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.
- Siddique alias Gaila vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 790 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
- Shree Guru Nanik Shepu Mandli vs Sardar Hira Singh1997 MLD 2811 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
- Shoukat Ali And Others vs P.O. Sindh1997 MLD 2590 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
- Shiv Shakti Rubber and Chemicals Works vs Income-Tax Appellate1996 PTD 1196 · Allahabad High Court · 1995-01-05Read full judgment →
- Shiraz vs Muhammad Ayub1997 MLD 115 · Peshawar High Court · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
- Sherman Begum vs State1997 MLD 196 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs The State1997 MLD 2513 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Messrs Iqbal Silk Factory, Karachi1997 PLC 396 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-09-05Read full judgment →
- Sher Jhang vs Managing Director, Peco, Lahore And 3 Others1997 PLC 286 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-11-19Read full judgment →
- Sher Bahadur vs Government of Punjab And Other1997 CLC 718 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
- Sheo Balak Ram Ganesh Prasad vs Union of India and others1997 PTD 438 · Allahabad High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
- Shella B. Charles vs Election Tribunal And Another1997 SCMR 941 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against an order of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petitions in limine against an interlocutory order passed by the Election Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of constitutional writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against interlocutory orders of an Election Tribunal, given the availability of an adequate statutory remedy of appeal under the relevant election laws. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that writ petitions against interlocutory orders of the Election Tribunal are not maintainable because such orders can be challenged in an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 67 of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 after the final determination of the election petition. The key principle laid down is that High Courts ought not to interfere through constitutional jurisdiction with interlocutory orders passed by Election Tribunals during ongoing election proceedings, as the statutory framework provides a comprehensive hierarchy and remedy for challenging election disputes upon final adjudication.
Questions settled- Are constitutional writ petitions maintainable against interlocutory orders passed by an Election Tribunal?
- Can the proceedings of an election petition before an Election Tribunal be stayed at an interlocutory stage?
- What is the proper statutory remedy to challenge orders passed by an Election Tribunal under the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
- Shekil vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 172 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant sought bail for offences under the Arms Ordinance, tried by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether Section 5-A(8) of the Act completely ousted the applicability of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, thereby barring the invocation of its provisos, specifically regarding statutory delay. The Court, resolving a difference of opinion between two judges, held that Section 5-A(8) does not completely oust the applicability of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It was determined that the provisos to Section 497(1), including the third proviso concerning delay, remain available to an accused during the trial stage. The Court clarified that Section 8 of the Act, concerning the burden of proof, pertains to the trial and does not override the bail principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, finding that the delay was not attributable to the applicant, the Court granted bail, affirming that statutory limitations on bail do not preclude relief based on procedural delay.
Questions settled- Does Section 5-A(8) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, completely oust the applicability of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in bail matters?
- Are the provisos to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, available to an accused seeking bail in a trial before a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Does the presumption of guilt under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, apply at the bail stage to bar the grant of bail?
- Is the quantum of sentence relevant when considering the grant or refusal of bail for scheduled offences under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
- Sheikh Muhammad Saeed & Co. vs Dy. Collector_Addl.Collector, Customs,Lahore EtcPTCL 1997 CL. 206 · Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate TribunalRead full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhammad Javed vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation1997 PLC (C.S.) 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a civil suit filed by an employee of the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) challenging the abolition of his post as Deputy Managing Director. The core legal question was whether the enactment of the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act 1997 rendered the plaintiff a 'civil servant,' thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and causing the pending suit to abate. The Court held that KESC is an organization controlled by the Federal Government, and the amendment brought the plaintiff within the definition of a civil servant. Consequently, the High Court’s jurisdiction was barred by Article 212, as the Service Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction over terms and conditions of service. The Court affirmed that where a statute extends to a new class of persons, the date of commencement of the original statute is synchronized with the extension date, causing pending proceedings to abate by operation of law. The ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 is absolute, covering all matters relating to terms and conditions of service.
Questions settled- Does the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act 1997 render employees of corporations controlled by the Federal Government 'civil servants' for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 create an absolute ouster of High Court jurisdiction regarding the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
- When a statute is extended to a new class of persons, does the date of commencement of the original statute synchronize with the date of extension for the purpose of abatement of pending proceedings?
- Can a High Court grant an injunction in a service matter if the subject matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Sheikh Muhammad And Another vs Lal Khan1997 MLD 1784 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-27Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Muhamamd Rafiq And Others vs United Bank Limited And Other1997 SCMR 1149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns civil petitions for leave to appeal against a High Court order that dismissed an application to recall an ex parte order. The petitioners had challenged a Banking Tribunal decree, but their appeals were initially admitted by the High Court. Subsequently, the respondent bank pointed out that the petitioners had failed to comply with the mandatory statutory requirement of depositing the decretal amount as a condition for filing an appeal. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeals ex parte. The petitioners sought to recall this dismissal, arguing that the High Court erred in refusing to apply procedural rules for recalling ex parte orders. The Supreme Court held that since the initial admission of the appeals was a nullity due to the failure to satisfy the mandatory deposit requirement under the relevant statute, the appeals were inherently non-maintainable. The Court reasoned that no useful purpose would be served by recalling the dismissal order, as the statutory bar on the appeals remained absolute. The petitions were dismissed, affirming that procedural rules cannot override mandatory statutory conditions for maintainability.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court recall an ex parte order dismissing an appeal if that appeal was fundamentally non-maintainable due to failure to comply with a statutory deposit requirement?
- Is an order admitting an appeal a nullity if it is passed in ignorance of a mandatory statutory provision requiring the deposit of the decretal amount?
- Does the failure to deposit the decretal amount as required by the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 render an appeal against a Banking Tribunal decree non-maintainable?
