore and others vs Muhammad Ramzan and others1998 PLC 394 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-05-19Read full judgment →
- General Manager (Operation), WAPDA vs Javaid Aziz Qureshi and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1288 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns cross-appeals arising from a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that partially allowed an appeal by a WAPDA employee, Javaid Aziz Qureshi, by converting his dismissal from service for corruption into compulsory retirement with pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was justified in mitigating the penalty despite affirming the findings of corruption. The Supreme Court held that while the Tribunal possesses the authority under Section 5(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to modify penalties, this discretion must be exercised judiciously. The Court ruled that in cases involving proven corruption, substituting a dismissal with compulsory retirement is improper and undermines the necessary deterrence against such misconduct. The Court emphasized that any alteration of penalty by the Tribunal must be supported by cogent reasons and a finding of arbitrariness on the part of the departmental authority. Consequently, the Court restored the original dismissal order, holding that leniency is inappropriate for proven corruption, thereby setting aside the Tribunal's modification of the penalty.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunal have the power to vary or modify a penalty imposed by a departmental authority?
- Is it appropriate for a Service Tribunal to substitute a penalty of dismissal with compulsory retirement in cases where corruption charges are proven?
- Must the Service Tribunal provide cogent reasons when altering a penalty imposed by a departmental authority?
- Can the Supreme Court re-appraise evidence recorded by an Enquiry Officer in service matters?
- Gauhati High Court (India)] vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2779 · Gauhati High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
- Garden Silk Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2224 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-06-27Read full judgment →
- Garden Silk Mills Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax (No.2)1998 PTD 2389 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
- Garden Silk Mills Ltd vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2350 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
- Gamoon Khan vs Ghulam Qadir KhanK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 725 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-13Read full judgment →
- Frontier Construction vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 2234 · Gujarat High Court · 1996-06-18Read full judgment →
- Friendship Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. and otherss vs Government of Balochistan through Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development Quetta and others1998 CLC 1767 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging a government notification that increased octroi rates on cotton bales and a directive requiring the collection of a 5% surcharge from taxpayers. The core legal questions were whether the government possessed the authority to unilaterally withdraw a prior notification granting tax exemptions and whether the 5% surcharge on octroi contracts could be legally recovered from consumers. The court held that the government acted within its lawful authority under Section 70(2) of the Balochistan Local Government Ordinance, 1980, in increasing the octroi rates, noting that such actions are permissible in the public interest. However, the court struck down the directive to collect the 5% surcharge from taxpayers, ruling that Section 11(1) of the Balochistan Finance Act, 1996, imposes this liability exclusively on the contractors. The court established that the doctrine of promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against the exercise of statutory powers and that tax liability must be strictly construed according to the statute, preventing the shifting of contractor-specific surcharges onto consumers.
Questions settled- Does the government have the authority to direct a local council to increase or modify tax rates under the Balochistan Local Government Ordinance, 1980?
- Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked against the exercise of statutory powers by the government?
- Is a surcharge levied on an octroi contractor under the Balochistan Finance Act, 1996, recoverable from the taxpayers?
- Friendship Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. And Others vs Government of Baloch1stan through Secretary Local Government and Rural Development, Quetta,1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1205 · Balochistan High Court · 1998-03-26Read full judgment →
- Flying Kraft Paper vs Central Board of Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.. Revenue, IslamabadPTCL 1998 CL. 1 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave of the court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning the refusal of sales tax exemption under a notification dated 27.6.1991 to the appellant company, which had purchased the assets of a liquidated paper corporation in a court auction and subsequently resumed production of paper products, including Extensible Sack Kraft Paper. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant was a new industry or a successor to the liquidated company, and whether the production of the new product resulted from the setting up of a new identifiable industrial unit or merely from balancing, modernization, and replacement of existing machinery. The Supreme Court held that while the appellant was a distinct legal entity and not a continuation of the liquidated company, the factual evidence demonstrated that the production of the disputed product commenced prior to the installation of the newly imported machinery and was the result of balancing, modernization, and replacement rather than the setting up of a new industry under the relevant notification. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the purchase of assets of a liquidated company in a court sale make the purchaser the legal successor of the wound-up company?
- Whether the addition of new machinery to an existing factory for producing a new product amounts to setting up a 'new industry' under tax exemption notifications?
- Can an objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of a High Court Bench be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court when no prejudice is shown?
- Flying Kraft Paper Mills (Pvt.) Ltd..Charsadda vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad And 2 Others1998 P.T.C.L.R. 563 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant challenged the denial of Sales Tax exemption under S.R.O. 580(1)/91, claiming their factory, established after purchasing the assets of a liquidated company, constituted a 'new industry.' The core legal question was whether the addition of new machinery for producing 'Extensible Sack Kraft Paper' qualified as 'setting up' a new industry, thereby attracting tax exemption. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to establish that the new product was exclusively the result of a new, integrated unit. Evidence revealed that production of the paper commenced via 'Balancing, Modernization and Replacement' (BMR) of existing machinery prior to the installation of the new equipment. The Court affirmed the principle that for tax exemption purposes, 'setting up' a new industry requires an identifiable, integrated unit distinct from mere modernization or replacement of existing plant assets. Additionally, the Court ruled that objections regarding territorial jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity before the court of first instance, or they may be waived.
Questions settled- Does the purchase of assets of a liquidated company and subsequent operation of a factory constitute the 'setting up' of a new industry for tax exemption purposes?
- Can a party raise an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Does the addition of new machinery for the purpose of 'Balancing, Modernization and Replacement' (BMR) qualify as setting up a new industry under S.R.O. 580(1)/91?
- Fishermen's Cooperative Society Limited and 7 otherss vs The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sindh, Hyderabad and 3 others1998 CLC 1285 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
- Fenner (India) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 3238 · Madras High Court · 1996-02-22Read full judgment →
- Federation of Pakistan vs Manzoor Hussain and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 471 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal regarding the fixation of seniority of a civil servant. The core legal question concerns whether the seniority of a civil servant transferred to the Secretariat Group should be reckoned from the date of his initial promotion to Grade-20 or from the subsequent date of his formal induction/appointment in the Secretariat Group, and whether an unconditional acceptance of an offer by the civil servant estops him from claiming earlier seniority. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the seniority of a Grade-20 officer transferred to the Secretariat Group must be determined from the date of continuous regular officiation or promotion to Grade-20, as the subsequent transfer or induction into a specific group is immaterial for seniority purposes under the applicable legal framework. The key principles laid down are that seniority in a post or grade commences from the date of regular appointment to that post or grade, and statutory rules governing seniority cannot be overridden by departmental letters or conditional offers.
Questions settled- Whether the seniority of a civil servant transferred to the Secretariat Group is to be reckoned from the date of promotion to Grade-20 or from the date of induction into the group?
- Does the unconditional acceptance of a departmental offer regarding seniority preclude a civil servant from claiming rightful seniority under the law?
- How is seniority in a post, service, or cadre determined under Section 8(4) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior (Interior1998 SCMR 1081 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which had set aside the dismissal of the respondent from service as a Deputy Superintendent in the Pakistan Rangers and remanded the matter for fresh proceedings under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The core legal question was whether the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 applied to employees of the Pakistan Rangers, or if their service matters were governed by the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959 and the rules framed thereunder. The Supreme Court held that while employees of the Pakistan Rangers are deemed civil servants for the purpose of approaching the Federal Service Tribunal, disciplinary matters concerning them are governed exclusively by the Pakistan Rangers (Efficiency, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967 by virtue of the overriding effect given to the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959 over the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the appeal to be decided on merits under the specific Rangers Ordinance and Rules.
Questions settled- Whether the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 are applicable to the employees of the Pakistan Rangers?
- Do the provisions of the West Pakistan Rangers Ordinance, 1959 prevail over the Civil Servants Act, 1973 in case of a conflict?
- Are employees of the Pakistan Rangers considered civil servants for the purpose of maintaining an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Which rules govern the disciplinary proceedings and penalties for members of the Pakistan Rangers?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others vs Muhammad Ismail and anothers1998 SCMR 2326 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Federation of Pakistan against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had directed the restoration of a premature increment to the respondent, a government employee. The respondent, initially a Sub-Engineer in BPS-11, was placed in Selection Grade BPS-16 and granted a premature increment. After seven years, this increment was withdrawn. The Tribunal, relying on its previous decisions in identical cases involving other employees, set aside the withdrawal order and directed the Federation to restore the increment and refund any deducted amounts. The Federation challenged this on the grounds that the Tribunal should have decided the case on its own merits rather than merely following precedent. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, finding that the cases relied upon by the Tribunal were factually identical and that the impugned judgment upheld the rule of consistency. Finding no misreading of material or legal infirmity, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, affirming that the Tribunal's decision was fair and did not warrant interference under the Constitution.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is legally justified in relying on its previous decisions in identical cases to grant relief to a government employee?
- Does the rule of consistency require the government to grant similar service benefits to employees in identical circumstances?
- Under what circumstances will the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 3 others vs Muhammad Ismail and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 911 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which allowed the respondent's appeal regarding the restoration of a premature increment. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in setting aside the withdrawal of the respondent's premature increment based on identical past cases without independently re-examining the merits, and whether the withdrawal violated the principle of consistency. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal's decision was legally sound and warranted no interference as the respondent's case was identical to previous successful cases within the department. The key principle laid down is that the rule of consistency applies in service matters, ensuring that similarly situated civil servants are granted identical benefits unless distinguishable material is shown.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is justified in following its earlier decisions in identical cases without re-examining the merits?
- Does the withdrawal of a premature increment already granted to a civil servant violate the rule of consistency when co-employees retain the benefit?
