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.
- Reheem Bux vs Abdul Subhan and another1995 SCMR 99 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
- Rehana Kausar vs Controller of Examination1995 CLC 1317 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
- Razzaq and 13 others vs Mst. Talaat Naseem and 2 others1995 CLC 644 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
- Razzak and others vs Mst. Tallat Naseem and others1995 CLC 57 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
- Raza Muhammad vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1190 · Lahore High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
- Raza Muhammad vs Maftoolan Jan1995 CLC 403 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-05-14Read full judgment →
- Raza Muhammad Bhatti vs Government of Sindh through Additional1995 PLC (C.S.) 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
- Rawalpindi Development Authority, Rawalpindi vs Sadiqa Begum1995 SCMR 1192 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal converted into an appeal, challenging concurrent judgments of the courts below and the Lahore High Court, which decreed a permanent injunction in favor of the respondent landowner against the Rawalpindi Development Authority. The core legal question is whether a policy letter issued by the Provincial Government regarding the exemption of land in development schemes framed by Improvement Trusts has binding statutory or administrative force, and whether the Trust was bound to follow it. The Supreme Court held that even if the policy letter did not constitute a formal rule framed under section 73 of the Town Improvement Act, 1922, the Provincial Government possessed wide controlling powers under section 21-A of the Act to issue binding instructions and policy decisions to the Trust, especially since the appellant authority had consistently followed the policy. The appeal was accordingly disposed of with a modification regarding the calculation of the plot size.
Questions settled- Whether a policy letter issued by the Provincial Government regarding land exemption in development schemes has binding force over an Improvement Trust under the Town Improvement Act, 1922?
- Does the Provincial Government possess the power under section 21-A of the Town Improvement Act, 1922 to issue binding instructions and control the activities of an Improvement Trust?
- Is an Improvement Trust bound by a consistent past practice of following a government policy decision concerning the exemption of land for local landowners?
- Raw Textile Mills Ltd vs Federal Government of Pakistan through its1995 MLD 243 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
- Ravi Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federal Government of Pakistan Through Its1995 MLD 243 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-13Read full judgment →
- Rauf Ahmad vs Mst. Walayat Begum1995 PLD Supreme Court 639 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an eviction petition filed against the petitioner-tenant for default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement under the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Rent Controller directed the tenant to deposit future rent by a specified date each month, and subsequently struck off the tenant's defence for a delayed deposit. The ejectment order was upheld by the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court in a writ petition. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that the tenancy was oral and therefore the rent payment timeline under section 13(6) of the Ordinance should be computed differently. The Supreme Court held that an objection regarding the nature of the tenancy, being a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence, cannot be raised for the first time before the apex court when it was never pleaded before the lower forums. Furthermore, the Court held that it cannot grant time to a tenant to vacate or modify lower court orders without first granting leave to appeal. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a plea regarding the nature of tenancy being oral be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court?
- Whether the Supreme Court can grant time to vacate premises or modify lower court orders without granting leave to appeal?
- Does a delay in depositing monthly rent pursuant to an order under section 13(6) of the Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 warrant striking off the tenant's defence?
- Rasta Mal Khan And Other vs Nabi Sarwar Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 49 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from civil petitions for leave to appeal directed against a common judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which set aside the concurrent findings of the courts below and decreed the respondents-plaintiffs' suits. The core legal question involved the nature of certain land mutations, specifically whether the transactions were genuine gifts or subsequently and fraudulently altered to sales to facilitate pre-emption claims. The Supreme Court observed that multiple mutations were originally entered as family settlements by way of gifts to manage joint holdings, but the disputed mutations contained unauthorized cuttings, overwriting, and arbitrary insertion of nominal sale considerations without compliance with mandatory revenue procedures or reports to revenue officers. The Court held that the High Court was legally justified in re-appreciating the evidence, as the lower courts had misread the evidence and ignored glaring infirmities, mala fides, and fraud. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that civil courts retain jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief when revenue entries interfere with substantive property rights. Leave to appeal was refused and all petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a High Court is justified in reversing concurrent findings of fact where the lower courts misread evidence and ignored material infirmities?
- Can revenue authorities convert a mutation of gift into a sale without recording a report and complying with statutory provisions under the Land Revenue Act?
- Does the civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding the true nature of revenue entries when such entries interfere with substantive property rights?
- Whether the fraudulent alteration of gift mutations to sales without the consent of the parties renders the transaction void?