- Sheikh Khalid Mehmood vs Banking Tribunal, N. W.F.P., Peshawar And Another1997 CLC 1812 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Banking Tribunal, which decreed the recovery of a loan against the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the Banking Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the Federal Ombudsman had previously ordered the rescheduling of the loan, arguing that under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, the Ombudsman's orders override other laws and bar the jurisdiction of courts. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984, being a special law enacted later in time than the 1983 Presidential Order, prevails in matters of loan recovery. The Court further held that the bar of jurisdiction under the 1983 Order does not apply to a suit for loan recovery filed before a specialized tribunal. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedy of appeal provided under the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984, and had approached the Court with unclean hands by concealing material facts. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine as the petitioner had an alternate efficacious remedy.
Questions settled- Does the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 override the jurisdiction of the Banking Tribunal established under the Banking Tribunal Ordinance 1984?
- Can a petitioner invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution when a statutory right of appeal exists?
- Does the bar of jurisdiction under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 apply to a suit for the recovery of a loan filed before a Banking Tribunal?
- Sheikh Abdul Rahim And Others vs The State1997 MLD 2504 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
- Shehzada Saeed Ur Rashid Mehmood Abbasi vs Nawab Salah Ud Din1997 CLC 1716 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-04Read full judgment →
- Shehr Yar vs Bacha And 4 Other1997 MLD 1672 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-10-20Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Zaman Khan And Others vs Karam Din1997 CLC 423 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
- Shaukat vs The State and another1997 P Cr. L J 2089 · Lahore High Court · 1997-05-07Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Hussain vs Syed Jarar Haider And Another1997 CLC 596 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition was filed by a minor student against the headmaster of his school and the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Bahawalpur, challenging the action of the headmaster in striking off his name from the roll of candidates for the Matriculation Examination and withholding his roll number slip on the ground of short attendance. The core legal question was whether the headmaster had acted without lawful jurisdiction and mala fide in withholding the roll number slip and failing to follow the prescribed rules regarding the withdrawal of a candidate's admission. The Lahore High Court held that the headmaster's action was without lawful authority and jurisdiction, noting that the admission form was forwarded without noting any provisional status and that the headmaster failed to notify the Controller of Examinations for withdrawal as required by the rules, especially when the student was suffering from a genuine illness. The court laid down the principle that the head of an educational institution is bound to safeguard the students' interests, and where absence is due to genuine illness without deliberate negligence, arbitrary actions and withholding of roll number slips amounting to mala fide will be interfered with in writ jurisdiction to ensure equity and social justice.
Questions settled- Whether the head of an educational institution can strike off a candidate's name for short attendance without following the prescribed procedure for withdrawing candidature?
- Does the withholding of a roll number slip by a headmaster based on alleged short attendance constitute an action without lawful authority and jurisdiction?
- Can a writ petition be maintained against the arbitrary action of a school headmaster regarding a student's examination admission?
- Shaukat Ali vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore And Another1997 PLC 595 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Province of Punjab And 6 Other1997 CLC 529 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenges the recovery of unpaid employee salaries by a Zila Council from a contractor as arrears of land revenue. The core legal question is whether contractual arrears, specifically unpaid salaries of council employees owed by a contractor under a lease agreement, fall within the scope of 'other moneys payable' under Section 141 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, thereby permitting recovery through the summary machinery of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967. The Court held that the amount in question, arising purely from a contractual obligation under a lease agreement, does not constitute 'taxes', 'rents', or 'other moneys payable' under the Ordinance. The Court reasoned that the statutory recovery mechanism is limited to dues arising under the Ordinance itself and cannot be extended to private contractual debts. Consequently, the Court declared the recovery proceedings initiated by the District Collector to be without lawful authority, while clarifying that the Zila Council remains free to pursue recovery through ordinary civil legal channels.
Questions settled- Can contractual arrears owed to a Zila Council be recovered as arrears of land revenue under the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the expression 'other moneys payable' in Section 141 of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 1979, encompass private contractual debts?
- Is a claim for unpaid salaries of council employees, owed by a contractor under a lease agreement, recoverable through the summary machinery of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967?
- Shaukat Ali vs M/s. Tapal Tea (Pvt.) Limited, Through Factory Manager,1997 PLC 118 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-25Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs M/s. Tapal Tea (Pvt.) Limited through Factory Manager,1997 PLC 118 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-03-25Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali and others vs Government of Pakistan through Chairman, Ministry of Railways and others1997 PLD Supreme Court 342 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arose from thirty petitions for leave to appeal filed by Railway licensees who operated stalls, wheelbarrows, and dining cars on railway platforms, challenging the High Court's refusal to grant relief against Pakistan Railways' decision not to renew their long-standing licences. The primary legal issue centered on whether contractual licensing obligations and renewals can be enforced via constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 199, and whether courts may intervene in the revocation or non-renewal of a revocable licence. The Supreme Court reaffirmed the established principle that contractual rights and revocable licences generally cannot be enforced via mandamus or specific performance under the Specific Relief Act and Easements Act. However, the Court held that judicial interference is permissible even in licensing matters if the action of a state functionary is tainted with malice, mala fides, or discriminatory political considerations. The Court disposed of the petitions based on an undertaking by Pakistan Railways to issue fresh notices and hold open, transparent public auctions for the licences.
Questions settled- Can contractual obligations arising from a revocable licence be enforced through a writ of mandamus under Article 199 of the Constitution?
- Can a court interfere in the non-renewal or revocation of a government licence if the state functionary acts with malice or mala fides?
- Is an injunction maintainable to prevent the revocation of a licence that is revocable at will under Section 60 of the Easements Act?
- Is compensation in damages the appropriate remedy where a revocable licence is terminated without reasonable notice under Section 63 of the Easements Act?
- Sharifuddin vs Karachi Building Control Authority1997 MLD 2792 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
- Sharifan Bibi vs S.S.P., Gujranwala And 7 Other1997 MLD 1499 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-13Read full judgment →
- Shanti vs Karachi Transport Corporation Through Managing Director1997 MLD 2556 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-17Read full judgment →
- Shan Muhammad vs Maqbool And 2 Other1997 SCMR 1099 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order of a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, which accepted a Letters Patent Appeal and set aside an order regarding the allotment of evacuee agricultural land. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court Division Bench was justified in accepting the appeal and remanding the case for a fresh decision after a lapse of twenty-four years, particularly regarding the consideration of limitation by the revisional authority. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine this question, holding that sufficient grounds existed for review, and directed that the petitioner's possession of the disputed land shall not be disturbed pending the final decision of the appeal, subject to the furnishing of security for mesne profits. The key principle laid down relates to the examination of limitation and the temporal propriety of remanding long-standing property allotment matters.
Questions settled- Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in accepting the appeal and remanding the case after 24 years?
- Did the Additional Rehabilitation Commissioner properly consider and condone the delay in filing the appeal?
- Shamsur Rehman vs Muhammad Rafiq and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 194 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
- Shamsul Hassan vs Karachi Building Control Authority And 3 Other1997 MLD 848 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-31Read full judgment →
- Shamsher Alias Shamu vs The State1997 MLD 1467 · Lahore High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
- Shamsher Ali vs Mst. Qaim Khatoon alias Irshad Bibi and others1997 PLD Supreme Court 559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan raised the sole core legal question of whether the evidence of a witness in a judicial proceeding can be received on solemn affirmation or must necessarily be on oath. The Supreme Court held that while section 6 of the Oaths Act requires Muslim witnesses to take an oath pursuant to its amendment, the omission to administer an oath and recording evidence on solemn affirmation instead is a mere irregularity curable under section 13 of the Oaths Act, 1873, and does not render the evidence inadmissible or invalidate the proceedings unless prejudice is shown. The Court approved the view taken in earlier jurisprudence including Zeb-ul-Haram v. State, maintaining that such evidence cannot be brushed aside simply on the ground of procedural non-compliance. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether evidence of a witness in a judicial proceeding must necessarily be on oath or can be received on solemn affirmation?
- Does the omission to record evidence on oath invalidate the proceedings or render the evidence inadmissible under the Oaths Act, 1873?
- Is the failure to follow the prescribed procedure under section 6 of the Oaths Act, 1873 curable under section 13 of the said Act?
- Shamshad alias Shada vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1234 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-09Read full judgment →
- Shams Textile Mills Ltd. and others vs Province of Punjab and others1997 PLC (C.S.) 604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan, concerning the computation of employer contributions under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question is whether the special allowance paid to a worker under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1985, forms part of wages for calculating social security contributions, notwithstanding the specific exemption provided under section 8 of the said Act. The Court granted leave to appeal to examine this statutory interaction and ordered that the interim relief granted earlier on 17-1-1996 shall continue during the pendency of the appeals on identical terms. The key principle established relates to the interpretation of statutory exemptions regarding special allowances vis-a-vis social security contribution liabilities.
Questions settled- Whether the special allowance paid under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1985 is to be treated as part of a worker's wage for computing social security contributions?
- Does section 8 of the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act, 1985 exempt the special allowance from being included in wage calculations under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Shams Textile Mills Ltd. And Others vs Province of Punjab And Other1997 SCMR 1127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the interpretation of the Punjab Employees Special Allowance Payment Act, 1988, in relation to the Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The core legal question presented is whether the special allowance paid to a worker under the provisions of the Punjab Employees Special Allowance Payment Act, 1988, constitutes part of the employee's 'wage' for the purpose of calculating the employer's contribution liability under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965. This issue is particularly significant given the specific exemption granted by Section 8 of the Punjab Employees Special Allowance Payment Act, 1988. The Court granted leave to appeal to determine if this statutory exemption precludes the inclusion of such allowances in the wage base for social security contributions. The Court further ordered that the interim order previously issued on 17-1-1996 shall remain in force during the pendency of the appeals on the same terms, thereby maintaining the status quo regarding the disputed contributions while the legal question is adjudicated.
Questions settled- Is the special allowance paid under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance Payment Act, 1988, considered part of a worker's wage for calculating employer contributions under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Does the exemption provided in Section 8 of the Punjab Employees Special Allowance Payment Act, 1988, exclude special allowances from the definition of wages for social security contribution purposes?
- Shams Textile Mills Ltd. And Other vs Province of Punjab And Others1997 PLC (C. S.) 604 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan on a petition for leave to appeal against an order regarding the computation of social security contributions. The core legal question raised is whether the special allowance paid to a worker pursuant to the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act 1985 must be included as part of his wage for calculating the employer's contribution under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965, notwithstanding the explicit statutory exemption provided under Section 8 of the 1985 Act. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider and resolve this question of statutory interpretation concerning the interaction between the exemption clause in the 1985 Act and the definition of wages for social security contributions. The Court further ordered that the interim relief granted to the appellants on 17-01-1996 shall continue to remain in operation on the same terms during the pendency of the main appeals.
Questions settled- Whether special allowance paid under the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act 1985 forms part of wages for social security contribution?
- Does Section 8 of the Punjab Employees Special Allowance (Payment) Act 1985 exempt special allowance from social security contribution calculations under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
- Shamas Ejaz vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1244 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-03Read full judgment →
- Shakti Raj Films Distributors vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, .1997 PTD 449 · Bombay High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
- Shakirullah vs The State1997 PLD Peshawar 161 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-16Read full judgment →
- Shakir Aziz vs D.I.G., Faisalabad Range, Faisalabad And Other1997 MLD 1604 · Lahore High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad vs The State1997 MLD 1565 · Lahore High Court · 1995-10-08Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Muhammad Siddiq vs Mst. Shahnaz Farzana And 2 Other1997 MLD 1026 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
- Shahzad Ali vs The State1997 MLD 1480 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-05Read full judgment →
- Shahnaz Bibi vs The State1997 MLD 1333 · Lahore High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
- Shahmand And 5 Others vs Allah Bakhsh1997 SCMR 424 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for special leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that affirmed lower court decisions in a pre-emption suit. The respondent, Allah Bakhsh, had successfully sued for pre-emption of agricultural land, asserting a preferential right as a collateral of the vendors. The petitioners, who were the original purchasers, contested the suit primarily by alleging that the respondent had waived his preferential right by refusing an offer to purchase the land before the sale occurred. The core legal question was whether the petitioners had sufficiently established the plea of waiver regarding the pre-emption right. The Supreme Court observed that the issue of whether an offer was made to the pre-emptor was a question of fact. Crucially, the respondent was not confronted with specific details regarding the alleged offer, such as the identity of the offerors, the location, or the timing of the offer, during cross-examination. Consequently, the Court held that the plea of waiver was unsubstantiated and essentially fabricated. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' findings and refused to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Does the failure to confront a pre-emptor with specific details of an alleged waiver offer during cross-examination render the plea of waiver unsubstantiated?
- Is the question of whether an offer to purchase was made to a pre-emptor considered a question of fact?
- Shahid Ul Qayyum And Others vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Economic Affairs And StatisticsDivision, Government Of Pakistan, Islamabad And Other1997 SCMR 1198 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified disciplinary penalties imposed on a civil servant, Shahid ul Qayyum. The petitioner challenged the imposition of any penalty, arguing that the Tribunal's findings—that the air-conditioner in question was indeed installed in the office and that the petitioner's only fault was a procedural failure to obtain written approval—negated the justification for punishment. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that the inquiry proceedings were vitiated because he was denied the right to cross-examine witnesses. The Federation of Pakistan also filed a petition challenging the same judgment. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal in both petitions, determining that the contentions regarding the lack of justification for the penalty and the procedural irregularity of the inquiry process, specifically the denial of the right to cross-examine, raised substantial questions of law requiring further consideration by the Court.
Questions settled- Does the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses during a departmental inquiry vitiate the entire proceedings?
- Can a disciplinary penalty be sustained when the findings of the Service Tribunal indicate that the alleged misconduct was merely a procedural lapse?
- Shahid Nasim and 2 others vs Syeda Imtiaz Khatoon1997 PLD Lahore 243 · Lahore High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This regular second appeal arises from a property dispute over a residential bungalow in Lahore, originally owned by the plaintiff and sold to the appellants through a registered sale-deed. The plaintiff sought cancellation of the sale-deed and a declaration that the sale was void ab initio, alleging it was without consideration because the purchase cheque bounced due to insufficient funds. The lower courts decreed in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the sale was without consideration and ownership had not passed. The Lahore High Court examined the core legal question of whether non-payment of the purchase price renders a sale-deed void and prevents the passing of title. The High Court held that the title to immovable property passes upon the execution and registration of a sale-deed, irrespective of whether the purchase price has been paid or possession delivered, unless the parties intended payment to be a condition precedent. Furthermore, the Court found that the lower courts misread and ignored material documentary evidence establishing that the cheque had indeed been encashed. Consequently, the appeal was accepted and the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the non-payment of the purchase price render a registered sale-deed void and prevent the passing of title from the seller to the purchaser?
- Whether the passing of title in an immovable property sale is dependent on the intention of the parties regarding the payment of the purchase price as a condition precedent?
- Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in a regular second appeal on the ground of non-reading or misreading of material evidence?
- Is a suit for the cancellation of a sale-deed maintainable solely on the ground that the purchase money was allegedly not paid, where the contract is fully executed?
- Shahid Nabi Malik and another vs Chief Election Commissioner, Islamabad and 7 others1997 PLD Supreme Court 32 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-06-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from two direct civil appeals filed under Section 67(2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, against the judgment of the Election Tribunal, Punjab, which declared the election of Muhammad Ishaq Dar to National Assembly Seat No. NA-95 Lahore void under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution on the ground that two years had not elapsed since he ceased to hold the post of Vice-Chairman, Pakistan Investment Board (PIB). The core legal questions were whether the two-year disqualification under Article 63(1)(k) applies simpliciter to anyone who was in the service of Pakistan, or only to holders of an 'office of profit', and whether the appellant's unremunerated post with the status of Minister of State constituted an office of profit. The Supreme Court (majority view) allowed Dar's appeal and set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that Article 63(1)(k) must be harmoniously construed with Article 63(1)(d) to apply only to former holders of an office of profit. The Court established that an office of profit requires actual pecuniary gain beyond reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses, and mere conferment of ministerial status without statutory appointment under Article 92 does not render an office lucrative.
Questions settled- Whether the two-year disqualification period under Article 63(1)(k) of the Constitution applies to any person who was in the service of Pakistan, or only to those who held an office of profit in such service?
- Does mere reimbursement of out-of-pocket expenses render a post in the service of Pakistan an 'office of profit'?
- Does the conferment of the status of a Minister of State on an individual automatically entitle them to the salary and pecuniary benefits attached to the constitutional office of a Minister of State under Article 92 of the Constitution?
- Can a newly created, unbudgeted government post with no attached salary or determined emoluments be categorized as an office of profit under Article 63(1) of the Constitution?
- Shahid Maqbool vs The State1997 SCMR 1138 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal. The core legal question concerns whether a miscarriage of justice occurred when the High Court failed to process an appeal filed by the petitioner against his conviction and sentence by the trial court, and subsequently observed in the impugned judgment that the petitioner had failed to prefer an appeal, thereby condemning him unheard. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider this grievance, directing that the appeal along with connected Criminal Petitions Nos. 10 and 11 of 1994 be considered together. The holding establishes that leave is warranted to examine procedural failures and violations of the right of audience in criminal appellate proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal left unprocessed by the court office constitutes a denial of the right to be heard?
- Does an incorrect observation by the High Court that no appeal was filed result in a miscarriage of justice?
- Shahid Hussain vs The State and others1997 P Cr. L J 1582 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter originated as a habeas corpus petition concerning the illegal detention of a citizen by a Station House Officer (S.H.O.). The core legal question addressed was whether the police officer's denial of the arrest and detention was credible in light of the detenu's specific allegations and the surrounding circumstances. The Court found the S.H.O.'s version of events to be untruthful and rejected his claims of ignorance regarding the detenu's status and whereabouts. Holding that the police officer's conduct in detaining an individual without proper record-keeping and subsequently filing false statements was highly objectionable and unbecoming of a public servant, the Court directed the relevant authorities to initiate departmental action against the officer. The Court emphasized the principle that police functionaries are servants of the law, not of individuals, and are not bound to obey illegal orders. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that police officers must act in accordance with the law, as injustice poses a threat to the entire justice system. As the detenu had been released, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Questions settled- Are police functionaries bound to obey illegal orders of their superiors?
- Does the filing of false statements by a police officer regarding a detention warrant departmental disciplinary action?
- Is a habeas corpus petition rendered infructuous if the detenu is released during the proceedings?
- Shahid Hayat Khan and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 901 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application for pre-arrest bail arose from an F.I.R. concerning the death of eight individuals, including Mir Murtaza Bhutto, during a police operation. The applicants, police officers present at the scene, sought pre-arrest bail, contending that their involvement was minimal, that they were not named in the interim challan, and that the prosecution was motivated by political vendetta. The core legal question was whether the applicants satisfied the stringent criteria for pre-arrest bail, particularly the requirement of demonstrating mala fides or ulterior motive on the part of the police. The Court held that while it possessed concurrent jurisdiction to hear the bail application directly, the applicants failed to establish the essential conditions for pre-arrest relief. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an exceptional remedy, not a rule, requiring proof of imminent arrest, irreparable humiliation, and specific mala fides. Finding no reliable evidence of ulterior motive and noting the gravity of the incident, the Court rejected the application and recalled the interim bail, affirming that bare allegations of mala fides are insufficient to warrant such relief.
Questions settled- What are the essential conditions that must be satisfied for the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is it permissible for an accused to bypass the Sessions Court and approach the High Court directly in matters of concurrent jurisdiction regarding pre-arrest bail?
- Does the absence of an accused's name in an interim challan automatically entitle them to pre-arrest bail?
- Is a bare allegation of mala fides sufficient to justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Shahid Hamid And Others vs The State1997 MLD 2585 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →
- Shahid Durrani vs The State1997 MLD 1901 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
- Shahid Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 859 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-11Read full judgment →
- Shaheen Airport Services, Karachi Airport vs Sindh Employees' Social1997 PLC 618 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
- Shaheen Airport Services, Karachi Airport vs Sindh Employees Social1997 PLC 618 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
- Shahbaz Ahmad and others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2062 · Lahore High Court · 1997-07-09Read full judgment →
- Shah Pal vs Mazhar Hussain And 2 Other1997 MLD 3207 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz vs Secretary, Communication and Works Department1997 PLC (C.S.) 339 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1995-05-22Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Khan vs Province of Punjab Through Collector, Okara And 61997 MLD 173 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-25Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz Khan Kundi Through Legal Heirs vs Government of N.-W.F.P.1997 PLC (C. S.) 892 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-03-10Read full judgment →
- Shah Mazai And Others vs Muhammad Afzal And Other1997 CLC 818 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-02-22Read full judgment →
- Shah Bashir Alam And 2 Others vs Messrs Arokey Chemical Industries1997 MLD 2308 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-18Read full judgment →
- Shah Ali vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1123 · Lahore High Court · 1997-02-26Read full judgment →
- Shah Alam Khan vs Zubair Ahmed Khan1997 PLD Peshawar 58 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-12-17Read full judgment →
- Shafiq Ur Rehman And 5 Others vs The State1997 SCMR 632 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal by leave of the Supreme Court arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing the appellants' appeals against their convictions and sentences under sections 148, 452, and 325/149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellants, who were police officials, were tried on a private complaint alleging that they formed an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the complainant's house, and caused grievous injuries to his wife while stripping her. The core legal questions involved the credibility of partisan and related witnesses, the explanation and impact of delay in lodging a private complaint, and the validity of the police's counter-version regarding a raid on proclaimed offenders. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through natural ocular testimony corroborated by medical evidence and independent witnesses, and that the defence plea was fabricated. While upholding the convictions, the Supreme Court took a lenient view regarding the sentence considering the appellants' dismissal from service and the period already undergone, reducing the sentence of imprisonment to the period already served.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of related and partisan witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration?
- Does a delay in filing a private complaint vitiate the prosecution case when the delay is duly explained and involves police officials?
- Can a fabricated counter-version set up by police officials through daily diary entries sustain a plea of private defense?
- Whether the appellate court can reduce a sentence of imprisonment to the period already undergone in view of mitigating circumstances?
- Shafiq Textile Mills Limited vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation1997 MLD 2705 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
- Shafi Muhammad And Others vs Mst. Rasheeda Bibi Through Attorney1997 MLD 385 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
- Shabrati vs Shaukat Ali Khan1997 MLD 2884 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
- Shabir Ahmed vs Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government Through Its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 478 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-12-17Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain vs Deputy Commissioner, Gujranwala And 2 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 32 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-07Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1920 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad and another vs The State and others1997 P Cr. L J 1539 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1997-05-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a conviction for Qatl-e-Amd under the Islami Tazeerati Qawaneen Nifaz Act, 1974. The Shariat Court had upheld the conviction but reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment, citing the prosecution's failure to prove motive and the accused's exceeding of the right of private defence. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir examined whether these grounds justified a lesser sentence and whether the convict was entitled to the benefit of time spent as an undertrial prisoner. The Court held that motive is not a sine qua non for proving murder, and the accused had not established a valid right of private defence. However, the Court maintained the life sentence for the sake of safe dispensation of justice, noting that the prosecution failed to adequately explain the injuries sustained by the accused. The Court affirmed that while motive is not essential for conviction, unexplained injuries on an accused may influence sentencing. The Court further directed that the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, be extended to the convict.
Questions settled- Is the failure of the prosecution to prove motive a ground to set aside a conviction for murder?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to explain injuries on the person of the accused necessarily entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Can the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be granted to a convict sentenced to life imprisonment?
- Does the right of private defence extend to causing death when the deceased was unarmed?
- Shabbir Ahmad Alias Rasoola vs The State1997 MLD 1224 · Lahore High Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
- Sh. Nazir Ahmad vs Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore Through Chairman1997 PLC (C. S.) 282 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which, on remand from the Supreme Court, had dismissed his service appeal concerning the termination of his services as a J.V. Teacher. The Tribunal's majority view held the appeal non-maintainable, despite the Chairman's finding that the Supreme Court had previously settled the maintainability issue. The core legal questions revolve around the interpretation of Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, specifically whether an appeal filed prematurely before the Tribunal becomes competent if the departmental appeal remains undecided after 90 days. A further question was whether the issue of appeal maintainability could be re-agitated before the Tribunal after a Supreme Court remand. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine these provisions and contentions.
Questions settled- Does an appeal filed prematurely before the Service Tribunal become competent if the departmental appeal remains undecided after 90 days?
- Can the question of appeal maintainability be re-agitated before the Service Tribunal after a case has been remanded by the Supreme Court for a fresh decision?
- What is the correct interpretation of Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, regarding the maintainability of appeals?
- What is the correct interpretation of Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, regarding the maintainability of appeals?
- Sh. Muhammad Fazil vs Sh. Abdul Qadir And 7 Other1997 CLC 243 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This consolidated judgment disposes of four first appeals arising from an order of the Civil Judge, Sialkot, which dismissed applications by the appellants seeking to resile from an offer of oath and disposed of a partnership dissolution suit along with arbitration petitions based on a statement on oath made by a respondent. The core legal questions involved whether parties can resile from an offer of oath under changed circumstances, whether a counsel has the implied authority to bind clients to an oath without express provision in the Vakalatnama, and whether a pending arbitration proceeding can be bypassed by an oath agreement without revoking the arbitrators' authority. The Lahore High Court held that a counsel cannot bind clients to an oath without specific authority in the Vakalatnama, that intervening hostilities and loss of confidence justify permitting parties to resile from an offer of oath, and that arbitration proceedings cannot be superseded unilaterally. The court set aside the trial court's order, permitted the parties to resile from the offer of oath, and remanded the matters for decision in accordance with law.
Questions settled- Can a party be permitted to resile from an offer of oath when subsequent events and worsening relations show a loss of confidence in the offeree?
- Does a general power to plead and act in a Vakalatnama empower a counsel to bind a client to a decision based on the oath of the opposite party?
- Whether arbitration proceedings and a filed award can be superseded by an agreement to refer the dispute to an oath without formally revoking the authority of the arbitrators under the law?
- Is an appeal maintainable against an order recording a compromise or adjustment without appending a certified copy of the decree-sheet?
- Sh. Muhammad And Others vs Collector Lahore And Other1997 MLD 466 · Lahore High Court · 1996-06-19Read full judgment →
- Sh. Abdur Rashid Through Legal Heirs vs Ehsanullah And 5 Other1997 MLD 2996 · Peshawar High Court · 1997-06-06Read full judgment →
- Sezai Turkes Feyzi Akkaya Construction Company, Lahore Through Project Director vs Messrs Crescent Services, Lahore And Another1997 SCMR 1928 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking to invoke an arbitration clause in a sub-contract agreement for the Lahore By-Pass project. The petitioner resisted the application, contending that a subsequent termination agreement novated and superseded the original sub-contract, thereby extinguishing the arbitration clause. Both the Civil Judge and the High Court rejected the petitioner's plea, holding that the sub-contract and the termination agreement had a clear nexus, must be read together, and that the original arbitration clause survived. The Supreme Court of Pakistan affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, holding that where a subsequent agreement is to be implemented with reference to the rights and obligations secured under an original contract, the arbitration clause remains binding and enforceable. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent termination agreement automatically extinguish an arbitration clause contained in an original contract?
- Whether an arbitration clause survives the novation or modification of a contract when the subsequent agreement relies upon the original contract for its implementation?
- Is an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 maintainable when a dispute arises out of an agreement containing an arbitration clause?
- Seva And 3 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1252 · Lahore High Court · 1996-09-18Read full judgment →
- Service Tribunal Subordinate Judiciary Sindh] Inderyas Barket vs Registrar, High Court of Sindh And Another1997 PLC (C. S.) 637 · Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal · 1996-11-03Read full judgment →
- Senator Sultan Ali Lakhani vs Mir Shakil Ur Rahman and 4 others1997 PLD Karachi 41 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff, a Senator, filed suits for damages and permanent injunction against the editors, publishers, and reporters of two newspapers alleging defamation arising from identical published articles concerning various scandalous activities. The plaintiff sought interlocutory injunctions to restrain the defendants from publishing further defamatory articles or material. The defendants contested the suits by pleading justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment. The Sindh High Court examined whether an interim injunction could be granted in defamation matters where defences of justification and fair comment are raised. The Court held that interlocutory injunctions in defamation proceedings are extraordinary remedies that will not be granted unless the plaintiff establishes a very clear, prima facie case that the publication is undoubtedly false and libellous, and that the defendants' pleaded defences are bound to fail. Emphasizing the paramount importance of protecting the constitutional freedom of speech and of the press, the Court ruled that courts must exercise extreme caution to avoid imposing prior restraint or judicial censorship. As the defendants raised arguable defences of justification, privilege, and fair comment, and there was no immediate threat of repeated actionable wrong, the applications for interim injunction were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an interlocutory injunction can be granted to restrain the publication of an alleged libel when the defendant pleads justification, privilege, or fair comment?
- Does the failure of a newspaper or journalist to disclose sources of information amount to proof of defamation or warrant an interim injunction?
- Can a court issue a wide and unspecific prior restraint order against the publication of future potential defamatory material without violating freedom of speech and of the press?
- What constitutes the 'clearest of cases' required for a court to exercise its discretion in granting an interim injunction in defamation suits?
- Senator Lt.Gen. (Rtd.) Saeed Qadir vs The State1997 PLD Lahore 26 · Lahore High Court · 1996-08-04Read full judgment →
- Senator Dr. Abdul Hayee vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and 3 others1997 PLD Quetta 37 · Balochistan High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a senator from Balochistan challenging the federal government's issuance of a No-Objection Certificate allowing Burmah Castrol plc to sell its shares in Pakistan Petroleum Limited (PPL) to Hashoo Holdings, and the disposal of PPL's share in the Qadirpur Gas Field, arguing it would adversely affect national and provincial economic interests, gas supplies, and the Gas Development Surcharge, and required approval from the Council of Common Interests. Preliminary objections were raised regarding maintainability, inter alia, on the ground that the Balochistan Provincial Government had subsequently filed a civil suit under Article 184(1) of the Constitution before the Supreme Court, ousting the High Court's jurisdiction. The Balochistan High Court held that while Article 184(1) vests exclusive original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court for disputes between governments to the exclusion of other courts, it does not bar private parties who lack standing to invoke Article 184 from seeking remedies under Article 199. Furthermore, because the high court petition was prior in time and involved private parties not arrayed in the Supreme Court suit, the proceedings did not abate or terminate, and the preliminary objection was overruled.
Questions settled- Does the institution of a suit by a Provincial Government under Article 184(1) of the Constitution before the Supreme Court automatically terminate or oust a prior constitutional petition filed by a private party under Article 199?
- Can private persons invoke the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 184(1) of the Constitution?
- What is the scope and effect of the exclusionary clause in Article 184(1) of the Constitution regarding disputes between governments?
- Does a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 abate under the principle of res sub judice merely because another court of concurrent or superior jurisdiction is subsequently seized of a matter involving similar questions?
- Semual And Others vs Piara Masih And Other1997 SCMR 1172 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment regarding the inheritance and succession of government land. The core legal question presented is whether succession in the instant case is governed by Section 21(b) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, or by Section 37 of the Pakistan Succession Act, 1925, specifically in light of the saving provision contained in Section 29(2) of the Pakistan Succession Act, 1925. The petitioner contends that the High Court relied on a precedent (PLD 1992 SC 385) that did not address this specific statutory argument. The Supreme Court, finding merit in the contention that the legal issue requires further examination, granted leave to appeal. Given that the relied-upon precedent was decided by a Full Bench, the Court directed that the appeal be placed before a larger Bench of three or more judges. The existing stay order was ordered to continue until the final disposal of the matter.
Questions settled- Does Section 29(2) of the Pakistan Succession Act 1925 operate as a saving provision that excludes the application of Section 37 of the same Act in favor of Section 21(b) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912?
- Is the succession of government land governed by the Pakistan Succession Act 1925 or the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912?
- Security Paper Ltd. through Mills Manager, Karachi vs Malik Noor Hussain1997 PLC 383 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-14Read full judgment →
- Security Paper Ltd. Through Mills Manager, Karachi vs Malik Nook1997 PLC 383 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1996-05-14Read full judgment →
- Secretary, Narcotics Control Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad And Another vs Muhammad Sajjad And 4 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 167 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, whereby service appeals filed by respondents, who were promoted Upper Division Clerks, were allowed. The respondents had grievances that they were bypassed for promotion to Assistants (BPS-11) in favour of their juniors, in violation of the rule of seniority-cum-fitness under the Recruitment Rules in Establishment Division's S.R.O. 248(1)88. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal to examine the question of fitness and the validity of supersession based on findings of unfitness without supporting material such as Annual Confidential Reports. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Departmental Promotion Committee failed to provide proper and cogent reasons or refer to supporting material regarding the unfitness of senior civil servants, and declined to interfere with the Tribunal's order remanding the cases to the appellate authority for fresh orders. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused and the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to examine the question of fitness in promotion matters?
- Can senior civil servants be superseded for promotion without cogent reasons and supporting material regarding their unfitness?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a Tribunal's order remanding a service matter for fresh consideration when no proper reasons were given by the Departmental Promotion Committee?
- Secretary, Education Department, Lahore and others vs Mst. Nasim1997 PLC (C.S.) 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by the Education Department challenging the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the transfer order of the respondent, a Senior Headmistress and District Education Officer, and ordered her reposting as District Education Officer at Sargodha. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in setting aside the transfer and reposting order of the civil servant where the initial transfer order lacked reasons and deviated from the normal tenure procedure. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal acted justly and properly as the initial transfer order smudged of arbitrariness by failing to assign reasons and disrupting the respondent's normal tenure near the end of her career. The key principle laid down is that while civil servants have no vested right to a particular post, arbitrary transfers that lack reasons and deviate from normal tenure rules are open to judicial scrutiny and correction by service tribunals.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim posting at a particular post?
- Whether an unreasoned transfer order of a civil servant passed without assigning reasons can be set aside by the Service Tribunal?
- Does the interference by the Service Tribunal in the transfer of a civil servant amount to unwarranted interference in the internal management of a department?
- Secretary, Education Department, Lahore And Other vs Mst. Nasim1997 PLC (C.S.) 74 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition filed by the Education Department against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had set aside the transfer of the respondent from the post of District Education Officer. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal was justified in interfering with the transfer and posting order of a civil servant passed by the Competent Authority. The Supreme Court held that while a civil servant has no vested right to claim a particular post, the unreasoned uprooting of the respondent from her post prematurely, without assigning any reasons, smacked of arbitrariness. The Court dismissed the petition, upholding the Tribunal's decision. The key principle laid down is that although transfer and posting are prerogative of the administration in the public interest, an arbitrary transfer order lacking reasons and disrupting normal tenure is susceptible to judicial scrutiny and interference by the service tribunal.
Questions settled- Does a civil servant have a vested right to claim posting to a particular post?
- Can an unreasoned transfer order of a civil servant be interfered with by a Service Tribunal?
- Whether the Service Tribunal's interference in the transfer of a civil servant amounts to unwarranted interference in departmental management?
- Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore vs Mrs. Kishwar Aslam And Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 978 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Punjab Service Tribunal judgment regarding the promotion of a civil servant to the post of Director (BS-20). The core legal question was whether the government could bypass the promotion of an eligible candidate by filling the post through transfer, and whether the recruitment methods 'by promotion' or 'by transfer' were interchangeable. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the Tribunal's decision. The Court held that promotion is the primary method of recruitment, while transfer is an alternative method to be utilized only when no eligible candidate is available for promotion. A key principle laid down is that the order of priority in recruitment rules must be respected, and 'or' does not imply interchangeability. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that any appointment to such a post, whether by promotion or transfer, necessitates the recommendation of the appropriate Departmental Promotion Committee or Selection Board. Additionally, the Court clarified that where an impugned order is passed by the Governor, the requirement for exhausting departmental appeals is dispensed with.
Questions settled- Does the word 'or' between 'by promotion' and 'by transfer' in recruitment rules imply that the methods are interchangeable?
- Is the recommendation of an appropriate committee or board a mandatory prerequisite for appointments made by transfer?
- Must an aggrieved civil servant file a departmental appeal when the impugned order is passed by the Governor?
- Is promotion considered the primary method of recruitment when rules specify 'by promotion or by transfer'?
- Secretary to Government of Punjab, Housing Physical &1997 SCMR 1606 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for special leave to appeal arises from the judgment of the Lahore High Court and the subsequent dismissal of an Intra-Court Appeal concerning the allotment of a residential plot under a lawyers quota in the Area Development Scheme No.II, Tehsil Samundri. The respondent was initially allotted a plot which was later found to be reserved for government servants. Before an alternate plot could be allotted, the government abolished all quotas through a policy change. The core legal question was whether a subsequent change in government policy could take away a vested right of allotment once eligibility was determined and a plot was allotted, and whether the District Housing Committee's allotment powers were final. The Supreme Court held that the respondent had acquired a vested right upon the acceptance of his application and allotment by the competent committee, which could not be divested by a subsequent retrospective policy change, particularly when allotments under similar exemptions continued. The Court affirmed the findings of the High Court, dismissed the petition, and refused leave to appeal, ruling that a government cannot resile from a commitment made when the applicant was duly found eligible.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent change in government policy can take away a vested right of allotment once eligibility has been determined and a plot has been allotted?
- Whether the recommendation and allotment by a District Housing Committee create a binding right for the allottee?
- Whether a government can apply a new policy retrospectively to deny a plot to an eligible applicant who was previously granted an allotment?
- Secretary to Government of N.W.F.P, And 2 Others vs Saifur Rehman1997 SCMR 1073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal was filed by the Government of N.W.F.P. against the judgment of the Service Tribunal, N.-W.F.P., Peshawar, which had accepted the respondent's appeal and set aside his dismissal from service. The respondent, a police constable, was dismissed following fresh departmental proceedings where an Inquiry Officer found him guilty of misconduct. The Service Tribunal set aside the dismissal on the ground that the respondent was not associated with the inquiry proceedings, which violated mandatory procedural requirements. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, upon perusing the record, confirmed that the respondent was neither associated with the inquiry nor given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. The Court held that a person facing a departmental inquiry has an absolute right to participate in the proceedings and cross-examine witnesses. Finding no legal error in the Service Tribunal's decision, which also allowed the department the option to conduct fresh proceedings, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition and refused leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether a departmental inquiry conducted without associating the accused civil servant or allowing him to cross-examine witnesses is legally sustainable?
- Does the failure to intimate the appointment of an Inquiry Officer to the accused civil servant invalidate the subsequent inquiry report and dismissal order?
- Can a Service Tribunal, while setting aside a dismissal order due to procedural defects in an inquiry, grant the department the option to initiate fresh inquiry proceedings on the same charges?
- Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. And Another vs Muhammad1997 PLC (C.S.) 422 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal against a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court setting aside the reversion of the respondents. The respondents, employed as Work Munshies and having completed ten years of service, appeared in a second departmental examination for promotion to Sub-Engineer after the department failed to inform them of the initial examination held in violation of rules. Upon passing the second examination, they were promoted, but their promotion was subsequently withdrawn due to the cancellation of that examination on the ground that it violated the rule setting the examination once a year in November/December. The core legal question was whether the department could cancel a duly held second examination and withdraw promotions when employees were deprived of participating in the first examination through no fault of their own. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was justified in setting aside the reversion, ruling that the department had a duty to inform eligible candidates, and the holding of a second examination to remedy the initial omission was just, proper, and based on principles of natural justice. Leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether the department can cancel a departmental examination held to accommodate employees who were not informed about the initial examination?
- Does the failure of the department to inform eligible employees about a promotion examination justify the holding of a subsequent examination?
- Can promotions granted on the basis of a lawfully conducted remedial departmental examination be arbitrarily withdrawn?
- Secretary to Government of N. W.F.P. Educationdepartment, Peshawar And 2 Others vs Samuel Poul, S.E.T. (Technical)1997 SCMR 1816 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Government of N.W.F.P. against a Service Tribunal judgment that granted the respondent, a S.E.T. (Technical) employee, a running basic pay scale in BS-16 from the date he qualified for the In-Service Teacher Training Course in Industrial Arts. The core legal question was whether the respondent was entitled to the graded/running pay scale of his post despite the government's contention that he lacked the requisite qualifications. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Service Tribunal correctly applied the law. The Court found that the government failed to demonstrate any misinterpretation of evidence by the Tribunal and that the respondent's qualifications, specifically the In-Service Teacher Training Course, entitled him to the graded pay scale. The key principle laid down is that an employee who fulfills the necessary training and qualification requirements for a post is entitled to the corresponding graded pay scale, and the ratio of Federation of Pakistan v. Shahzada Shahpur Jan (1986 SCMR 991) supports the entitlement to presumptive pay where the employee is qualified for the post.
Questions settled- Is an employee entitled to a graded or running pay scale upon completing the required in-service training for their post?
- Does the ratio in Federation of Pakistan v. Shahzada Shahpur Jan support the entitlement to presumptive pay for qualified employees?
- Can the Supreme Court interfere with a Service Tribunal's findings of fact under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 if no misinterpretation of evidence is shown?