- When will the Supreme Court interfere with a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and anothers vs Sheikh Abdul Aziz1998 SCMR 91 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Supreme Court heard two Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan and the Government of Punjab, challenging a Lahore High Court judgment that set aside the dismissal of a civil servant, Sheikh Abdul Aziz. The respondent, a Tehsildar inducted into the Provincial Civil Service, was dismissed in 1970 under M.L.R. 58 of 1969. His subsequent appeals and petitions abated or were dismissed, but a later Constitution Petition was accepted by the Lahore High Court in 1996. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the respondent's dismissal was based on a pre-determined decision and without an opportunity of hearing, thus rendering the order mala fide, coram non judice, and without jurisdiction. The Court reiterated that High Courts are competent to interfere in such cases. The petitions for leave to appeal were dismissed on merits and also as being barred by limitation, as no satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay.
Questions settled- Can a High Court interfere with an order of dismissal from service if it is found to be coram non judice, mala fide, or without jurisdiction?
- Is an order of dismissal from service valid if it is based on a pre-determined decision without affording the affected party an opportunity of hearing?
- Does the maxim 'audi alteram partem' apply to dismissal proceedings against civil servants?
- Can an act without jurisdiction be considered an act done mala fide?
- Is it necessary to explain each day of delay for the condonation of limitation in filing an appeal?
- Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan Islamabad vs Abdur Rehman Sheikh and others1998 SCMR 1277 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Federation of Pakistan sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had granted various service-related reliefs to the respondent, a former Principal of the Islamabad College for Boys. The respondent had initiated litigation regarding non-payment of allowances, including house rent, project director allowance, entertainment allowance, disturbance allowance, and deputation pay, alongside disputes concerning his lien, deputation status, and entitlement to move-over to BPS-20. The Federal Service Tribunal had partially allowed these claims, directing payments for certain allowances while denying others, and affirming the respondent's status as a deputationist based on prior proceedings. Upon review, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legality of the relief granted by the Tribunal, the finality of the respondent's status as a deputationist determined in previous proceedings where the petitioner was allegedly unheard, the relevance of the respondent's lien upon repatriation, and the jurisdictional question of whether the respondent, as a permanent employee of Sindh Madrassatul Islam, qualified as a civil servant subject to the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the grant of relief in the manner adopted by the Tribunal is justified in law?
- Whether the respondent could be treated as a deputationist and the finding of the Tribunal in a previous appeal in which the petitioner was not heard could be treated to have attained finality as to the status of the respondent?
- Since the respondent has been sent back to his parent department from Islamabad College for Boys, whether the question of his lien was irrelevant?
- The respondent being a permanent employee of the Sindh Madrassatul Islam, whether he could be treated as a civil servant justifying interference by the Service Tribunal?
- Federation of Pakistan And Others vs Khursh1d Spinning Mills Ltd.1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court arose from a dispute regarding the determination of the rate of customs duty applicable to imported machinery for a cotton spinning mill. The respondent imported machinery, filed an in-bond bill of entry, and subsequently filed an ex-bond bill of entry for clearance from a bonded warehouse. Before the entire assessed duty was paid and the goods were cleared, the Federal Government issued a notification granting total exemption from customs duties and sales tax on such machinery. The core legal question was whether the respondent, having paid only a part of the duty within seven days of presenting the bill of entry, fell under the second proviso to section 30(b) of the Customs Act, 1969, thereby attracting the rate of duty in force on the date the duty was actually and fully paid. The Supreme Court held that since the entire duty was not paid within seven days and delivery of the goods had not been taken prior to the issuance of the new notification, the second proviso to section 30(b) applied, entitling the importer to the benefit of the exemption notification issued on a subsequent date. The Court laid down that where customs duty is not paid in full within seven days of presenting the bill of entry for clearance from a warehouse, the applicable rate of duty is determined by the date of actual payment of the entire duty, making subsequent beneficial notifications applicable if the goods remain uncleared.
Questions settled- What is the relevant date for determining the value and rate of import duty for goods cleared from a warehouse under section 104 of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Does the second proviso to section 30(b) of the Customs Act, 1969 apply where only a part of the assessed duty is paid within seven days of presenting the bill of entry?
- Is an importer entitled to the benefit of an exemption notification issued after the filing of a bill of entry but before the complete payment of duty and clearance of goods from a warehouse?
- Federation of Pakistan and 3 others vs Khurshid Spinning Mills Ltd.1998 SCMR 2173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the applicability of a customs duty exemption notification to imported machinery. The respondent, Khurshid Spinning Mills Ltd., filed an Ex-Bond Bill of Entry for the clearance of goods from a bonded warehouse. Before the full duty was paid, the Federal Government issued a notification (SRO 458(I)/88) granting full exemption from customs duties and sales tax. The Customs Department denied the benefit, arguing that partial payment made before the notification precluded the exemption. The core legal question was whether the term "duty" in the second proviso to Section 30(b) of the Customs Act, 1969, refers to the entire assessed duty, thereby determining the applicable rate based on the date of actual payment. The Supreme Court held that the second proviso to Section 30(b) requires the payment of the entire assessed duty. Since the full duty was not paid within seven days of the Bill of Entry, the applicable rate is that in force when the duty is actually paid. Consequently, the respondent was entitled to the exemption benefit.
Questions settled- Does the term 'duty' in the second proviso to Section 30(b) of the Customs Act, 1969, refer to the entire assessed duty or only a partial payment?
- If duty is not paid within seven days of the Bill of Entry, what is the relevant date for determining the applicable rate of duty under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Can an importer claim the benefit of a new customs exemption notification if the full duty was not paid prior to the issuance of said notification?
- Federal Shariat Courtj Taj Muhammad and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1834 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-03-12Read full judgment →
- Fazalur Rehman vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 275 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-19Read full judgment →
- Fazalur Rehman vs Muhammad Sadiquan1998 CLC 1271 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-03Read full judgment →
- Fazal-Ur-Rehman vs Kh. Ejaz Ahmed, Senior Auditor, Aj&K Government, Cooperative Bank (Ltd.), Muzaffarabad and 5 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1187 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-05-15Read full judgment →
- Fazal MUHAMMADApplicant vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 203 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
- Fazal Muhammad vs Senior Civil Judge/Aala Illaqa Qazi, Swat and1998 MLD 1276 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-11-20Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karim vs Rawal Malik and anothers1998 SCMR 1200 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition arises out of proceedings under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, initiated by the respondents for restitution of possession of land after the pre-emption decree initially passed in favour of the petitioner was set aside by the appellate court and the case remanded for retrial. The core legal question was whether restitution of possession was rightly ordered under Section 144, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the underlying trial court decree was reversed on appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the restitution was properly allowed as a natural consequence of the setting aside of the decree, and no illegality or infirmity was found in the concurrent orders of the lower courts and the High Court. The key principle laid down is that upon the reversal or setting aside of a decree, the court of first instance is bound to place the parties in the position they would have occupied but for the decree or such part thereof as has been varied or reversed, thereby mandating restitution.
Questions settled- Whether restitution of possession can be ordered under Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when a pre-emption decree is set aside on appeal?
- Is a party who executed a decree and obtained possession during the pendency of an appeal bound to restore possession upon the reversal of that decree?
- Fazal Karim and 3 others vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1998 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 26 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain vs Malik Muhammad Saeed and others1998 MLD 974 · Lahore High Court · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
- Fazal Bibi and 12 others vs Haji Munir Ahmad1998 MLD 911 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →
- Fazal Bibi And 12 Other vs Haji Munir AhmadK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 186 · Lahore High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →
- Fauzia Shah vs Muhammad AslamK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 86 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-19Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad vs Mehmood Khan and 3 others1998 MLD 1107 · Balochistan High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Rabia Bibi and 4 others1998 MLD 456 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-24Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad (Deceased) through Legal Representatives And 2K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 365 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Fasihuddin Siddiqui and 7 others vs Government of Pakistan and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 466 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal filed against a common judgment of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals regarding the determination of their inter se seniority. The petitioners, working as Superintendents in Pay Scale B-16 in the Pakistan Postal Services Corporation, were placed junior to private respondents in a seniority list issued pursuant to departmental directions. The core legal question concerned the correctness of the seniority list determined vis-a-vis direct recruits and departmental promotees in light of established Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal rightly followed the guidelines and principles settled in the precedent case of Muhammad Yousuf v. Abdul Rasheed, and since no infirmity or failure to apply the laid-down rules was demonstrated in the petitioners' case, the petitions lacked merit. The court affirmed that seniority determinations complying with established binding precedents do not warrant interference, and consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the Service Tribunal's determination of inter se seniority between direct recruits and departmental promotees in accordance with established Supreme Court precedent is open to interference?
- Does a seniority list issued pursuant to binding judicial guidelines warrant leave to appeal when no failure to follow those rules is shown?
- Farzand Ali vs Muhammad Hussain and 2 others1998 MLD 1652 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1998-03-31Read full judgment →
- Farzana Shaheen vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 50 [Bahawalpur] · Other · 1997-10-06Read full judgment →
- Farrukh J. Gulzar vs Secretary, Local Government and Rural1998 PLC (C.S.) 1089 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged an interim order of the High Court which had suspended a transfer order of a government employee, allegedly influenced by political pressure from an M.P.A. The core legal issue concerned the propriety of political interference in the administrative transfer of civil servants and the jurisdiction of the High Court to intervene in such matters given the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Supreme Court emphasized that transfers must be conducted strictly in accordance with established government policy and that it is improper for elected representatives to direct or request the transfer of officials. The Court held that such interference undermines administrative integrity. Following the Court's admonition, the M.P.A. acknowledged the impropriety of his actions and pledged to refrain from future interference. The Department subsequently adopted a formal transfer policy for local council employees. Consequently, the petitioner did not press the appeal, and the respondent undertook to withdraw the underlying writ petition, rendering the matter disposed of.
Questions settled- Is it permissible for an elected representative to direct or request the transfer of government officials?
- Must transfers of government employees be conducted strictly in accordance with established transfer policies?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to interfere in the transfer of government employees in light of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Farooq Ahmad vs Chairman, Federal Public Service Commission, Islamabad1998 SCMR 336 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had rejected the petitioner's challenge regarding the tabulation of marks in the CSS Competitive Examination 1994. The petitioner, having qualified but failed to secure an allocation due to low merit, alleged discrepancies in the marking and tabulation of three specific papers and sought inspection of his answer books. While examining the matter pursuant to a concession by the Federal Public Service Commission, the High Court inspected the sealed answer books and found no discrepancies in marking, totalling, or tabulation, subsequently dismissing the writ petition and forfeiting the petitioner's deposited security. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner alleged that the Commission had produced fabricated answer books. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's findings on factual verification were unexceptionable, and there was no basis to suspect fabrication by senior officers. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Can a candidate challenge the tabulation and marking of competitive examination papers in constitutional jurisdiction after a factual verification confirms no discrepancy?
- Whether unsubstantiated allegations of fraud and fabrication against public examining authorities can be entertained in a petition for leave to appeal without supporting evidence or prior plea before the High Court?
- Is a candidate entitled to personal inspection of answer books where the relevant examination rules prohibit such access?
- Farooq Ahmad Khan and 3 others vs Shaukat Jan Bauch and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 425 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a High Court order directing the Chief Secretary and Secretary Services and General Administration to execute specific orders of the Prime Minister of Azad Jammu and Kashmir concerning the respondent's promotion, in accordance with the Rules of Business. The appellants, other civil servants, argued that the High Court lacked jurisdiction, asserting the matter fell exclusively under the Service Tribunal's purview. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that the High Court’s direction did not constitute an adjudication on service terms and conditions, but rather a mandate for public functionaries to perform their procedural duties under the Rules of Business—specifically, to either implement the Prime Minister's orders or re-submit them for reconsideration. The Court affirmed that where departmental authorities procrastinate or contumaciously refuse to process orders, the High Court retains jurisdiction under its constitutional writ power to compel compliance with legal procedures. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, establishing that the High Court may direct authorities to act according to law without usurping the Service Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction over substantive service disputes.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to direct government functionaries to process orders in accordance with the Rules of Business?
- Can a writ petition be maintained when departmental authorities fail to implement or process orders of a competent authority?
- Is the High Court's jurisdiction ousted by the Service Tribunal when the issue is the failure to perform a procedural duty rather than a direct adjudication of service terms?
- Farid Khan through Legal Heirs vs Malik Aman Khan1998 CLC 1981 · Peshawar High Court · 1998-06-18Read full judgment →
- Farid Khan and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2012 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
- Farhat Ali Khan vs Ch. Muhammad Siddique and others1998 SCMR 2190 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This review petition challenges a Supreme Court judgment that upheld the removal of the petitioner from the position of Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, due to a lack of requisite qualifications. The core legal questions addressed were whether the petitioner possessed the necessary experience to qualify for the appointment under the relevant statutory framework, whether the ten-year requirement for an Advocate refers to mere enrollment or active practice, and whether the scope of review allows for re-litigating settled points of law. The Court held that the appointment was void ab initio because the petitioner failed to meet the mandatory qualification criteria, specifically the requirement of ten years of active practice as an Advocate, as opposed to mere enrollment. Relying on the principles established in the 'Judges' case' (Al-Jehad Trust v. Federation of Pakistan), the Court affirmed that statutory qualifications for judicial posts are mandatory and not curable by subsequent events. The Court further held that a review petition cannot be used as an appeal to re-argue points already decided or to challenge the correctness of a previous interpretation of law.
Questions settled- Does the ten-year requirement for an Advocate to be eligible for judicial appointment refer to the period of enrollment or the period of active practice?
- Can a review petition be utilized to re-argue points of law that were already considered and decided in the original judgment?
- Is an appointment to a public office void if the appointee lacks the mandatory statutory qualifications at the time of appointment?
- Does the doctrine of de facto exercise of power protect an appointment that was invalid and unconstitutional from its inception?
- Fareed Ahmed Langra vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1368 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court convicting the appellant under Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance for possession of unlicensed weapons. The core legal questions involve the credibility of police-only recoveries without independent witnesses or station diary entries, the failure to put mandatory incriminating circumstances regarding licences to the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the lack of sealing and ballistic reports, and improper trial procedures under special laws. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The court held that non-production of the station diary, failure to associate independent witnesses from a populated area, omission of material questions under Section 342 Cr.P.C., and lack of sealing and ballistic examination create insurmountable doubts in the prosecution's case. The key principle laid down is that while special laws intend expeditious disposal, speed must not translate into legal haste ('justice hurried is justice buried'), and the burden remains strictly on the prosecution to prove its case beyond a shadow of doubt without shifting it to the defence.
Questions settled- Does the non-production of the police station diary regarding the patrolling party's departure create a serious doubt in the prosecution's case?
- Is it mandatory to put questions regarding the possession of weapons and lack of licence to the accused during his examination under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure of the police to associate independent public witnesses from a populated area during recovery vitiate the search proceedings?
- Whether the absence of sealing of recovered weapons on the spot and the lack of a Ballistic Expert report weaken the prosecution case?
- Farah Khan vs Tahir Hamid Khan and another1998 MLD 85 · Lahore High Court · 1997-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Arbitration Council declaring a Talaq (divorce) effective. The petitioner, a Pakistani citizen, contended that the respondent, who had acquired United States citizenship, could not invoke the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, to dissolve the marriage. The core legal question was whether the Ordinance applies when one party is a foreign national and whether the Arbitration Council possessed jurisdiction. The Court held that the Ordinance applies to all Muslim citizens of Pakistan, and by statutory interpretation, the inclusion of 'citizens' encompasses a single citizen; thus, the Ordinance applies where at least one party is a Pakistani Muslim citizen. Furthermore, the Court held that the petitioner, having participated in the Arbitration Council proceedings without raising jurisdictional objections and having accepted the return of dowry articles, was estopped from challenging the Council's authority. The principle laid down is that a party cannot 'blow hot and cold' by submitting to a tribunal's jurisdiction and subsequently challenging it upon receiving an unfavorable outcome.
Questions settled- Does the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 apply to a marriage where only one spouse is a Pakistani citizen?
- Can a party challenge the jurisdiction of an Arbitration Council after participating in its proceedings without objection?
- Does the term 'citizens' in the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 include the singular?
- Faqir Muhammad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 692 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad Arif vs Mst. Haneefa Bano1998 CLC 205 · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-09-17Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad Arif vs (Mst.) Haneefa Bano(K.L.R. 1998 Shariat Cases 45) · Shariat Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
- Faqir Muhammad and others vs Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi and others1998 SCMR 1391 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns four civil petitions for leave to appeal filed by government employees against orders of punishment related to alleged irregularities and misappropriation of government stores. The petitioners challenged the dismissal of their departmental appeals, noting that some were rejected without reasons, while others were not communicated, leading them to approach the Federal Service Tribunal. The core legal question involves the reconciliation of Rule 6(2) of the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, which mandates that departmental appellate authorities provide reasons for their decisions, with the proviso to Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which allows a civil servant to approach the Tribunal after ninety days if their departmental appeal remains undecided. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal is obligated to remand matters for reasoned orders when departmental authorities fail to provide them, and to address substantive challenges regarding the legality of the Court of Inquiry constituted under the Financial Regulations, 1986. The Court ordered the stay of recovery of amounts from the petitioners pending the final disposal of the appeals.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a departmental appellate authority to provide reasons for an order necessitate a remand by the Service Tribunal?
- How should the requirement for a reasoned departmental order under the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977 be reconciled with the right to approach the Service Tribunal after ninety days under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
- Can a Court of Inquiry constituted in violation of the Financial Regulations, 1986 be considered legally valid?
- Faqih Alam vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 268 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 31(7) of the Drugs Act 1976 was directed against the appellant's conviction under Section 27(4) of the Act by the Drug Court at Karachi, which had sentenced him to a fine for supplying substandard Zinc Oxide Adhesive Plaster. The appellant challenged the conviction on three primary grounds: the competency of the prosecuting Inspector, the failure to implead his proprietary firm as a separate accused, and the delay in submitting the test report. The High Court found that the prosecuting Inspector was duly notified under Section 17 of the Act and that impleading the firm was unnecessary as the appellant was its sole proprietor. However, on the third ground, the Court observed that the Government Analyst's report was submitted well beyond the statutory sixty-day limit prescribed under Section 22(2) of the Drugs Act 1976 without any written explanation or extension of time. The Court held that the provisions of Section 22(2) are mandatory, and non-compliance therewith vitiates the conclusiveness of the test report, rendering the conviction unsustainable. The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether a prosecution under the Drugs Act 1976 is competent if initiated by an Inspector whose appointment is notified under Section 17 but who is designated as a Divisional Drug Inspector?
- Is it mandatory to implead a sole proprietorship business concern as a co-accused alongside its sole proprietor under Section 34 of the Drugs Act 1976?
- What is the legal effect of a Government Analyst failing to submit a test report within the sixty-day period prescribed under Section 22(2) of the Drugs Act 1976 without obtaining an extension or providing written reasons?
- Faizoo and others vs Raees Baqar Khan and others1998 MLD 225 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-24Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmed vs Government of the Punjab and others1998 SCMR 436 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged an interlocutory order of the High Court, which had suspended a transfer order of a civil servant without first addressing the jurisdictional bar posed by Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The core legal question was whether the High Court possessed the jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding the transfer of a civil servant, given the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Article 212(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that matters relating to the transfer or posting of civil servants fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, and the jurisdiction of all other courts, including the High Courts, is expressly barred by Article 212(2). Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's interim stay order, directing the High Court to first determine the question of its jurisdiction before passing any further interim orders in the matter, while also suggesting an expedited disposal of the underlying writ petition.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding the transfer of a civil servant?
- Must the High Court determine its own jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution before passing an interim stay order?
- Does the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal exclude the jurisdiction of the High Court in matters of civil servant transfers?
- Faisal Iqbal vs The State and 3 others1998 PLD Lahore 371 · Lahore High Court · 1997-09-25Read full judgment →
- Fahim Khan vs The State1998 MLD 1810 · Federal Shariat Court · 1998-06-15Read full judgment →
- Factory Manager, Thal Jute Mills Limited, Muzaffargarh. vs Bashir1998 PLC 80 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1997-07-14Read full judgment →
- Ex-Constable Muhammad Farooq vs I.-G. Police, Islamabad and anothers1998 SCMR 477 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an ex-constable of the Islamabad Police, sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal upholding his dismissal from service for unauthorized and wilful absence from duty. The departmental authorities and the Service Tribunal concurrently found that the petitioner remained absent from duty without leave for a prolonged period, and his plea of illness supported by medical certificates was untenable due to tampered dates and his status as an outdoor patient who failed to inform the department. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the record and noted that the petitioner was a habitual absentee previously punished multiple times, and that his alleged illness did not prevent him from communicating with the department. Although the Service Tribunal had already taken a lenient view by modifying the penalty of dismissal to removal from service, the Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming the decision of the Service Tribunal.
Questions settled- Whether unauthorized and wilful absence from duty warrants dismissal or removal from police service?
- Can medical certificates submitted by an outdoor patient justify prolonged absence from duty without informing the department?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a concurrent finding of fact regarding departmental misconduct?
- Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1998 PTD 345 · Madhya Pradesh High Court · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
- Establishment Secretary to the Government of Pakistan vs S.A.M. Wahidi, Deputy Solicitor, Law Division, Islamabad and others1998 SCMR 1985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a Service Tribunal decision regarding the seniority of a civil servant. The core legal question was whether the respondent, initially appointed to an ex-cadre Grade 19 post as Deputy Solicitor in 1974, was entitled to count his seniority from that date, or from his formal appointment as a Deputy Secretary in 1978. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The Court established that while generally, service in an ex-cadre post does not count for cadre seniority, this proposition is displaced where service rules explicitly provide that seniority is determined from the date of continuous regular officiation in Grade 19 or an equivalent post. Because the respondent's appointment was recognized as regular and the rules allowed for seniority based on such officiation, he was entitled to seniority from 1974. Furthermore, the Court rejected technical objections regarding the competency of the appeal, ruling that the Government had effectively undertaken the defense of the proceedings through its authorized functionaries.
Questions settled- Does service in an ex-cadre post count towards seniority in a cadre if the relevant service rules define seniority based on continuous regular officiation in a specific grade?
- Can a government appeal be considered incompetent solely because the Power of Attorney was executed by a Deputy Secretary rather than the Secretary?
- What is the effect of the 'continuous regular officiation' clause in the Secretariat Group Service Rules on determining seniority for officers promoted from ex-cadre posts?
- Essa Cement Industries Workers' Union vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad and 4 others1998 SCMR 1964 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the petitioners' constitutional petition against the registration of a rival trade union. The core legal questions involved whether the Registrar of Trade Unions conducted a proper inquiry into the jurisdictional facts regarding union membership under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether pre-existing trade unions have the locus standi to challenge a union's registration or claim a right to be heard. The Supreme Court held that jurisdictional facts are subject to constitutional scrutiny, but the Registrar had properly applied his mind by ordering multiple inquiries to satisfy statutory requirements. Furthermore, pre-existing trade unions and employers lack the locus standi to challenge a registration decision merely due to the lack of a pre-decisional hearing, as the registration process is strictly between the applicant union and the Registrar. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Are jurisdictional facts regarding trade union registration open to scrutiny in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Does a pre-existing trade union have the locus standi to challenge the registration of a rival trade union on the ground of not being granted a hearing by the Registrar?
- Is the Registrar of Trade Unions duty-bound to seek assistance or provide a hearing to existing trade unions or employers during registration inquiries?
- Can a trade union be registered if its members include persons employed as officers rather than workmen?
- Eric Etc. vs Hakim Muhammad Younas Etc.K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 773 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
- English Laboratories (Private) Limited vs Messrs Chas a Mendoza1998 MLD 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-14Read full judgment →
- English Electric Co. of India Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 1665 · Madras High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
- Engineer-in-Chief, E-in-C Branch GHQ vs Dadan Khan1998 SCMR 1953 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves petitions for leave to appeal against a Service Tribunal order concerning the termination of employees hired by the Frontier Works Organisation on a work-charge basis. The respondents, whose services were terminated, sought reinstatement before the Service Tribunal. Although the department maintained that work-charge employees could be removed based on project exigencies, the Tribunal held that the respondents were entitled to benefits admissible to temporary civil servants, specifically granting pensionary benefits due to their ten-year service duration. The petitioner challenges this, arguing that work-charge employees are not civil servants and are ineligible for such benefits. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal was justified in granting pensionary benefits to work-charge employees when they failed to produce evidence establishing their status as civil servants, and when such relief was not explicitly claimed in their appeals. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the propriety of the Tribunal's decision to grant relief not sought by the parties and the underlying legal status of work-charge employees regarding pensionary entitlements.
Questions settled- Are employees hired on a work-charge basis entitled to pensionary benefits admissible to civil servants?
- Is a Service Tribunal justified in granting relief that was not specifically claimed by the appellants in their appeals?
- Does the burden of proof lie with the employee to establish their status as a civil servant before the Service Tribunal?
- Engineer Imam Ali Soomro vs Government of Sindh1998 PLC (C.S.) 311 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged a notification putting in abeyance the re-employment contract of the petitioner as Chairman of the Sindh Board of Technical Education. The core legal questions involved whether a retired civil servant re-employed on a contract basis acquires a statutory right to hold a fixed-tenure post under section 16(2) of the Sindh Board of Technical Education Ordinance, 1970, whether the rule of master and servant applies to such contractual appointments, and whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can be invoked in such matters or if jurisdiction lies exclusively with the Service Tribunal under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a contractual employee does not acquire a vested or statutory right in the post, is governed by the rule of master and servant, cannot enforce reinstatement or invoke constitutional jurisdiction for wrongful termination, and is restricted to claiming damages. The court laid down that contractual appointments of retired civil servants do not carry statutory tenure protections and are not amenable to constitutional writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a retired civil servant re-employed on a contract basis acquire a statutory or vested right to hold a fixed-tenure post under section 16(2) of the Sindh Board of Technical Education Ordinance, 1970?
- Is a contractual employee governed by the rule of master and servant, and does such a relationship bar a suit for reinstatement?
- Can a contractual employee invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court in the event of termination or removal from service?
- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 preclude a civil servant from approaching the High Court regarding terms and conditions of service not involving fitness for a post?
- Engineer Bashir Ahmed vs Senior Superintendent of Police and 4 others1998 SCMR 1047 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of leave to appeal arising from concurrent decisions of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's constitutional challenges against the cancellation of a First Information Report. The F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner under sections 420, 471, 468, and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code was cancelled under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the sole ground that parallel civil proceedings concerning the same subject-matter had been dismissed by a Civil Court. The High Court held that the petitioner had an adequate alternate remedy through the institution of a private complaint. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether a private complaint constitutes an adequate alternate remedy under such circumstances, and whether the cancellation of the police report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the aforesaid ground was legally justified.
Questions settled- Whether a private complaint under the circumstances of the case, could afford an adequate alternate remedy to the petitioner?
- Whether there was justification in disposing of the petitioner's complaint under section 173, Cr.P.C. on the ground that civil proceedings had been dismissed?
- Employees' Welfare Association vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 211 · Lahore High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
- Emmay Zed Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1998 PLC 183 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-12Read full judgment →
- Emirates Bank International Ltd vs Messrs Osman Brothers and others1998 PLD Karachi 338 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves four applications filed by the defendants under Order XXXVII, Rule 4, and section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree dated April 30, 1990, passed in a recovery suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The plaintiff-bank instituted the suit for recovery of overdraft facilities based on a foreign judgment and original accounts. The core legal question was whether an application under Order XXXVII, Rule 4, C.P.C. or section 12(2), C.P.C. is maintainable to challenge an ex parte judgment and decree passed by a Special Banking Court, given the exclusive appeal mechanism under section 12(3) read with section 11 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The Sindh High Court held that the remedy of appeal against ex parte orders provided under section 12(3) of the 1979 Ordinance, combined with the finality and bar of jurisdiction under section 11, is exclusive in nature, thereby overriding and excluding the application of Order XXXVII, Rule 4, C.P.C. and section 12(2), C.P.C. Consequently, the court dismissed all four applications as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether an application under Order XXXVII, Rule 4, C.P.C. is maintainable to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree passed by a Special Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does section 11 read with section 12(3) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 provide an exclusive remedy for challenging ex parte judgments, thereby barring applications under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether the summary procedure provided under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies to suits adjudicated by Special Courts under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a separate application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 barred by the finality attached to orders of Special Banking Courts under section 11 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Emirate Bank International vs Messrs United Group of Companies1998 CLC 743 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil miscellaneous application was filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, seeking condonation of delay in filing applications for leave to defend a summary suit for recovery originally instituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, or alternatively a declaration that the ten-day limitation period under Article 159 of the Limitation Act was inapplicable due to subsequent legislative changes under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The core legal question concerned whether the retrospective repeal or disapplication of the Limitation Act under the 1997 Act could revive a right to apply for leave to defend that had already become time-barred under the pre-existing law, thereby divesting the plaintiff of a vested right to a decree. The Sindh High Court held that a statute of limitation cannot be construed retrospectively to revive a remedy or cause of action that has already become barred by lapse of time, as the expiration of the limitation period creates a vested right in favor of the opposing party. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for want of sufficient explanation and decreed the suit against a non-defending party.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1908, can apply retroactively to revive a remedy or right to apply for leave to defend that had already become barred under the pre-existing law?
- Does the disapplication of the Limitation Act under section 22 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, apply to cases where the limitation period for filing leave to defend had already expired prior to its promulgation?
- Does service of summons by publication in a daily newspaper constitute valid service under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, irrespective of whether the defendants read that particular language or newspaper?
- Whether the expiration of the statutory period for filing an application for leave to defend creates a vested right in favor of the plaintiff to obtain a decree under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
- Emirate Bank International vs (M/s.) United Group of Companies1998 P.C.T.L.R. 1026 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-08Read full judgment →
- Emerald Valley Estates Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1998 PTD 3024 · karnataka High Court · 1995-11-03Read full judgment →