- Rasib Khan and 2 others vs Abdul Grant and 3 others1995 PLD Supreme Court (AJ&K) 83 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1995-05-08Read full judgment →
- Rashida Bibi and 14 others vs Amir Yusaf Ali Khan, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affairs, Islamabad and another1995 SCMR 183 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a writ petition against the order of the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs, which had set aside the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Board's order and declared the disputed property as evacuee trust property. The core legal question revolves around whether the transfer of the property in favor of the petitioners' predecessor was saved under section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 as a bona fide transfer made prior to June 1968. The Supreme Court held that the transfer could not be deemed bona fide because the property was declared as trust property prior to the issuance of the transfer order and PTD, meaning the transferee had knowledge of the trust character of the property. Consequently, the Court affirmed the impugned judgment and refused leave to appeal, laying down the principle that transfers effected with the knowledge of pending claims regarding a property's trust status do not qualify for protection as bona fide transfers under section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975.
Questions settled- Whether a transfer of property made with the knowledge that the property is claimed as trust property can be considered a bona fide transfer under section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975?
- Can provisional transfer orders issued prior to June 1968 be deemed permanent transfer deeds for the purposes of section 10 of the Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975?
- Did the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Board err in law in validating the transfer of property that was rightfully vested in the Evacuee Trust Property Board?
- Rashid-Ur-Rehman vs M/s. Pakistan Steel, Karachi1995 PLC 641 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
- Rashid vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 214 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- Rashid Mahmood vs Administrator District CouncilK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 383 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
- Rashid Alias Ahman vs The State1995 MLD 1506 · Lahore High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad vs Bashir Ahmad through Legal Heirs1995 CLC 1924 · Lahore High Court · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from a pre-emption suit regarding agricultural land in Tehsil Samundri, District Faisalabad. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff-pre-emptor, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision. The primary legal question before the Lahore High Court was whether the plaintiff had validly performed the mandatory Talabs (demands)—specifically Talb-e-Muwathibat and Talb-e-Ishhad—under Islamic Law in the absence of a codified pre-emption law at the time of suit institution. The High Court affirmed that even in the absence of codified provincial statutes, pre-emption suits must strictly comply with Islamic Law requirements. The Court held that Talb-e-Muwathibat (immediate demand) must be made with utmost promptitude and without delay upon receiving knowledge of the sale in the same meeting/sitting. Collecting money or traveling before declaring the intent to pre-empt defeats the demand. Furthermore, failure to properly make and prove Talb-e-Ishhad in the presence of two truthful witnesses or via attested written notice extinguishes the substantive right of pre-emption. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal.
Questions settled- Is performance of Talabs mandatory for a pre-emption suit filed when no codified pre-emption statute is in force?
- Whether making preparations such as collecting money or traveling prior to making Talb-e-Muwathibat invalidates the demand of pre-emption?
- Does failure to prove Talb-e-Ishhad in accordance with Islamic Law extinguish the substantive right of pre-emption?
- Rashid Ahmad And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 472 · Other · -Read full judgment →
- Rasheed Ahmad Jehangir vs M/s. Karachi Transport Corporation1995 PLC 616 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
- Rao Solat Yasin Khan vs Director-General, Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1026 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service appeal was filed by a civil servant working as a Library Assistant (B-9) who claimed the full presumptive pay of a higher post of Librarian (B-15) after being transferred and continuously performing duties against it. The core legal question was whether a civil servant lacking formal eligibility or qualification for promotion to a higher post, but posted against it, is entitled to the full presumptive pay of that higher post or an additional remuneration. The Federal Service Tribunal held, following the precedent of the Supreme Court, that since the appellant was not qualified for the higher post, he could not be granted the full presumptive pay of Grade-15; however, he was entitled to adequate compensation for discharging higher responsibilities. The Tribunal laid down the principle that civil servants working against higher posts without possessing eligibility for promotion fall into a distinct category, wherein they are not entitled to full presumptive pay but must be awarded appropriate additional remuneration—in this case, fixed at 20 percent of their own basic pay—along with consequential benefits from the date of joining the higher post.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant who is not qualified for a higher post entitled to the full presumptive pay of that post when assigned to perform its duties?
- Does the bar of limitation apply to service appeals involving matters of pay and pension?
- Whether a civil servant performing duties on a higher post without formal promotion is entitled to additional remuneration?
- What is the appropriate measure of compensation for a civil servant who works on a higher post despite lacking the requisite eligibility for promotion?
- Rao Muhammad Jameel Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 622 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
- Rao Muhammad Ashraf vs Punjab UniversityK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 225 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
- Rana Shaukat Ali vs Executive Vice-President, National Bank of Pakistan, Lahore and 2 others1995 PLC 532 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-13Read full judgment →
- Rana Saeed Ahmad vs Controller, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan1995 MLD 1848 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This intra-court appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, challenged the dismissal of a constitutional petition regarding the applicability of amended university examination regulations. The appellant, a student at Bahauddin Zakariya University, contended that an amendment to Regulation No. 18(b), which restricted the number of permissible examination attempts, could not retrospectively apply to students admitted prior to the amendment's enactment. The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that students do not possess a vested right to be governed by the regulations in force at the time of their initial admission. The Court affirmed that university authorities possess the inherent power to amend regulations to maintain academic standards, proficiency, and excellence. Such amendments are applicable to all students from the date of enforcement, regardless of their admission date. The Court emphasized that it would not adopt a literal or dogmatic approach that would impede the University's ability to regulate examinations or impose an impossible burden of conducting different examinations for different cohorts, thereby upholding the validity of the amended regulation.
Questions settled- Can a university retrospectively apply amended examination regulations to students admitted prior to the amendment?
- Do students have a vested right to be governed by the examination regulations in force at the time of their admission?
- Is a university's decision to limit the number of examination attempts to maintain academic standards subject to judicial interference?
- Rana Qamar Zaman vs Mitsui O.S.K. Lines and 5 others1995 PLD Karachi 352 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Shahid vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 148 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-22Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Saleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 20 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Khalid vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 26 · Lahore High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Ishhaq vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 61 · Federal Shariat Court · 1995-03-01Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Iqbal Khan vs The Member (Customs), Central Board1995 MLD 494 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Akram vs The State and others1995 SCMR 1144 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court which dismissed his criminal revision petition arising from the acquittal of the respondents under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petitioner had lodged a private complaint under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his brother after the police report placed the respondents in column No. 2 of the challan. The trial court acquitted the respondents, and the High Court dismissed the revision. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in acquitting the respondents and disregarding the dying declaration and ocular testimony. The Supreme Court held that the impugned judgments suffered from no legal infirmity, noting that material prosecution witnesses were either given up or turned hostile by stating the assailants were muffled-faced or unknown. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that concurrent findings of acquittal based on unreliable ocular evidence will not be interfered with absent legal infirmity.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with concurrent orders of acquittal when prosecution witnesses turn hostile?
- Can a trial court acquit accused persons under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a private complaint case?
- Does the testimony of hostile witnesses regarding muffled faces affect the credibility of a dying declaration in a murder trial?
- Rana Manzoor-Ul-Hassan vs Secretary, Ministry of Education, Islamabad and 5 others1995 SCMR 8 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's grievance regarding the denial of promotion to Grade-19 and the refusal of move-over to that grade. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal concerning the fitness of a civil servant for promotion and whether the denial of move-over was justified based on the appellant's service record. The Supreme Court held that the appeal before the Tribunal was incompetent because statutory provisions expressly bar appeals against departmental decisions determining the fitness of a person for promotion. Furthermore, the Court examined the appellant's Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) and concluded that he failed to meet the requisite criteria for move-over, as he lacked the necessary 'good' reports during the relevant five-year period. The Court affirmed the principle that the determination of fitness for promotion is a matter within the exclusive domain of the departmental selection authority, and courts or tribunals cannot substitute their judgment for such administrative determinations, nor can they entertain appeals where the law explicitly prohibits them.
Questions settled- Does an appeal lie to a Service Tribunal against a departmental decision determining the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
- Is a civil servant entitled to challenge the determination of their fitness for promotion before a Service Tribunal?
- What is the criteria for a civil servant to qualify for move-over from Grade-18 to Grade-19?
- Rana Khaliq Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 596 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-04Read full judgment →
- Rana Javed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1330 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
- Rana Ishtiaq Mahmood and 2 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1873 · Lahore High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Rana Arshad Fahim vs Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad and 41995 PLC (C.S.) 496 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
- Rajab and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 366 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
- Raja Sondha Khan vs Muhammad Asghar and another1995 SCMR 1149 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the order of the Lahore High Court suspending the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to Muhammad Asghar, respondent, in a murder case. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court erred in exercising its discretion to suspend the respondent's sentence. The Supreme Court held that no interference was warranted with the discretionary order of the High Court, noting the trial court's observations that the role attributed to the respondent regarding injuries to prosecution witnesses was not established and that he was allegedly hit by stray pellets or simply present without a proven motive or direct role in the firing. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming the principle that appellate courts will generally not interfere with discretionary orders for the suspension of sentences unless compelling grounds are shown.
Questions settled- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court suspending a criminal sentence without strong grounds?
- Does the mere presence of an accused at the scene of the crime, without established motive or overt acts of firing, warrant the denial of suspension of sentence?
- Raja Shazad Kayani vs Senior Superintendent, Police, Abbottabad and 21995 P Cr. L J 1384 · Peshawar High Court · 1995-03-15Read full judgment →
- Raja Shahjahan, And Another vs Azad Govt. through Its ChiefK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Service 162 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
- Raja Shahjahan and another vs Azad Government through its Chief1995 PLC (C.S.) 562 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
- Raja Sabeel Ahmed vs Government of N.W.F.P. through Collector, D.I. Khan1995 PLD Peshwar 91 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-21Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Iqbal and 6 others vs Muhammad Hamidullah Sheikh1995 PLC (C.S.) 850 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 7-8-1994, which declared respondent No. 1 and other officers senior to the petitioners in the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch). The core legal question concerns the determination of seniority between promotees appointed in 1974 and direct recruits selected through a 1972 competitive examination whose recommendations and appointments were split into two batches, and the applicability of the explanation to rule 8(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 versus rule 9(3) of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the protection of accrued seniority rights and the non-retroactivity of newly enforced rules required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether direct recruits recommended in separate batches from the same competitive examination can be treated as a single group for seniority under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
- Can a subsequent amendment or rule explanation deprive civil servants of a seniority right already acquired under the rules in force at the time they joined service?
- How is inter se seniority determined between promotees and direct recruits appointed in the same year under the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964?
- Raja Muhammad Iobal and 6 others vs Muhammad Hamidullah Sheikh1995 SCMR 952 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal regarding the seniority of civil servants. The dispute arose between petitioners, appointed to the Provincial Civil Service (Executive Branch) by promotion in 1974, and respondent No. 1, who was appointed via initial recruitment through the Punjab Public Service Commission in the same year but as part of a second batch. The Tribunal had ruled in favor of the respondent, applying the Explanation to rule 8(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, to grant seniority based on the earliest joining date of the first batch. The petitioners challenged this, arguing that their seniority was established under the West Pakistan Civil Service (EB) Rules, 1964, and that the subsequent 1974 rules could not retrospectively deprive them of vested seniority rights. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions regarding the non-retrospective application of the rules and the protection of acquired seniority rights required further judicial examination.
Questions settled- Can the Explanation to rule 8(2) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974 be applied retrospectively to deprive civil servants of seniority rights acquired under the West Pakistan Civil Service (EB) Rules, 1964?
- Does the appointment of candidates in different batches by the Public Service Commission constitute a single group for the purpose of determining seniority under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974?
- Raja Muhammad Hussain vs Province of Punjab through Secretary, Home Department and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 47 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Asif vs The Inspector General of Police Sindh, Central Police Office, Karachi And OtherKL.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 130 · Sindh Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Asif vs Inspector-General of Police, Sindh and 21995 PLC (C.S.) 687 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-07-29Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Ashraf vs Excise and Taegation Officer And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 86 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-16Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Ashraf Kayani vs Azad Government through Chief1995 PLC (C.S.) 969 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Raja Maroof Ahmad vs Qamar Zaman And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 67 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-18Read full judgment →
- Raja Khalid Hussain Banwa vs The State through Federal Investigating1995 P Cr. L J 735 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-12-19Read full judgment →
- Raja Khalid Hussain Banwa vs The State Through Federal InvestigatingK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 249 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Raja Ghulam Rasool vs Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and 6 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 210 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-08-11Read full judgment →
- Raja Ali Gohar And Other vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Muzaffarabad, And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 174 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
- Raja Abdul Majeed vs The State And AnotherK. L. R. 1997 Criminal Cases 492 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-18Read full judgment →
- Raja Abdul Latif vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry1995 CLC 1625 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
- Rais Naban Khan Lund vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
- Rais Azem Khan vs Khalid Latif EtcK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 33 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
- Railway Workers Union vs Govt. of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 151 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-09Read full judgment →
- Railway Worker's Union Regd. through Sardar Shaukat Ali, General1995 PLD Lahore 333 · Lahore High Court · 1995-03-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns writ petitions challenging a Government of Pakistan notification that classified specific railway lines as 'Ministry of Defence Lines,' thereby excluding employees working on these lines from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioners contended that the notification constituted an unauthorized legislative encroachment and violated the fundamental right to freedom of association under Article 17 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the notification was not a legislative measure but an administrative act clarifying the application of the existing exclusionary clause in Section 1(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Court affirmed that services connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces are statutorily excluded from labor laws to ensure national security and discipline. Furthermore, it established that the right to form associations under Article 17 is subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of national sovereignty. The Court concluded that the executive possesses the authority to classify installations as connected with the Armed Forces, rendering them exempt from trade union activities.
Questions settled- Does a government notification classifying railway lines as essential to the Ministry of Defence constitute an act of legislation?
- Are employees working on railway lines connected with the Armed Forces excluded from the purview of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Is the fundamental right to freedom of association under Article 17 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 absolute or subject to reasonable restrictions?
- Can the executive branch classify services as connected with the Armed Forces for the purpose of statutory exclusion from labor laws?
- Rahim-Ud-Din And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 592 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-02Read full judgment →
- Rahim Zada vs A & B Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi and another1995 PLC 17 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-08-09Read full judgment →
- Rahim Bakhsh vs Mian Muhammad Shafi and 7 others1995 SCMR 440 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a pre-emption suit where the petitioner, Rahim Bakhsh, sought to challenge a Lahore High Court order dismissing his appeal. The petitioner's suit for pre-emption had been dismissed by the trial court on 10-5-1980, while a rival pre-emptor's suit was decreed. Both the petitioner and the rival pre-emptors appealed, but the District Judge dismissed both appeals. The core legal question was whether a pre-emption plaintiff who failed to obtain a decree in their favor in the trial court or any appellate forum before 31-7-1986 could still be granted a decree by a higher forum, including the Supreme Court, after that date. Relying on the precedent established in Malik Said Kamal Shah (PLD 1986 SC 360) and clarified in Sardar Ali v. Muhammad Ali (PLD 1988 SC 287), the Supreme Court held that such a decree could not be granted. The Court affirmed that if a pre-emption plaintiff remained unsuccessful in obtaining a decree before the cut-off date of 31-7-1986, no higher forum could grant relief thereafter. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff in a pre-emption suit who failed to obtain a decree in their favor before 31st July 1986 be granted a decree by a higher forum thereafter?
- Does a decree awarded to a rival pre-emptor in a consolidated suit ensure for the benefit of an unsuccessful pre-emptor whose own suit was dismissed?
- Rahim Bakhsh and 8 others vs Mst. Hakim Bibi and 18 others1995 CLC 123 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
- Rahat Saeed Bukhari vs Aisha Hameed Qadri and anothers1997 MLD 218 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1996-10-16Read full judgment →
- Rafique Ahmed vs Mukhtar Ahmed and others1995 SCMR 1783 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment regarding a murder conviction. The core legal questions were whether the High Court correctly acquitted two co-accused and whether the petitioners successfully established the defense of grave and sudden provocation for the murder of the deceased. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s acquittal of the two co-accused was based on sound reasoning, noting that upon acquittal, the presumption of innocence is doubled, and interference is warranted only in exceptional cases of miscarriage of justice. Regarding the plea of grave and sudden provocation, the Court held that the defense failed to substantiate its version, noting the absence of corroborative evidence, the failure to produce the alleged witness, and the accused's refusal to testify on oath under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court dismissed both petitions, affirming the High Court's decision to maintain the convictions of the primary accused while upholding the acquittal of the co-accused.
Questions settled- Whether an appellate court should interfere with an acquittal when the reasons for such acquittal are sound and not artificial?
- Does the failure of an accused to testify on oath under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 weaken a plea of grave and sudden provocation?
- Is the presumption of innocence doubled upon the acquittal of an accused by a High Court?
- Rafiq Khan vs The State1995 SCMR 343 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the refusal of the High Court to consider the petitioner's bail applications on their merits. The petitioner was arrested in connection with a criminal case registered under sections 302, 324, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an incident on 13-12-1992 in District Narowal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of post-arrest bail given the nature of the allegations against him. Upon review, the Court observed that the only active role attributed to the petitioner in the alleged occurrence was that of raising a 'Lalkara'. Consequently, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and held that the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail. The Court directed the petitioner to be released upon executing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, Narowal, thereby establishing the principle that a mere allegation of raising a 'Lalkara' may be insufficient to deny bail in serious criminal charges.
Questions settled- Is a person accused of murder entitled to bail when the only allegation against them is raising a Lalkara?
- Can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and grant bail directly?
- Rafiq Ahmed vs K.M.C. And Another1995 MLD 345 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-31Read full judgment →
- Rafiq Ahmad Jilani vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 785 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal case registered at the Anti-Corruption Establishment Police Station regarding the alleged unlawful allotment of an additional piece of land to a private developer by officials of the Karachi Development Authority (K.D.A.). The applicant, a K.D.A. official, sought anticipatory bail directly from the High Court after the Special Judge granted bail to the main beneficiaries (developers) but dismissed the bail applications of the K.D.A. officials on the same set of evidence. The core legal question addressed is whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when co-accused similarly situated have been granted relief, and whether the High Court may entertain an anticipatory bail application directly under exceptional circumstances. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency, noting that the trial court's disparate treatment of co-accused on the same evidence was unjustified. The High Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicant, emphasizing that criminal justice must be administered equally without discrimination or arbitrary use of judicial discretion.
Questions settled- Whether an accused person is entitled to bail on the principle of consistency when co-accused facing the same set of evidence have been granted relief?
- Can the High Court exercise its concurrent jurisdiction under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant anticipatory bail directly without the applicant first approaching the trial court under special circumstances?
- Does the difference in official status among co-accused justify a differential treatment in the grant or refusal of bail?
- Whether arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion by a trial court in refusing bail on identical evidence warrants interference by the superior judiciary?
- Rafi-Ud-Din vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 111 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns the dismissal of a Patwari and the subsequent appellate proceedings before the Punjab Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether an order issued by a Full Bench of the Tribunal is legally valid when signed only by the Chairman and one member, following the transfer of the third member after the hearing but before the order was finalized. The Supreme Court held that the order was invalid, setting it aside and remanding the case for a fresh decision. The Court established that under Rule 24 of the Punjab Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1975, if a member is unable to participate in the proceedings, the proposed decision must be shown to the absentee member to afford them an opportunity to express their views. A judgment must be an expression of the collective mind of the Tribunal at the time of delivery; therefore, failing to comply with these mandatory procedural requirements renders the decision legally ineffective as it does not represent the Tribunal as a whole.
Questions settled- Is a judgment of a Service Tribunal valid if signed only by a majority of the bench after the third member is transferred?
- What is the mandatory procedure under Rule 24 of the Punjab Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1975 when a member of the Tribunal is unable to participate in the final decision?
- Does a judgment constitute the operative act of a court if it does not reflect the collective mind of the bench at the time of delivery?
- Rafaqat Javaid and 5 others vs Chairman, Admission Board_Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore and 2 others1995 CLC 1155 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, who initially secured admission to Nishter Medical College, Multan, under reserved seats for under-developed districts, challenged an order transferring them to Quaid-i-Azam Medical College, Bahawalpur. Following the vacation of open merit seats, the admission board upgraded the petitioners to open merit seats based on their preferences, which consequently lowered their college placement to Bahawalpur. This adjustment allowed new candidates from the under-developed districts to occupy the vacated reserved seats in Multan. The petitioners argued that the transfer caused them severe inconvenience and was unlawful. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the convenience of students cannot override the rule of law and the merit-based allocation system. The Court ruled that retaining the petitioners in Multan would result in double-allocation of reserved seats and disrupt the prescribed college quotas. Since the transfer order was passed in compliance with prior court directions to accommodate higher-merit candidates, no constitutional or fundamental rights of the petitioners were infringed.
Questions settled- Can a student claim a vested right to remain in a specific medical college based on an initial admission list when subsequent merit upgrades shift them to open merit seats at another college?
- Does the personal convenience of a student override the strict application of merit-based rules and college quotas in public admissions?
- Whether an order passed by an admission authority in compliance with prior High Court directions can be challenged as an infringement of fundamental rights?
- Rafaqat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 367 · Lahore High Court · 1994-08-16Read full judgment →
- Raees Khan alias Bishoo vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1292 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-12Read full judgment →
- Raees Azam Khan and 35 others vs Khalid Latif and 24 others1995 CLC 963 · Lahore High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
- Raees Azam and 2 others vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 541 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, charged under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code and Section 12 of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, sought bail after the Sessions Court cancelled the bail initially granted to them by the Ilaqa Magistrate. The core legal questions involved whether an accused can be granted bail based on a compromise in a non-compoundable offence, and whether bail should be granted on merits when the medical report contradicts the allegations. The Peshawar High Court held that an offence under Section 377 Pakistan Penal Code is not compoundable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, and therefore bail cannot be granted merely on the basis of a compromise between the parties. However, the Court ruled on merits that the medical report, which showed no external or internal signs of trauma or tears, contradicted the complainant's version and established reasonable grounds that the petitioners were not connected with the crime. Consequently, the High Court accepted the petition and admitted the petitioners to bail.
Questions settled- Can an accused be released on bail on the basis of a compromise between the parties in a non-compoundable offence under Section 377 of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Does a medical report showing an absence of injuries and tears around the anus provide reasonable grounds for granting post-arrest bail in a sodomy case?
- Rabnawaz & Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 243 · Lahore High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
- Rabia Bibi vs Muhammad Malik and 3 others1997 MLD 67 · Lahore High Court · 1996-03-12Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 558 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz vs Muhammad Ilyas and 2 others1995 CLC 389 · Board of Revenue · 1994-08-02Read full judgment →
- Rab Nawaz and anothers vs The State1995 SCMR 844 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which maintained the convictions and sentences of the petitioners under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the accused, armed with guns, attacked the deceased due to a motive involving illicit relations. The trial court convicted the petitioners, while acquitting a co-accused. The primary legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the lower courts failed to properly evaluate the defense's plea in juxtaposition with the prosecution's evidence, particularly regarding the nature of the injuries and the credibility of the prosecution's version of events. The defense argued that only one accused admitted to the act, which was committed under sudden provocation, and that the nature of the injuries—all on the legs—contradicts the prosecution's claim that multiple armed assailants fired shots. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to reappraise the evidence, holding that the consistency of the prosecution's narrative regarding the involvement of multiple shooters requires further judicial scrutiny in light of the specific injury patterns presented.
Questions settled- Does the nature of injuries on a deceased's body, specifically when limited to non-vital areas, warrant a reappraisal of the prosecution's claim regarding the number of assailants involved?
- Is it a legal error for lower courts to fail to consider the defense's plea in juxtaposition with the prosecution's evidence?
- R.A. Malik & Co. vs Province of Punjab and others1995 CLC 1894 · Lahore High Court · 1995-04-27Read full judgment →
- Qutab-Ud-Din vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and another1995 PLC 120 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Afzal Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 36 · Lahore High Court · 1997-03-01Read full judgment →
- Qurban Hussain and others vs Atta Muhammad and others1995 PLD Supreme Court 464 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the respondent for the murder of the deceased, who died from infection and septicemia following razor injuries inflicted by the respondent. The core legal questions concerned the chain of causation between the initial injury and the subsequent death, and the appropriate classification of the offense under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court held that medical complications arising from a criminal injury do not break the chain of causation unless the treatment is so independent and potent that it renders the original act insignificant. The Court rejected the High Court's application of Exception 4 to Section 300, noting the absence of a sudden fight or quarrel. Determining that the respondent lacked the specific intent to kill but possessed the knowledge that his act was likely to cause death, the Court converted the conviction to Section 304, Part II of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The judgment establishes that medical treatment for criminal injuries is a cumulative cause of death rather than a novus actus interveniens.
Questions settled- Does death resulting from infection or septicemia following a criminal injury break the chain of causation between the injury and the death?
- Can the defense of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be invoked without evidence of a sudden fight or quarrel?
- Under what circumstances does medical treatment for a criminal injury constitute a novus actus interveniens?
- Does an injury inflicted with knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without specific intent to kill, fall under Part I or Part II of Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Qurban alias Dabboo and 2 others vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 315 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-06Read full judgment →
- Qurban Ali Sandano vs Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Larkana, Sindh and another1995 PLC (C.S.) 134 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-06-16Read full judgment →
- Quetta Municipal Corporation vs Registrar Trade UnionsK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 1 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Quetta Municipal Corporation through Administrator and another vs Registrar, Trade Unions, Balochistan, Directorate of Labour and Manpower, Quetta and 3 others1995 PLC 151 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged the registration of trade unions for employees of the Quetta Municipal Corporation. The core legal question was whether the Municipal Corporation constitutes an 'industry' or 'industrial establishment' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, thereby entitling its employees to form a trade union. The Court held that the Quetta Municipal Corporation does not qualify as an 'industry' or 'establishment' under the Ordinance. It reasoned that the definition of 'industry' requires an organized, systematic enterprise involving cooperation between labour and capital for the production, distribution, or consumption of wealth or material services. Municipal functions, while serving the public, do not meet this criteria. Consequently, the registration of the trade unions was declared illegal, void, and without lawful authority. The Court further held that actions taken in clear contravention of statutory provisions are nullities and cannot be shielded by the doctrine of laches. Accordingly, the Court set aside the Labour Court's order that had remanded the registration issue for reconsideration, effectively cancelling the union's registration.
Questions settled- Does the Quetta Municipal Corporation constitute an 'industry' or 'establishment' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Are employees of a municipal corporation entitled to form a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can an action taken in clear contravention of law be protected by the doctrine of laches?
- Does the employer have a right of appeal against the registration of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Qazi Muhammad Shahab-Ud-Din vs Muhammad QasimK.L.R. 1997 Revenue Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
- Qazi Hamidullah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 78 · Lahore High Court · 1994-09-21Read full judgment →
- Qazi Abdul Ali vs Abdul Raziq and another1995 SCMR 807 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a Forest Ranger, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Balochistan Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal regarding seniority over respondent No. 1. The dispute arose from the selection process for the Assistant Conservator of Forest (Grade 17) course. Although the petitioner secured the first position on merit in the competitive examination, the Balochistan Public Service Commission initially recommended respondent No. 1, citing zonal allocation policies, before later selecting the petitioner for a second sanctioned vacancy. Both candidates subsequently completed the course and were appointed as Assistant Conservators of Forest. A final seniority list was issued in 1989, but in 1991, the government issued a notification declaring respondent No. 1 senior to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that seniority should be determined by merit rather than zonal allocation. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the issues regarding the Commission's authority to deviate from merit-based selection and the subsequent determination of seniority based on those selections required judicial consideration.
Questions settled- Can a Public Service Commission deviate from an open merit selection process to apply zonal allocation policies after the examination has concluded?
- Does the determination of seniority in the civil service depend on the initial merit ranking in a competitive examination or on subsequent administrative reclassifications?
- Is a government notification superseding a final seniority list valid if it contradicts the established merit-based selection criteria for the initial appointment?
- Qasim Bibi and others vs Noor Muhammad through Legal Heirs and others1995 SCMR 1072 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions seeking leave to appeal against a judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' Constitution petition against the cancellation of their land allotment. The core legal question revolves around whether agricultural land allotted to a refugee from Azad Jammu and Kashmir could be subsequently re-allotted to other displaced persons under the settlement schemes, considering the extension of municipal limits and subsequent acquisition of portions of the land. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider the contentions raised by both parties regarding the classification of the land as urban agricultural land and the applicability of Para. 4-A(ix) of Rehabilitation and Settlement Scheme No. II, while ordering the parties to maintain status quo pending the final decision of the appeal.
Questions settled- Whether agricultural land allotted to a refugee from Azad Jammu and Kashmir can be re-allotted to other displaced persons under the Rehabilitation and Settlement Schemes?
- Does the inclusion of allotted agricultural land within extended municipal limits alter its status so as to permit its re-allotment as urban property?
- Whether the transfer of land under Supplementary Scheme No. II to rival claimants is legal and valid when the original allottee is an Azad Jammu and Kashmir refugee?
- Qasim And Others vs The State1995 MLD 749 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
- Qasim Ali and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1576 · Lahore High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
- Qamar-Uz-Zaman vs Directorgeneral (Education), Government of Pakistan and others1995 SCMR 1754 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging his dismissal from service as a Graduate Trained Teacher. The petitioner was dismissed after being found guilty of misconduct for producing forged and bogus result cards for his B.Ed. and M.A. (History) examinations, which he used to secure a promotion and claim advance increments. The core legal questions involved whether the dismissal order was passed by a competent authority and whether proper service of the charge-sheet and inquiry procedures were followed. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal order, although signed and communicated by the Director-General, was validly made with the approval of the competent authority, the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan in the Ministry of Education. The Court further held that service of the charge-sheet through post at the petitioner's official and home addresses constituted sufficient compliance with the law. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Tribunal, holding that the petitioner committed gross misconduct through fraud, and consequently refused to grant leave to appeal.
Questions settled- Whether an order of dismissal communicated by a Director-General is vitiated when the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan is the competent authority who approved the action?
- Does the service of a charge-sheet through post at a civil servant's official and home addresses constitute sufficient compliance of law under the relevant rules?
- Is a fresh inquiry mandatory after a remand by the Service Tribunal when a detailed inquiry under the rules has already been previously conducted establishing the charge?
- Qamar-Uz-Zaman vs Director-General (Education), Government of Pakistan and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1187 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal challenging his dismissal from service as a Graduate Trained Teacher. The petitioner had been dismissed after being found guilty of gross misconduct for producing forged result cards for his B.Ed. and M.A. (History) examinations to secure a promotion and advance increments. The core legal questions involved whether the dismissal order was passed by a competent authority and whether proper service of the charge-sheet and inquiry procedure were followed. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal order, approved by the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan and communicated by the Director-General, was lawful, and that service of the charge-sheet through post at the petitioner's official and home addresses was legally sufficient. The Court laid down that an order issued by a subordinate authority with the prior approval of the competent authority is valid, and that postal service of a charge-sheet to a civil servant's correct addresses complies with procedural requirements. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
Questions settled- Whether an order of dismissal communicated by a Director-General is rendered illegal when the competent authority, such as the Secretary to the Government, has approved it?
- Is service of a charge-sheet through post at the official and home addresses of a civil servant sufficient compliance with the law?
- Whether a fresh inquiry is mandatory after a remand when a detailed inquiry has already been conducted under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Qamar Din and others vs Settlement Commissioner and others1995 MLD 270 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
- Qamar Din And Others vs Settlement Commissioner And Other1995 MLD 270 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →