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.
- Shamsuddin vs Ghulam Farid and others1994 SCMR 2007 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 10-4-1993, which arose out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The core legal question concerns the interpretation and application of the rule regarding notice of a prior agreement to sell under section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act, specifically whether the failure to explicitly allege notice in the plaint is fatal to the plaintiff's suit when enforcing an agreement for sale against a subsequent purchaser, and whether a finding of fact regarding notice recorded by the first appellate court can be interfered with in civil revision. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised regarding the misinterpretation of section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act by the High Court require consideration.
Questions settled- Whether the non-mentioning of notice in the plaint non-suits a plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell against a subsequent purchaser?
- Did the High Court misinterpret section 27(b) of the Specific Relief Act regarding the onus of proof concerning notice?
- Can the High Court interfere in civil revision with a concurrent or appellate finding of fact regarding whether a subsequent purchaser had notice of a prior agreement to sell?
- Shamsuddin and 2 others vs Karachi Building Control Authority and another1994 MLD 647 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
- Shamsuddin and 10 others vs Speaker, Balochistan Provincial1994 MLD 2500 · Balochistan High Court · 1994-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, employees of the Balochistan Provincial Assembly Secretariat, challenged a notification promoting a Superintendent to the post of Assistant Secretary (Grade-17), arguing it violated established recruitment rules and ignored the quota system. The core legal questions were whether the High Court had jurisdiction to review the Speaker's administrative actions, whether Assembly Secretariat employees were 'civil servants' subject to the Service Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction, and whether the promotion was validly made. The Court held that while internal parliamentary proceedings are immune from judicial review, the Speaker's administrative actions, such as staff recruitment, are subject to judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution. It further held that Assembly Secretariat employees are not 'civil servants' under the Civil Servants Act, 1974, as they are not appointed by the Government, thus the High Court retains jurisdiction. The Court set aside the promotion, ruling that in the absence of specific internal quotas, the Speaker must follow the Balochistan Secretariat (Section Officers) Service Rules, 1982, and directed the Speaker to properly allocate promotion quotas.
Questions settled- Are employees of the Provincial Assembly Secretariat considered 'civil servants' under the Civil Servants Act 1974?
- Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to review administrative actions taken by the Speaker of the Provincial Assembly?
- Can the High Court issue a writ to set aside a promotion made in violation of recruitment rules and quota allocations?
- Are the employees of the Provincial Assembly Secretariat subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Shamshir Alam vs Director General Pakistan Meteorological1994 PLC (C.S.) 822 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
- Shamsher Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 223 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-30Read full judgment →
- Shamshad Ahmed Qureshi-- vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 115 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
- Shamshad Ahmed Qureshi vs The StateK.L.R 1994 Criminal Cases 1 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-23Read full judgment →
- Shams-Ud-Din And Other vs Speaker Balochistan Provincial Assembly, Quetta And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 575 · Balochistan High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shamimuddin vs Superintendent of Post Office, Mirpur Khas Circle And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from departmental proceedings and a subsequent order dismissing the appellant, a Sub-Postmaster, from service on allegations of misconduct involving fictitious appointments and fraudulent withdrawal of salary. The core legal questions considered were whether the appellant was entitled to a personal hearing by the Authorised Officer under the applicable rules and whether the refusal of the Enquiry Officer to summon defence witnesses denied the appellant a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. The Supreme Court held that on a proper construction of the rules and in accordance with principles of justice, equity, and propriety, the Authorised Officer is required to give the accused a personal hearing if demanded, particularly at the crucial stage before deciding on the nature of the penalty. The Court further held that the Enquiry Officer's failure to consider on merits and summon official defence witnesses requested by the appellant amounted to shutting out defence evidence and denying a fair opportunity of defense. The impugned judgment of the Services Tribunal was set aside and the appeal was allowed.
Questions settled- Whether an accused government servant is entitled to a personal hearing by the Authorised Officer under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Does the failure of an Enquiry Officer to summon defence witnesses without valid reasoning amount to a denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend?
- At what stage must the Authorised Officer consider the request for a personal hearing in departmental proceedings?
- Shamimuddin vs Superintendent of Post Office, Mirpur Khas Circle And Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a departmental disciplinary proceeding against a government servant charged with misconduct. The appellant challenged his dismissal, arguing that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend himself because the Enquiry Officer refused to summon his defense witnesses and the Authorised Officer denied his request for a personal hearing. The Supreme Court examined the procedural requirements under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Court held that while the Enquiry Officer possesses the powers of a Civil Court to summon witnesses, the arbitrary refusal to summon defense witnesses without valid reasoning constitutes a denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend. Furthermore, the Court established that, as a matter of justice, equity, and propriety, an accused government servant is entitled to a personal hearing by the Authorised Officer if such a hearing is requested, particularly when the imposition of a major penalty is under consideration. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal, ruling that the procedural lapses violated the principles of natural justice.
Questions settled- Is a government servant entitled to a personal hearing by the Authorised Officer under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, if such a hearing is requested?
- Does the refusal of an Enquiry Officer to summon defense witnesses without valid reasoning constitute a denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend?
- What are the powers of an Enquiry Officer regarding the summoning of witnesses under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973?
- Shamim Fatima Zaidi vs Director of Technical Education And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1618 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1994-04-05Read full judgment →
- Shamim Akhtar vs Sh. Abdul Ghafoor1994 MLD 1965 · Lahore High Court · 1994-06-01Read full judgment →
- Shameer And Others vs Member, Colonies Board And Other1994 CLC 904 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenges an order passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, which cancelled the allotment of land previously granted to the petitioners under the Grow More Food Scheme. The petitioners had been allotted alternate land after their original allotment was resumed, and they subsequently obtained proprietary rights, paid the full price, and executed a registered conveyance deed. Third-party applicants sought to intervene, claiming rights as lessees, but the Court found they had suppressed material facts regarding previous litigation and failed to challenge earlier adverse orders, thereby lacking locus standi. The Court determined that the Board of Revenue's order was based on an erroneous factual assumption that the land fell within a prohibited municipal zone. Holding that the cancellation was unjustified and the land was not within the prohibited area, the Court accepted the petition, declared the impugned order to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, and affirmed the validity of the petitioners' proprietary rights.
Questions settled- Does the suppression of material facts regarding previous litigation disqualify an applicant from seeking relief in writ proceedings?
- Can an order of the Board of Revenue be quashed if it is based on an erroneous assumption of fact regarding the location of the land?
- Do third-party applicants have locus standi to challenge the grant of proprietary rights if they have failed to challenge previous adverse orders concerning the same land?
- Shamas Textile Mills And Other vs Muhammad Sharif Zahid And Others1994 PLC 594 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
- Shama (Shamsuddin) vs Muhammad Hussain And 9 Other1994 CLC 391 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-02Read full judgment →
- Shalimar Filter Industries through Tariq Javed vs Syed Jarar Mustafa1994 MLD 576 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
- Shakila Bibi vs Muhammad Farooq And Another1994 CLC 230 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition against the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the petitioner's suit for dissolution of marriage and decreed the respondent's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in refusing to grant Khula despite evidence of an irretrievable breakdown of the marital relationship. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that where circumstances indicate it is impossible for spouses to live together within the limits prescribed by Allah Almighty, they should be separated rather than forced into a hateful union. The court established that a wife is not required to justify the specific reasons for her hatred toward her husband; it is sufficient to demonstrate a fixed aversion and the absence of any possibility of reconciliation. Given the evidence of long-term separation and the wife's categorical refusal to return to the husband's society, the court decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage on the basis of Khula, setting aside the contrary findings of the lower courts.
Questions settled- Is a wife required to justify the specific reasons for her hatred toward her husband to obtain a decree of Khula?
- Should a court grant Khula when evidence suggests that the parties cannot live together within the limits prescribed by Allah Almighty?
- Does the existence of a fixed aversion and the absence of any possibility of reconciliation constitute sufficient grounds for the dissolution of marriage?
- Shakil Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 120 · Lahore High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Shakil Ahmad vs Gulzar Ahmad and 5 others1994 MLD 512 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad vs Chairman, WAPDA and others1994 PLD Peshawar 192 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
- Shakeel Ahmad vs Chairman, WAPDA And Other1994 PLD Peshawar 192 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-26Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Sarwar vs Additional District Judge And Other1994 CLC 1011 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-05Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Abdul Majid- vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary,1994 PLD Karachi 367 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Abdul Majid vs Government of Sindh through Secretary; Housing1994 PLD Karachi 367 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Abdul Haque vs M/s. Pan Islamic Steamship Co. Ltd., Karachi1994 P LC 618 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-04-24Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Abdul Hameed vs Hifazat Hussain Jafri1994 PLD Karachi 379 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
- Shahzaman and 2 others vs The State and anothers1994 PLD Supreme Court 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a judgment of the Sindh High Court which had cancelled the post-arrest bail granted to the appellants by the trial court in a murder case involving sections 302 and 325 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail on the grounds that the trial court misapplied the law regarding further enquiry under section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly where multiple armed assailants attacked an unarmed victim and the First Information Report did not pinpoint which specific assailant inflicted the fatal injury. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and held that the High Court's cancellation of bail was legally sound because the omission to specify the exact fatal blow in the FIR does not constitute a ground for further enquiry under section 497(2) when common intention under section 34 PPC is invoked in an attack by armed assailants. The key legal principle laid down is that where armed assailants attack a victim, the failure in an FIR—dictated by a non-eye-witness—to pinpoint who caused the fatal injury does not alter the capital charge or warrant bail for further enquiry, provided the prosecution evidence, coupled with common intention, connects the accused to the crime.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an FIR to pinpoint which specific armed assailant caused the fatal injury constitute a sufficient ground for further enquiry under section 497(2) Cr.P.C.?
- Whether bail once granted by a trial court can be cancelled by a superior court when the initial grant is arbitrary and contrary to law?
- What constitutes sufficient grounds for further enquiry under section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in a murder case?
- Does the omission to name an informant or potential eye-witness in the police record render an investigation inherently dishonest at the bail stage?
- Shahzaman And 2 Other vs The Sta And AnotherPL D 1994 Supreme Court 65 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-09-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from an order of the High Court cancelling the post-arrest bail granted to the appellants by the trial court in a murder case registered under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions considered by the Supreme Court were whether the High Court was justified in cancelling the bail and whether the omission to specifically attribute the fatal injury to a particular accused in the First Information Report constitutes a case for further enquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Supreme Court held that where multiple armed assailants attack an unarmed victim in furtherance of a common intention under section 34, the failure to pinpoint the specific fatal blow in the FIR does not alter the murder charge for the purpose of bail or warrant further enquiry, but merely affects the quantum of sentence. The Court laid down the principle that the grounds for further enquiry under section 497(2) must have a substantive nexus with the potential acquittal or conviction for a lesser offence, and that bail granted arbitrarily and contrary to law by the trial court is rightly subject to cancellation by the superior courts.
Questions settled- Does the omission in an FIR to specify which accused inflicted the fatal injury constitute sufficient grounds for further enquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- When can a superior court interfere with or cancel a post-arrest bail granted by a lower court?
- Does the application of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 preclude the grant of bail on the ground that the fatal injury is not attributed to a specific accused?
- What constitutes valid grounds for further enquiry under subsection (2) of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a murder case?
- Shahzada Sultan Ahmad vs Mst. Kaneez Fatima (Widow) And 8 Other1994 CLC 1663 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-22Read full judgment →
- Shahid vs The State1994 SCMR 393 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of an order of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench, Abbottabad, declining pre-trial bail to the petitioner, Shahid. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner, who was attributed the role of holding the deceased while his co-accused inflicted fatal dagger blows, was entitled to the grant of bail on the principle of consistency, given that a co-accused with a similarly attributed role had already been granted bail, and whether his case fell within the scope of further enquiry under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Supreme Court of Pakistan converted the petition into an appeal and allowed the same, holding that there was substance in the contention regarding consistency and further enquiry. The key principle laid down is that where co-accused persons are assigned roles warranting further inquiry regarding the application of common intention, and a co-accused with a comparable role has already been enlarged on bail, the rule of consistency dictates that bail should likewise be extended to the remaining accused.
Questions settled- Whether an accused attributed with holding the deceased is entitled to bail on the principle of consistency when a co-accused with a similar role has been granted bail?
- Does the application of common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the circumstances of the case make out a case for further enquiry warranting the grant of bail?
- Shahid Qadir vs Secretary to Government of Punjab And Other1994 CLC 437 · Lahore High Court · 1992-08-13Read full judgment →
- Shahid Masood vs The Director, F.G.E.I. (C_G), Igt & Es Branch, Rawalpindi And Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 690 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-12-15Read full judgment →
- Shahid Maqbool vs The State1994 SCMR 1674 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Shahid Maqbool against the refusal of bail by the lower courts in a criminal case involving offences under sections 10 and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979. The core legal question concerned whether the High Court erred in declining post-arrest bail to the petitioner where the victim of tender age made allegations of Zina-bil-Jabr in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and where the defense failed to produce the alleged Nikahnama or examine witnesses during the police investigation. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that no valid ground was made out to interfere with the discretionary order of the High Court. The key principle laid down is that where a prima facie case involving serious allegations is supported by statutory statements and the defense fails to substantiate claims of a valid marriage at the initial stage, the discretionary refusal of bail by lower courts will not be disturbed by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Whether bail can be refused to an accused facing charges under sections 10 and 11 of Ordinance VII of 1979 when the victim makes an allegation of Zina-bil-Jabr?
- Does the failure to produce a Nikahnama or examine defense witnesses during the police investigation affect the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with a discretionary order of the High Court refusing bail without sufficient grounds for interference?
- Shahid M. Akhtar vs Water and Power Development Authority Through Its Chairman And Another1994 P LC (C.S.) 988 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns service appeals filed by former Executive Engineers of the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) challenging their removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The appellants alleged that their removal was discriminatory and mala fide, arguing that other officers involved in similar irregularities received lesser punishments. The core legal question was whether the Authority's categorization of officers for disciplinary action constituted unjustified discrimination and whether the removal orders were vitiated by mala fides. The Court held that the Authority acted within its competence and that the appellants failed to establish mala fides, which requires specific pleading and proof. Regarding discrimination, the Court found that the Authority had a reasonable basis to distinguish between categories of officers based on the severity and nature of their conduct. However, the Court set aside the removal of one appellant whose dismissal was based on the factually incorrect premise that he had absconded. The key principle laid down is that while public power must be exercised bona fide, a distinction in disciplinary treatment between employees is permissible if based on reasonable, objective differences in their conduct and culpability.
Questions settled- Can an order of removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act be challenged on the ground of discrimination if the Authority had a reasonable basis for distinguishing between categories of employees?
- What are the essential requirements for establishing mala fides in the exercise of public power?
- Does the removal of a public servant based on a factually incorrect premise regarding their conduct render the removal order invalid?
- What is the limited scope of judicial review for an order passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Shahid M. Akhtar vs Water and Power Development Authority through its Chairman and another (Copy)1994 SCMR 1275 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from appeals filed by special leave against the Federal Service Tribunal's decision dismissing the appellants' service appeals regarding their removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The appellants, former Executive Engineers of WAPDA, were removed following an inquiry into gross financial irregularities in store purchases. They challenged their removal on the ground of discriminatory treatment, alleging that other officers involved in similar irregularities were treated more leniently under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. The Supreme Court examined the limited scope of judicial review over orders passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act, which is restricted to competency, amenability, and mala fides or bias. The Court held that distinguishing features—such as the appellants being the main culprits who set bad precedents and continued irregularities despite warnings—provided a reasonable basis for differential treatment, negating the plea of unlawful discrimination. However, the appeal of one appellant (C.A. No. 365 of 1990) was accepted because his removal was materially based on the factually incorrect premise that he had absconded, whereas he was actually on sanctioned leave. The Court laid down that differential treatment in disciplinary matters does not constitute unlawful discrimination where there is a reasonable and identifiable basis for distinguishing the conduct and role of the delinquent officers.
Questions settled- What is the scope of judicial review of an order passed under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act?
- Does the application of different disciplinary actions to various officers involved in an inquiry constitute unlawful discrimination ex facie?
- Can an order of removal from service based on a factually incorrect material consideration be sustained by the court?
- Shahid Hassain and 4 others vs Muhammad Jahangir Shahzad and 21994 SCMR 1266 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This service matter concerns the criteria for promoting Inspectors within the Income Tax Department. The core legal question was whether the departmental examination conducted for these posts is a competitive examination, where appointments are based on merit, or a qualifying examination, where appointments are subject to the seniority-cum-fitness rule and selection by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Supreme Court held that the examination is strictly a qualifying examination, not a competitive one. The Court ruled that passing the examination merely establishes eligibility for promotion but does not confer an automatic right to be appointed. Consequently, the Departmental Promotion Committee must still evaluate all qualified candidates before making selections. The Court emphasized that administrative confusion caused by loose terminology in departmental letters cannot override the formal service rules. Furthermore, the Court clarified that there is no 'running list' for future vacancies; candidates who fail to secure a grade during the selection process must re-qualify in subsequent examinations when new vacancies arise.
Questions settled- Is the departmental examination for the post of Inspector in the Income Tax Department a competitive or a qualifying examination?
- Does passing a qualifying departmental examination automatically entitle a civil servant to promotion?
- What is the role of the Departmental Promotion Committee in the promotion process for candidates who have passed a qualifying examination?
- Can departmental correspondence override the express provisions of promulgated service rules regarding the nature of an examination?
- Shahid Hassain And 4 Other vs Muhammad Jahangir Shahzad And 21994 PLC (C.S.) 983 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the nature of the departmental examination for promotion to the post of Inspector in the Income Tax Department. The core legal question was whether this examination is a competitive examination, where appointments are based on merit, or merely a qualifying examination, where appointments are determined by the Departmental Promotion Committee based on seniority-cum-fitness. The Supreme Court held that the examination is strictly a qualifying examination, intended only to establish eligibility for promotion. The Court found that the Central Board of Revenue had created confusion by improperly using the term "competitive" in internal correspondence, which contradicted the formal service rules notified in 1982. The Court affirmed that once eligibility is established through the qualifying examination, candidates must still be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for selection. The key principle laid down is that where service rules define an examination as a qualifying mechanism, it cannot be treated as a competitive merit-based selection process, and the Departmental Promotion Committee retains the authority to select candidates from the pool of qualified individuals based on established promotion criteria.
Questions settled- Is a departmental examination for promotion to the post of Inspector in the Income Tax Department a competitive examination or a qualifying examination?
- Does qualifying for a departmental promotion examination automatically entitle a candidate to promotion without consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee?
- Can administrative correspondence override formal service rules regarding the nature of a promotion examination?
- Shahid Hamidullah vs Director, Surface Water Hydrology Project, WAPDA, Lahore1994 PLC (C.S.) 531 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-08-29Read full judgment →
- Shaheen Airport Services vs Sindh Employees' Social Security1994 SCMR 881 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, arising from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh, addresses whether the relationship between the appellant (providing airport porter services) and the porters is that of employer and employee, and whether the amount retained by the porters per trip constitutes 'wages' under the Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The Supreme Court examined the statutory definitions of 'employee', 'employer', and 'wages' under the Ordinance, alongside the operational control exercised by the appellant, including shift allocations, uniforms, security passes, and the sharing of trip revenues. The Court held that the appellant exercises sufficient control and that the porters fall within the wide definition of 'employee' working in connection with the appellant's business, and their remuneration constitutes 'wages'. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the employer's liability to make contributions under section 20 of the Ordinance.
Questions settled- Whether the relationship between the appellant and porters working at the airport is that of employer and employee under the Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- Whether the amount received by a porter per trip out of the total amount paid by passengers falls within the definition of 'wages' under the Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
- How should a beneficial welfare statute like the Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 be interpreted by the courts?
- Does the wide definition of employee under section 2(8) of the Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 extend to workers engaged under arrangements independent of the traditional master-servant concept?
- Shahbaz Ahmad and anothers vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 344 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentences imposed by a Special Court for offences involving firearm injuries. The appellants contended that the prosecution witnesses were inimical, the FIR was delayed, and the injuries were sustained in darkness by unknown assailants. The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved the occurrence and the appellants' participation through the testimony of an injured witness, prompt medical examination, and the recovery of incriminating weapons. The Court rejected the defence's theory of false implication, noting the lack of evidence regarding alternative enmity. While upholding the conviction, the Court observed significant legislative incoherence in Section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, specifically regarding the sentencing disparity between attempted murder and the actual hurt caused. The Court dismissed the appeal, maintaining the conviction while modifying the sentence to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine, granting the benefit of Section 382-B, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Does a delay in lodging an FIR necessarily invalidate the prosecution's case when the delay is explained by the need to attend to an injured victim?
- Can the testimony of an injured witness be relied upon to uphold a conviction despite claims of enmity between the parties?
- Is the conviction for attempted murder under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 sustainable when the evidence confirms the accused caused firearm injuries to the victim?
- Shahbaz Ahmad And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 466 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-22Read full judgment →
- Shaharyar Mughal vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1994 PLC (C.S.) 105 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-05-05Read full judgment →
- Shahamat vs Muhammad Ashraf and others1994 MLD 807 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-19Read full judgment →
- Shah Zaman vs Alif Jan And Another1994 CLC 191 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-10-09Read full judgment →
- Shah Zaman vs (Mst.) Alif Jan And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 14 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-10-09Read full judgment →
- Shah Zaman Ali vs Mst. Mussarrat Begum And Other1994 CLC 528 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd.1994 PLD Peshawar 88 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
- Shah Nawaz And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 301 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-09Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad And Others vs Muhammad Ashraf And Another1994 CLC 90 · Lahore High Court · 1991-05-22Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad and anothers vs Muhammad Hussain and another1994 SCMR 2030 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan involved a request for adjournment by the petitioner's counsel, Dr. A. Basit, at the time of the hearing. The Court, presided over by Nasim Hasan Shah, C.J., examined the record and determined that the legal questions presented in the petition had already been conclusively addressed and settled by prior pronouncements of the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the petition. Furthermore, the Court held that granting an adjournment at such a late stage of the proceedings would not serve the interests of the proper administration of justice. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming that where the issues raised are already covered by established precedent, further litigation is unnecessary. The decision reinforces the principle that the Court will not entertain petitions that seek to re-litigate matters already settled by its own binding authority, particularly when requests for delay are made without sufficient justification, thereby ensuring judicial efficiency and finality in legal disputes.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court have the discretion to refuse an adjournment request made at the time of hearing?
- Can a petition be dismissed summarily when the questions raised are already concluded by prior pronouncements of the Court?
- Shah Muhammad alias Manna vs The State1994 SCMR 582 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a jail petition filed by the convict Shah Muhammad alias Manna, who was originally convicted under section 302 on five counts and section 380 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, receiving sentences of death and rigorous imprisonment respectively. Following the confirmation of his death sentences by the High Court, the core legal question examined by the Supreme Court was whether, upon the commutation of the death sentences into life imprisonment pursuant to an amnesty, the multiple sentences of life imprisonment were to run concurrently or consecutively. The Supreme Court held that upon commutation of death sentences into life imprisonment by an authority other than a court, neither section 35 nor section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies, and the commutation order takes effect immediately and concurrently. The key principle laid down is that where a sentence of death on multiple counts is commuted to life imprisonment by executive amnesty, the resulting sentences of life imprisonment run concurrently unless legally directed otherwise by the court under statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Whether sentences of life imprisonment upon commutation of death sentences on multiple counts are to run concurrently or consecutively?
- Do section 35 and section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply when the power of commutation of sentences is exercised by an authority other than the court?
- What is the legal effect and operational timing of an order commuting a death sentence into life imprisonment?
- Shah Jewana Textile Mills Ltd, Gulberg III Lahore vs Federal GovernmentK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 137 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Shafqat Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 15 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-04Read full judgment →
- Shafqat Bari vs The State1994 MLD 1311 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
- Shafiullah Qureshi And Other vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And Others1994 PLC (C.S) 400 · Federal Service TribunalRead full judgment →
- Shafaqat alias Gunga and 2 others vs The State1994 SCMR 1680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dated 19-7-1993, wherein bail was denied to the petitioners who stood accused of offences under sections 302, 324, 34 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question pertained to the entitlement of the accused petitioners to post-arrest bail, particularly regarding those alleged to have carried out ineffective firing and those declared innocent during police investigations. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal in respect of two petitioners, namely Muhammad Arshad and Faraqat Ali, holding that no factors detracted from the interim bail already granted to them by a learned Judge in chambers, while refusing leave to appeal and bail to the first petitioner, Shafaqat alias Gunga. The Court thereby affirmed the principle that where ineffective firing is attributed and pleas of innocence during investigation warrant further inquiry, interim bail previously granted may be confirmed.
Questions settled- Whether accused persons attributed with ineffective firing are entitled to post-arrest bail?
- Does a declaration of innocence by the local police during investigation constitute a valid ground for granting bail?
- When can an order granting interim bail be confirmed by the Supreme Court upon conversion of a petition into an appeal?
- Shadi Muhammad vs Subedar (Retd.) Lal Din1994 MLD 561 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
- Shadi Muhammad and others vs Abdul Rashid and others1994 MLD 1856 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-23Read full judgment →
- Shadi Khan through Legal Heirss vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1994 MLD 1251 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
- Shabbiran Bibi vs Faqir Muhammad1994 MLD 1550 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
- Shabbir vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 78 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Khan Etc vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 554 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain vs The State1994 MLD 1517 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-27Read full judgment →
- Shabbir And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 365 · Lahore High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Alias Babu vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 17 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmed and anothers vs Akhtar Alam and others1994 PLD Supreme Court 598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal concerns the proper procedure for hearing a review application in the High Court of Sindh following a judgment rendered by a Division Bench. The core legal question was whether the review application should be heard by the remaining available Judge who authored the original judgment, pursuant to Order XLVII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or by a new Division Bench under Rule 5 of Chapter 3-B of the High Court Rules and Orders. The Supreme Court held that Order XLVII, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, takes precedence when one of the original Judges remains available to hear the matter. The Court affirmed that the High Court’s power to review its own orders in constitutional jurisdiction is derived from the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the principle established is that where a Judge who passed the original order remains attached to the Court and is not precluded by absence, they must hear the review application alone, and the High Court Rules and Orders only apply when the conditions of Order XLVII, Rule 5 are not met.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have the power to review its own orders passed in constitutional jurisdiction?
- When does Order XLVII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to review applications in the High Court?
- Can a single Judge who authored a judgment hear a review application if the other member of the original Division Bench is no longer available?
- Do the High Court Rules and Orders override the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the composition of a bench for review applications?
- Shabbir Ahmed And Another vs Akhtar Alam And Other1994 PLD Supreme Court 598 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against an order of the High Court of Sindh regarding the composition of a bench to hear a review petition arising from a constitutional petition. The core legal question is whether the review petition should be heard by a single surviving judge of the original bench under Order XLVII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or by a larger bench under Rule 5 of Chapter 3-B of Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders. The Supreme Court held that since one of the judges who authored the original judgment remained attached to the Court and available, Order XLVII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applied, requiring that judge alone to hear the review petition, making the High Court Rules and Orders inapplicable. The key principle laid down is that the provisions of Order XLVII, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 govern the review of judgments rendered in constitutional petitions when the author judge is available, and local high court rules only apply in cases not provided for by the said Code.
Questions settled- Whether provisions of Order XLVII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a review petition arising from a constitutional petition when one of the original judges is available?
- Does the right to file a review constitute a substantive right requiring specific statutory provision?
- When does Rule 5 of Chapter 3-B of Volume V of the High Court Rules and Orders become applicable to review applications?
- Shabbir Ahmed and 4 others vs District Judge, Sanghar and 3 others1994 MLD 897 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-14Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmad vs Syed Akhtar Hussain Rizvi1994 MLD 447 · Election Tribunal · 1993-09-12Read full judgment →
- SH.Amjad Ali vs A.D J. Multan And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 183 · Lahore High Court · 1992-04-25Read full judgment →
- Sh. Zulfiqar Ali vs Sh. Muhammad Rashid And Other1994 CLC 504 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- Sh. Riaz Ahmad and another vs Qamar Zaman Khan1994 SCMR 1447 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by special leave arose from a dispute over a pre-emption suit concerning urban immovable property located in Kot Androon, Kasur. The respondent claimed a right of pre-emption based on contiguity and the existence of a local custom. The core legal question was whether the custom of pre-emption existed in the locality of the disputed property, a prerequisite under the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913 for urban immovable property. The trial court initially found against the existence of such a custom, but the appellate court and the High Court reversed this, affirming the custom's existence. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, noting that the law of pre-emption is rooted in Mahomedan jurisprudence and presumed to exist in towns founded by Moghuls or Pathans. Relying on judicial precedents and evidence showing the custom existed in Kot Kalan (which includes Kot Androon) prior to 1913, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondent had sufficiently established the existence of the custom.
Questions settled- Does the right of pre-emption exist in respect of urban immovable property in a town where the custom of pre-emption is not proven to have existed prior to the commencement of the Punjab Pre-emption Act 1913?
- Is there a presumption of the existence of the custom of pre-emption in towns founded by Moghuls or Pathans?
- Can previous judicial findings regarding the existence of the custom of pre-emption in a specific locality be used to establish such custom in a subsequent suit?
- Sh. Munir Ahmad, Advocate vs The State1994 PLD Lahore 147 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Usman vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and others1994 MLD 2193 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Mushtaq and others vs Publicatlarge and others1994 PLD Lahore 373 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Mushtaq And Other vs Public at Large And Other1994 PLD Lahore 373 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Mubarak And 5 Others vs Muhammad Iqbal And 11 Other1994 CLC 1708 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a reference to a Division Bench regarding whether notice served upon a counsel concerning the fixation of a case constitutes valid service on the party under Order III, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petitioners sought re-admission of an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, arguing that their counsel had informed the court of his cessation of representation, thereby necessitating personal service on the parties. The Court examined whether such intimation effectively rebuts the presumption of service. Relying on binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that service on a duly appointed counsel is deemed service on the party. The Court emphasized that a counsel remains the authorized representative until they formally withdraw with the court’s permission, as mandated by Order III, Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the Court answered the referred question in the affirmative, ruling that the presumption of service stands unless the counsel has formally terminated their authority through the prescribed legal procedure. The applications for re-admission were dismissed.
Questions settled- Does service of notice on a counsel constitute valid service on the party under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- What is the legal requirement for a counsel to effectively terminate their authority to represent a party in court proceedings?
- Can a court presume service on a party based on notice to the counsel if the counsel has not formally withdrawn with the court's permission?
- Sh. Mubarik Ali and others vs Sh. Abdur Rashid1994 SCMR 1974 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan through petitions filed by Sh. Mubarik Ali and others against Sh. Abdur Rashid. The core legal question concerned the resolution of a dispute between the parties regarding a sale transaction. During the proceedings, the parties informed the Court that they had reached an amicable settlement outside of the judicial process. The terms of this compromise stipulated that the respondent would pay the petitioners a balance amount of Rs. 60,000 within one month before the Sub-Registrar, Faisalabad. In consideration of this payment, the petitioners agreed to execute a sale deed in favor of the respondent and ensure its registration before the Sub-Registrar on a specified date. The Court accepted the written compromise filed by the learned counsel for the parties. Consequently, the Supreme Court disposed of the petitions in accordance with the mutually agreed terms, thereby formalizing the settlement as the final resolution of the dispute between the litigants.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court dispose of petitions based on a written compromise reached between parties outside of court?
- Is a court empowered to incorporate the terms of a private settlement into its final order?
- Sh. Mubarik Ali and 4 others vs Syed Ehtisham Ali Rizvi and 4 others1994 SCMR 19 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners sought a review of the Supreme Court's earlier judgment dated 11-10-1992, proceeding on the assumption that the power of attorney and the agreement to sell related to the verified units and claim rather than a specified area, thereby entitling them to any variation or enhancement in units. The core legal question was whether the subject matter of the agreement and power of attorney extended to the underlying claim and its enhancements. The Supreme Court held that the assumption was baseless because the two documents explicitly specified the area in question, and the demand could not be extended by inference to the underlying claim. The key principle laid down is that contractual documents specifying a particular area of land cannot be expanded through inferential processes to cover underlying claims or subsequent enhancements in verified units.
Questions settled- Can a power of attorney and agreement to sell specifying a particular area be extended by inference to cover underlying claims or enhancements in verified units?
- What constitutes a valid ground for the review of a judgment under Supreme Court practice?
- Sh. Lekh Raj Manekchand vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1994 PTD 833 · Punjab and Haryana High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
- Sh. Ghulam Irfan vs Raheela Fayyaz1994 MLD 789 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
- Sh. Abdur Rashid vs Sh. Mubarik Ali, And Other1994 CLC 1617 · Lahore High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision addresses whether a person who obtained possession of immovable property under an unregistered written agreement of sale can claim the protection of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, despite failing to sue for specific performance within the limitation period prescribed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908. The petitioner had paid a substantial portion of the sale price and was handed possession by the sellers, but subsequently, the sellers filed a suit for recovery of possession alleging breach of contract, while the petitioner filed a declaratory suit. The lower courts dismissed the petitioner's suit and decreed the sellers' suit, holding that the agreement was unregistered and time-barred for specific performance. The Lahore High Court held that the doctrine of part performance embodied in section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is a passive equity available as a shield to protect possession, and is neither subject to the limitation period for specific performance nor defeated by the lack of registration. The High Court consequently set aside the lower courts' judgments, dismissed the sellers' suit for possession, and decreed the petitioner's declaratory suit.
Questions settled- Is the plea of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 subject to the period of limitation prescribed for a suit for specific performance?
- Can a transferee who obtained possession under an unregistered written agreement of sale defend and protect his possession against the transferor?
- Whether the doctrine of part performance is available as a shield to a person who has failed to institute a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale within the limitation period?
- Does the absence of registration of an agreement of sale bar a transferee from availing the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 when possession has been delivered and part payment made?
- Seth Tirath Das vs Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee1994 SCMR 702 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellants challenged the dismissal of their Intra-Court Appeal regarding the status of properties belonging to the Karachi Pinjrapore Association, which had been declared evacuee property following the partition of the subcontinent. The core legal questions were whether the properties were correctly classified as evacuee trust properties and whether the management of these properties by the Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee violated the fundamental right to freedom of religion under the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the status of the property as evacuee had been conclusively determined by previous litigation and Custodian orders, precluding re-litigation of the issue. Furthermore, the Court found no violation of the fundamental right to manage religious institutions, noting that the appellants failed to demonstrate how the governing statutes were unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that administrative grievances regarding the management of trust assets were not justiciable in the present appeal. The key principle laid down is that once the status of property as evacuee trust property is finally adjudicated by the competent forum, it cannot be reopened, and administrative management under statutory authority does not per se violate constitutional religious freedoms.
Questions settled- Can the status of property as evacuee trust property be reopened after it has been conclusively determined by the Custodian and upheld by the Supreme Court?
- Does the management of evacuee trust properties by a statutory committee violate the fundamental right to freedom of religion under the Constitution?
- Are administrative grievances regarding the day-to-day management of trust assets justiciable in an appeal before the Supreme Court?
- Senior Postmaster, G.P.O., Khushab and anothers vs Javed Muhammad1994 SCMR 245 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Postal Department against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal. The respondent, an officiating Assistant Postmaster in Grade-9, faced departmental proceedings regarding the misappropriation of funds amounting to Rs. 13,51,600. Following an inquiry, he was penalized with reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale and recovery of a monetary loss. His departmental appeal remained undecided, leading him to approach the Federal Service Tribunal, which partly accepted his appeal, set aside the original punishment, modified it to reduction in rank for one year, and halted future recovery. The Postal Department sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that once the Tribunal found the punishing authority was incompetent to award the penalty, it erred in merely modifying the punishment rather than setting it aside entirely. The Supreme Court held that the contention required examination and granted leave to appeal, establishing that the validity of disciplinary penalties imposed by purportedly incompetent authorities warrants formal review.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal can modify a punishment after finding it was imposed by an incompetent authority?
- Who is the competent authority to take disciplinary proceedings and award punishment against an employee holding a substantive post versus an officiating post?
- Senior Postmaster, G.P.O. Khushab And Another vs Javed Muhammad1994 PLC (C.S.) 421 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The respondent, an officiating Assistant Postmaster, faced departmental proceedings following an audit revealing the misappropriation of Rs. 13,51,600. Consequently, he was subjected to disciplinary action involving reduction in rank and a recovery order of Rs. 3,92,000. Upon appeal, the Federal Service Tribunal partially accepted the respondent's plea, setting aside the original punishment and modifying it to a reduction to a lower post for one year, while halting further recovery. The Postal Department challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that the Tribunal itself acknowledged the disciplinary authority lacked the requisite competence to impose the initial punishment. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal, having determined that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted by an incompetent authority, erred in merely modifying the punishment rather than setting aside the proceedings entirely. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, observing that the contention regarding the incompetence of the disciplinary authority required further examination, thereby indicating that the Tribunal's modification of the penalty in the face of jurisdictional incompetence warrants judicial review.
Questions settled- Can a disciplinary authority impose punishment if it lacks the requisite competence for the rank of the employee?
- Is a Service Tribunal justified in modifying a punishment when it finds that the initial disciplinary proceedings were conducted by an incompetent authority?
- Semco Salvage Pte. Ltd vs M.V. Kaptan Yusuf Kalkavan Through Person1994 PLD Quetta 51 · Balochistan High Court · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
- Secretary, Rawalpindi And Another vs Secretary, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly Muzaffarabad And 4 Other1994 CLC 1108 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
- Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore and anothers vs Saaed Ahmed Khan1994 PLD Supreme Court 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the respondent civil servant's promotion to the post of Deputy Director was ante-dated to 30-6-1985. The core legal question concerns whether the Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to determine the fitness of a civil servant for promotion and thereby ante-date a promotion against the assessment of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by ante-dating the promotion, as proviso (b) to section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 expressly bars the Tribunal from interfering with the determination of fitness or otherwise of a person for promotion by the departmental authority. The Court established that a civil servant has no vested right to claim promotion or ante-dated promotion as a matter of right, and matters of fitness and promotion fall exclusively within the domain of the departmental authority and the Departmental Promotion Committee.
Questions settled- Whether the Punjab Service Tribunal has the jurisdiction to ante-date the promotion of a civil servant?
- Does proviso (b) to section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 bar an appeal against the determination of fitness of a person for promotion?
- Can a civil servant claim promotion or pro forma promotion as a matter of vested legal right?
- Is it the function of the departmental authority or the Service Tribunal to determine the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
- Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore And Another vs Sailed Ahmed Khan1994 PLD Supreme Court 219 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which ante-dated the respondent's promotion to the post of Deputy Director. The core legal question is whether the Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to determine the fitness of a civil servant for promotion and consequently ante-date such promotion, despite the statutory bar prohibiting interference in matters of fitness for promotion. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that determining the fitness of a civil servant for promotion is the exclusive domain of the departmental authority, specifically the Departmental Promotion Committee. The Court emphasized that promotion is not a vested right, and a civil servant cannot claim it as such. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that under the relevant service laws, the Tribunal is barred from adjudicating on the fitness or suitability of a person for promotion. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling that the respondent's promotion could not be ante-dated and must remain effective from the date determined by the departmental authority.
Questions settled- Does a Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to determine the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
- Can a civil servant claim promotion to a higher grade as a matter of vested right?
- Does the bar contained in Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 prevent a Tribunal from ante-dating a promotion?
- Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore And Another vs Saeed Ahmed Khan1994 PLC (C.S.) 320 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which ante-dated the respondent's promotion to Deputy Director (BPS-18) from 1990 to 1985. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal possesses the jurisdiction to determine the fitness of a civil servant for promotion and consequently ante-date such promotion, notwithstanding the statutory bar against such interference. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal acted beyond its jurisdiction. Relying on Section 4(1)(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, the Court affirmed that determining the fitness and suitability of a candidate for promotion is the exclusive prerogative of the departmental authority, specifically the Departmental Promotion Committee. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that a civil servant holds no vested right to promotion or to the terms and conditions governing such promotion. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling that the respondent's promotion could not be ante-dated, as the departmental authority had properly exercised its discretion in granting the promotion effective from the date of the actual order.
Questions settled- Does a Service Tribunal have the jurisdiction to ante-date a civil servant's promotion?
- Can a civil servant claim a vested right in promotion to a higher post?
- Does Section 4(1)(b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, bar a Tribunal from determining the fitness of a person for promotion?
- Sayed Ijaz Hussain alias Tahir Pir vs The State1994 MLD 15 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-29Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Sultan vs The State and anothers1994 PLD Supreme Court 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought the cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to the respondent in a murder case. The core legal question was whether the High Court correctly exercised its discretion in granting pre-arrest bail where the accused was named in the FIR, alleged to have participated in the crime, and where the defense relied on affidavits and claims of false implication. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in granting bail. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail in non-bailable offences, particularly murder, is not a rule and requires demonstrating mala fides or ulterior motives for arrest, which were not established here. The Court ruled that the evidentiary value of affidavits and the truthfulness of the alibi plea are matters for the trial court to determine during the trial, not for the High Court at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court cancelled the bail, reiterating that tentative assessment of material at the bail stage must not usurp the trial court's function of appraising evidence.
Questions settled- Can the High Court grant pre-arrest bail in a murder case based on affidavits asserting an alibi?
- Is the tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage equivalent to the final appraisement of evidence by the trial court?
- What are the requirements for granting pre-arrest bail in non-bailable offences under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the filing of affidavits by advocates regarding an accused's innocence constitute grounds for further inquiry in a bail application?
- Sarwar Sultan vs The State And Another1994 PLD Supreme Court 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the complainant against the High Court's order granting pre-arrest bail to respondent No. 2 in a murder case involving a shooting incident inside a court building. The core legal question concerns the propriety of granting pre-arrest bail in a capital charge based on affidavits from advocates, press statements, and a plea of alibi, and the proper scope of tentative assessment at the pre-arrest bail stage. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, setting aside the pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court. The Court held that evaluation of evidence, including affidavits and pleas of alibi, is the exclusive function of the trial Court, and that granting pre-arrest bail in a murder case where the accused is named in a prompt FIR with a specific role and corroborative witness statements is unjustified. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail requires establishing mala fides or ulterior motives for arrest, and courts must not conduct a deep appraisal of evidence or rely on collateral affidavits to bypass the trial court's jurisdiction at the pre-arrest stage.
Questions settled- Whether pre-arrest bail can be granted in a murder case on the basis of affidavits sworn by advocates and press statements asserting false implication?
- What is the distinction between bail after arrest under section 497 and bail before arrest under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is it permissible for a bail-granting court to make a detailed evaluation of evidence and assess the truthfulness of a plea of alibi at the pre-arrest stage?
- When does a case warrant the cancellation of pre-arrest bail by the Supreme Court?
- Sarwar Masih vs The State1994 MLD 1043 · Federal Shariat Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Khan and anothers vs The State and 2 others1994 SCMR 1262 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a petition where the father of the deceased affirmed a compromise, stating that he and the other legal heirs of the deceased had forgiven the petitioner for the sake of Almighty Allah and harbored no further grievances. Consequently, the court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and ordered his immediate acquittal and release, provided he was not required in any other case. Additionally, a connected criminal petition challenging the acquittal of other individuals was dismissed as not pressed.
Questions settled- Can a criminal petition be converted into an appeal upon a compromise between the parties?
- Does forgiveness by the legal heirs of a deceased person result in the setting aside of a conviction and acquittal of the accused?
- What is the effect of a compromise affirmed by the legal heirs of the deceased in a criminal case?
- Sarwar Hussain vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir Through Chief Secretary And 5 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 706 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Bibi vs As & RC1994 CLC 1791 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-26Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Ali Khan vs Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh and anothers1994 PLD Supreme Court 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's service appeal seeking the salary of the higher post of Registrar (BS-18) from the date he assumed charge on his own pay and status. The core legal question was whether a civil servant appointed to a higher post on a temporary basis or in his own pay and status, who performs the full duties of that post for an extended period despite being fully qualified for regular promotion, is entitled to the salary and benefits of that higher post. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's judgment, and held that a temporary arrangement lasting three years cannot be used to deprive a qualified employee of regular salary when there was no legal impediment to his promotion. The key principle laid down is that where an employee performs the duties of a higher post for a prolonged period and is fully qualified, they cannot be denied the salary of that post on the basis of a temporary appointment or the receipt of special pay.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant entitled to the salary of a higher post when appointed in his own pay and status for an extended period?
- Whether proviso (1) to section 18 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 applies to justify lower pay during a prolonged temporary assignment of a qualified employee?
- Can a service appeal be dismissed as time-barred for failing to challenge the initial notification of appointment in own pay and status when the arrangement continues for years?
- Sarwar Ali Khan vs Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh And Another1994 PLD Supreme Court 233 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for salary arrears and benefits associated with the post of Registrar (BS-18) for the period he served in that capacity on his own pay and status. The core legal question was whether a civil servant, appointed to a higher post on his own pay and status for an extended period despite being qualified for regular promotion, is entitled to the salary and benefits of that higher post. The Supreme Court held that the appellant was eligible and qualified for promotion at the time of his initial appointment. The Court ruled that the temporary arrangement, which lasted three years, was not justified, and the denial of salary was inequitable. The Court established the principle that where a civil servant performs the full duties and responsibilities of a higher post for which they are qualified, they cannot be deprived of the salary and benefits of that post, especially when the delay in regular promotion lacks a plausible legal justification.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant entitled to the salary of a higher post if they perform its duties while appointed on their own pay and status?
- Can the government deny salary benefits for a higher post to a qualified civil servant based on a temporary appointment that persists for an extended period?
- Does the receipt of special pay under the Sindh Civil Servants Act 1973 preclude a claim for the full salary of a higher post when the appointment was not truly temporary?
- Sartaj Hussain vs Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Hyderabad and others1994 MLD 2195 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →