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.
- Qazi Shamsuddin vs Federation of Pakistan/Prime Minister of Pakistan1994 PLC (C.S.) 1130 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Qazi Muhammad Abbas vs L.G.P. Sindh, Karachi And 6 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1170 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
- Qazi Mahboobul Haque vs Noor Zaman and 11 others1994 MLD 624 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-12-04Read full judgment →
- Qazi Khalilur Rehman And 3 Other vs Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad And Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 713 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1993-04-24Read full judgment →
- Qazi Khalil-Ur-Rehman vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1994 PLC (C.S.) 1085 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 1993-04-11Read full judgment →
- Qazi Abdullah vs M.B.R. And Other1994 CLC 144 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-28Read full judgment →
- Qayamuddin Siddiqui vs The Secretary, Communication and Works1994 PLC (C.S.) 237 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1992-12-14Read full judgment →
- Qasim Jan vs Hamesh Gul And 3 Other1994 PLD Federal Shariat Court 15 · Federal Shariat Court · 1993-10-25Read full judgment →
- Qari Muhammad Aslam vs Mst. Shagufta Naz and another1994 MLD 605 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-11Read full judgment →
- Qari Hafiz Altaf Hassain vs The State1994 MLD 1776 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
- Qari Hafiz Altaf Hasain vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 56) · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-02Read full judgment →
- Qamar-Ul-Hassan Butt vs Secretary Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department, Lahore Arid Another1994 PLC (C.S.) 1630 · Punjab Service Tribunal · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
- Qamar-Ud-Din And Other vs Settlement Commissioner Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 384 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
- Qaiser Abbas And 2 Others vs Muhammad Sarwar1994 CLC 1401 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
- Qadu and 3 others vs The State1994 SCMR 699 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order passed by a Judge in Chambers, which cancelled the bail previously granted to the petitioners by an Additional Sessions Judge in a criminal case involving charges of murder and assault. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to bail despite being implicated in a serious crime supported by eye-witness accounts and medical evidence, and whether a purported compromise between the parties justified the grant of bail. The Supreme Court held that the petition for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The Court reasoned that the petitioners were assigned specific roles in the First Information Report, which were corroborated by medical reports, and that there were prima facie reasonable grounds to connect the accused to the alleged crimes of murder and causing grievous injury. The Court further established the principle that at the bail stage, it is not appropriate to evaluate the merits of an alleged compromise, and that bail should be refused when there is sufficient prima facie evidence linking the accused to the offence.
Questions settled- Can a court consider an alleged compromise between parties at the bail stage?
- Does the existence of specific roles assigned in an FIR and supported by medical evidence constitute reasonable grounds to refuse bail?
- Is the cancellation of bail justified when there is prima facie evidence connecting the accused to the crime?
- Qadir Bux And 5 Other vs M/s. Shah Murad Sugar Mills Ltd. And Another1994 PLC 417 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-01-31Read full judgment →
- Qadir Bakhsh Through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Nawaz1994 CLC 1172 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
- Qadir Bakhsh And Others vs Khawaja Ghulam Moeen Ud Din1994 CLC 1949 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a pre-emption suit filed on 20-4-1976 regarding agricultural land, which was initially dismissed by the trial court but decreed by the first appellate court on 19-7-1984. The defendants-vendees challenged the appellate decree, primarily raising technical objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal through a general attorney, the deficiency of court fees, and the validity of orders extending time for the deposit of one-fifth pre-emption money (Zar-e-Panjam) and substituting it with security. The Lahore High Court held that minor defects in a general power of attorney are mere irregularities that do not prejudice the opposing party or defeat a valid claim. Furthermore, following settled precedents, the court affirmed that the institution of a suit with a deficient court-fee, subsequently made good, does not bar the suit by limitation, and that interlocutory orders granting extensions or permitting security for Zar-e-Panjam, having attained finality without being challenged in revision, cannot be reviewed by a successor trial judge. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a minor defect in a general power of attorney can vitiate an appeal filed on behalf of a pre-emptor?
- Does the subsequent making good of a deficient court-fee save a pre-emption suit from being barred by limitation?
- Whether a trial court can subsequently review or undo interlocutory orders passed by its predecessor regarding the extension of time and substitution of cash deposit of Zar-e-Panjam with security?
- Does a trial court possess the discretion to vary or substitute its original orders concerning the deposit of pre-emption money?
- Qadar Ali vs Superintendent, Central Jail, Harripur and 3 others1994 PLD Peshawar 35 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
- Qadar Ali vs Superintendent, Central Jail, Harripur And 3 Other1994 PLD Peshawar 35 · Peshawar High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
- Puspa Devi vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1994 PTD 617 · Allahabad High Court · 1993-02-11Read full judgment →
- Punnu Khan vs Chief Conservator of Forests, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaffarabad And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 536 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1993-08-28Read full judgment →
- Punjab Urban Transport Corporation vs Umar Hayat And Others1994 PLC 278 · Lahore High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
- Punjab Urban Transport Corporation vs Umar Bakhsh Through Legal1994 PLC 207 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
- Punjab Road Transport Board vs Abdul Majid1994 PLC 71 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
- Pukhraj Rikhabdass vs Commissioner of Wealth Tax1994 PTD 1073 · Rajasthan High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
- Province of West Pakistan (Now Punjab) vs Maqbool Hussain &1994 CLC 1421 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-28Read full judgment →
- Province of West Pakistan (Now Punjab) vs Haji Sultan Ahmad1994 CLC 1738 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
- Province of the Punjab vs Muhammad Sharif & Co.1994 MLD 543 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
- Province of the Punjab vs Amin Jan Naeem And 4 OtherP L D1994Supreme Court141 · Shariat Appellate BenchRead full judgment →
- Province of the Punjab vs Abdul Aziz Qureshi1994 PLC (C.S.) 423 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 14-7-1988, whereby the respondent's removal from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 was set aside. The respondent, a Principal of a Government Commercial Training Institute, had been retired after completing 25 years of qualifying service based on a recommendation citing a pending trial in the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The core legal question was whether the removal from service based on such grounds was sustainable when the foundation of the recommendation was subsequently undermined by an honorable acquittal and expunged adverse entries. The Supreme Court held that since the very basis of the recommendation for retirement—namely the anti-corruption case—was knocked out by the acquittal judgment demonstrating that the charges were frivolous and motivated by extraneous reasons, the Service Tribunal was fully justified in setting aside the removal. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that an order of retirement under section 12(ii) based on pending criminal proceedings cannot be sustained once the substratum of those proceedings collapses through an acquittal that exonerates the civil servant from misconduct.
Questions settled- Whether retirement of a civil servant under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 can be sustained when the criminal case forming the basis of such retirement results in acquittal?
- Can a service tribunal set aside an order of retirement where the foundational material for the action is found to be non-existent or frivolous?
- Province of the Punjab vs Abdul Aziz Qureshi1994 SCMR 247 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal by leave directed against the order of the Punjab Services Tribunal, Lahore, dated 14-7-1988, whereby the respondent's removal from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, was set aside. The respondent, a Principal at a Government Commercial Training Institute, had been retired upon completing 25 years of service qualifying for pension, based on a recommendation noting that a case was under trial against him in the Anti-Corruption Establishment. The core legal question concerned the validity of retirement under section 12(ii) when the foundational premise—the pending anti-corruption case—resulted in an honorable acquittal and the allegations were found to be frivolous and motivated by extraneous reasons. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that since the very basis of the recommendation for removal was knocked out by the subsequent acquittal and the Punjab Service Tribunal correctly appreciated the record without any misreading or non-reading, the appeal against the Tribunal's judgment must fail. The Supreme Court laid down the principle that a retirement order predicated on pending criminal proceedings cannot sustain when the foundational criminal case results in an acquittal demonstrating that the civil servant was subjected to prosecution for extraneous reasons.
Questions settled- Whether retirement from service under section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 can be sustained when the foundational anti-corruption case results in acquittal?
- Can a service tribunal set aside an order of retirement where the basis for recommendation was found to be non-existent or frivolous?
- Is a civil servant's retirement order immune from judicial scrutiny when the underlying criminal proceedings leave no slur on the conduct of the employee?
- Province of Punjab, through Collector, Rawalpindi and 2 others vs Naseeruddin and 13 others1994 SCMR 2091 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-06-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals addressed the competency of appeals filed by the Provincial Government and Land Acquisition Collectors against enhanced compensation awards under the Land Acquisition Act 1894. The core legal question was whether the acquiring department, Provincial Government, or Land Acquisition Collector could maintain an appeal before the High Court against a reference court's judgment enhancing land compensation. The Supreme Court held that the Provincial Government, having the statutory right to seek a reference and being a party to the proceedings, is fully competent to maintain an appeal. Furthermore, an appeal filed by a duly notified Land Acquisition Collector is also maintainable in law. The Court laid down that statutory amendments governing references and cross-objections do not bar the Provincial Government's right of appeal, and appeals instituted by competent Land Acquisition Collectors or where the Province is a co-appellant are legally competent and cannot be dismissed as not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal filed by the Provincial Government against an enhanced compensation award under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 is competent?
- Does a Land Acquisition Collector have the legal capacity to maintain an appeal before the High Court against a reference court's judgment?
- What is the effect of various legislative amendments to section 18 and section 22-A of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 on the Provincial Government's right of reference and appeal?
- Province of Punjab vs Muhammad Tayyab and 2 others1994 SCMR 503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a series of appeals filed by the Province of the Punjab challenging a judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, which had upheld a modification made by a Senior Civil Judge to an award originally determined by the Collector, Bahawalpur. The core legal question involved the determination of the appropriate quantum of compensation payable to landowners in land acquisition proceedings. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, noting that the issues raised in the present appeals were identical to those previously adjudicated in Civil Appeals Nos. 18 to 22 of 1988, relied upon the reasoning established in that earlier decision. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeals, affirming the findings of the High Court regarding the compensation amount. The judgment reinforces the principle of judicial consistency, holding that where the legal and factual issues in a set of appeals have been previously resolved by the Court in related matters, the same reasoning and outcome apply to subsequent identical challenges.
Questions settled- Does the Supreme Court of Pakistan follow the reasoning of previously decided identical appeals when disposing of subsequent appeals involving the same judgment?
- Is the quantum of compensation determined by the High Court in land acquisition matters subject to interference by the Supreme Court when identical issues have already been adjudicated?
- Province of Punjab vs Muhammad Shafi1994 MLD 718 · Lahore High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab vs Ghulam Hussain1994 MLD 1536 · Lahore High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab through the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Communication and Works Department and anothers vs Malik Muhammad Ilyas and 2 others1994 MLD 476 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from a judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, 1st Class, Faisalabad, making an arbitral award the rule of the court. The core dispute involved a claim by a contractor-firm for extra payment for transporting fill material (earth) from distant areas beyond one mile to the venue of a road construction project. The appellant Province of Punjab contended that under the contract terms, particularly Clause 14, the contractor was bound to arrange the borrow area at its own expense without any prescribed lead area limitation. The Lahore High Court held that the contract was a scheduled-rate/lump-sum agreement requiring the contractor to arrange its borrow area at its own cost, and that neither the contract nor the schedule provided any specific lead area entitling the contractor to extra transportation charges. The court ruled that the arbitrators and the civil judge erred in law in allowing the claim, concluding that the award suffered from an illegality apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the lower court's judgment and the arbitral award were set aside, and the contractor's claim was rejected.
Questions settled- Whether a contractor is entitled to claim extra payment for transporting fill material from distant areas when the contract obligates the contractor to arrange a borrow area at its own expense?
- Under what circumstances can an arbitral award be set aside under the Arbitration Act 1940 due to an error of law apparent on the face of the award?
- Whether the interpretation of a contract by arbitrators regarding lead and borrow areas is subject to judicial scrutiny by a court?
- Can a contractor recover additional expenses for work that is indispensably necessary to complete the entire contractual scope of work at scheduled rates?
- Province of Punjab through Secretary, W11/Secretary, Pension Cases1994 SCMR 1947 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-01-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against an order of the Service Tribunal. The core legal question concerns the authority of the Service Tribunal to grant pensionary benefits to an employee in the absence of a specific government notification declaring their service as pensionable. The Supreme Court issued notice to the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be converted into an appeal and allowed. The Court's preliminary holding suggests that the Service Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by unilaterally ordering the regularization of service for pension purposes based on a notification that applied to a different category of contingent employees. The key principle laid down is that the Service Tribunal cannot create pensionary rights or regularize service for pension purposes where no specific notification exists to support such a claim, nor can it extend the benefits of notifications intended for distinct categories of employees to those not covered by such instruments.
Questions settled- Can a Service Tribunal order pensionary benefits for an employee in the absence of a specific notification declaring their service as pensionable?
- Is it legally permissible for a Service Tribunal to extend the benefits of a notification concerning one category of contingent employees to a different category of employees?
- Province of Punjab through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore1994 SCMR 1263 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a civil suit filed by a Headmaster against the Province of Punjab, claiming arrears of pay based on a specific pay scale notification. The trial and appellate courts held that the claim for arrears was not a service matter and thus fell within the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to determine whether Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 barred Civil Courts from entertaining such claims. The Court held that the respondent was a civil servant and his claim for pay arrears constituted a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service under Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Consequently, the Court ruled that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts was completely excluded by Article 212, and the appropriate forum for such grievances is the Service Tribunal. The judgments of the lower courts were set aside, and the plaint was rejected as incompetent, establishing that disputes concerning the pay and emoluments of civil servants are exclusively within the domain of Service Tribunals.
Questions settled- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 exclude the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters relating to the pay and arrears of civil servants?
- Are claims for arrears of pay by a civil servant considered matters relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Is a civil suit maintainable for the recovery of pay arrears by a civil servant?
- Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore1994 PLC (C.S.) 981 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1991-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of Civil Courts to entertain a claim by a civil servant for arrears of pay. The respondent, a Headmaster, had successfully sued the provincial government in Civil Court for arrears based on a specific pay scale notification. The core legal question was whether such a claim falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal pursuant to Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, thereby barring the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The Supreme Court held that the claim for arrears of pay constitutes a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service, as defined under Section 16 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974. Consequently, the Court ruled that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is completely excluded in such matters by Article 212. The principle laid down is that any claim involving the enforcement of terms and conditions of service, including pay, must be adjudicated by the appropriate Service Tribunal, and Civil Courts lack the competence to entertain such suits. The appeal was allowed, and the plaint was rejected.
Questions settled- Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate a civil servant's claim for arrears of pay?
- Is a claim for arrears of pay considered a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
- Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in service matters?
- Province of Punjab through Secretary, Education Department and anothers vs Saeed Ahmed Khan1994 PLD Supreme Court 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an interim order passed by the Lahore High Court, which admitted a writ petition for regular hearing and suspended the appointment of a Director (Sports) while the matter remained sub judice. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, particularly in light of the bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding service matters. The Supreme Court, having already set aside a related Service Tribunal order that had improperly antedated the respondent's promotion, declined to decide the jurisdictional issue at the interim stage. Instead, the Court dismissed the appeal and directed the High Court to proceed with the final adjudication of the writ petition, explicitly instructing the High Court to determine the question of its own jurisdiction under Article 212 within two months. The principle laid down is that where a matter involves complex service issues and pending related litigation, the High Court should be allowed to resolve the entire controversy, including jurisdictional challenges, in its final judgment rather than having interim orders adjudicated piecemeal by the Supreme Court.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding service matters in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to decide the question of High Court jurisdiction at the interim stage of a writ petition?
- Does a Service Tribunal have the competence to antedate the promotion of a civil servant?
- Province of Punjab Through Secretary, Education Department And Another vs Saeed Ahmed Khan1994 PLD Supreme Court 230 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an interim order of the Lahore High Court, which admitted a writ petition for regular hearing and suspended the appointment of a Director (Sports). The respondent, Saeed Ahmed Khan, had challenged the appointment of another individual, Miss Shahida Khanum, while simultaneously seeking his own promotion. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition given the bar imposed by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 regarding service matters. The Supreme Court, having already disposed of a related appeal concerning the respondent's promotion, declined to decide the jurisdictional issue at the interim stage. Instead, the Court held that the High Court should determine the question of its own jurisdiction and the merits of the writ petition finally. The principle laid down is that where a writ petition involves complex service matters and questions of jurisdiction under Article 212, it is appropriate for the High Court to decide the matter finally rather than having the Supreme Court intervene at the interim order stage.
Questions settled- Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding service matters in light of Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Is it appropriate for the Supreme Court to decide the question of High Court jurisdiction at the interim stage of a writ petition?
- Province of Punjab through Secretary, C and W Department, Lahore and 2 others vs M_s. Shafsal Enterprises, Government Contractor through its Managing Partner1994 SCMR 1993 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court concerning a dispute over a government road construction contract that was rescinded by the petitioner. The respondent contractor filed an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act for reference to arbitration. The appointed arbitrators concluded that the rescission of the contract by the government was improper and awarded a sum to the respondent, which was subsequently made a rule of the court. The High Court partly modified the award in an appeal. The core legal question was whether the contract was rightly rescinded and whether the arbitrators and courts below erred in making the award a rule of the court. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner failed to prove the default of the contractor and that the rescission of the contract was illegal, upholding the modified award. The court laid down the principle that the power to rescind a contract and forfeit security under contract terms is contingent upon the contractor rendering themselves liable to pay compensation, which cannot be invoked when the government itself is found in breach.
Questions settled- Whether the rescission of a government contract is valid when the authority fails to prove the default of the contractor?
- Can a party object that an agreement was not placed on record when it failed to produce the same before the trial court?
- Does the power to rescind a contract and forfeit security arise when the contractor has not been found liable to pay compensation?
- Province of Punjab through District Collector, Vehari vs Ghulam1994 SCMR 975 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute regarding the conferment of proprietary rights under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. The respondent, a tenant on state land, was denied proprietary rights by the Collector on two grounds: the land fell within a prohibited zone, and it was located within the bed of the 'KHUSK BIAS' river, which was excluded from allotment. The Supreme Court observed that the Collector erred in applying the prohibited zone distance criteria applicable at the time of conferment rather than at the time of original allotment, and failed to consult WAPDA authorities regarding the riverbed exclusion. While the High Court correctly identified these jurisdictional defects, it erred by substituting its own finding rather than remanding the matter. However, given that the Board of Revenue subsequently clarified that the 'KHUSK BIAS' river is no longer in flow and existing grantees need not be dislocated, the Court found the jurisdictional questions moot. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal, directing that the respondent's entitlement be reconsidered in accordance with the law.
Questions settled- Whether the distance criteria for a prohibited zone in land allotment should be measured at the time of original allotment or at the time of conferment of proprietary rights?
- Can the High Court record a substitutive finding on a jurisdictional issue instead of remanding the matter to the designated authority?
- Does the failure of a Collector to consult relevant authorities regarding land exclusion constitute a jurisdictional defect requiring judicial interference?
- Province of Punjab through Collector, Rawalpindi vs Zafar Ali Shah1994 SCMR 386 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The Province of Punjab through Collector Rawalpindi sought leave to appeal against orders of the Lahore High Court declining to stay the execution of a sale-deed and suspend the operation of a decree for specific performance passed in favor of the respondent. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in refusing to stay execution proceedings under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 pending the disposal of the main appeal. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed no legal error, noting that the refusal was based on an undertaking by the decree-holder's counsel to vacate the premises and restore possession if the appeal succeeded, thereby sufficiently protecting the petitioner's rights. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in refusing to stay execution of a decree for specific performance when the decree-holder provides an undertaking to restore possession if the appeal succeeds?
- Does the refusal to stay execution under Order 41 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 warrant interference by the Supreme Court when adequate safeguards for restoration are in place?
- Province of Punjab Through Collector, District Attock And 4 Others vs Muhammad Nawaz1994 CLC 666 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-07Read full judgment →
- Province of Punjab and 4 others vs Mst. Robina Begum1994 MLD 579 · Lahore High Court · 1993-03-10Read full judgment →
- Prof. S.M. Ashrafali vs Bahawalpur Gazetted Officers Cooperative1994 CLC 36 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-12Read full judgment →
- Prof. Ghulam Nabi Khan vs Azad Government of the State of Jammu1994 PLC (C.S.) 1225 · Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal · 1994-04-27Read full judgment →
- Presson Manufacturing Limited And Another vs The Secretary MinistryK.L.R. 1994 Tax & Custom Cases 158 · Lahore High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
- Presiding Officer Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.Plaintiff vs Darya Khan1994 MLD 1897 · Banking Tribunal · 1994-04-11Read full judgment →
- President, Habib Bank Ltd. And Other vs Manzoor Hussain And Others1994 PLC 373 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged the concurrent findings of the Punjab Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of respondent No.1 as a Cashier in Habib Bank Limited. The core legal question was whether the submission of a bogus educational certificate by an employee at the time of regularisation in service constitutes valid grounds for termination or misconduct, even if the minimum qualification for the post was lower and no direct advantage was procured. The Lahore High Court held that the employee admittedly provided false information regarding his intermediate qualification, which formed part of his employment record upon induction and regularisation, contrary to the express terms of his appointment letter. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned orders of the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal as without lawful authority, establishing that furnishing false educational credentials to an employer justifies revocation of appointment.
Questions settled- Whether the submission of a bogus educational certificate by an employee at the time of regularisation constitutes valid grounds for termination of service?
- Does furnishing false information regarding qualifications in an employment bio-data justify the revocation of an appointment under the terms of service?
- Whether an employee can be reinstated when their induction into service was secured through admitted misrepresentation of educational credentials?
- Premier Tyres Limted vs Kerala State Road. Transport Corporation1994 SCMR 224 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-09-04Read full judgment →
- Postmaster General, Southern Circle, Lahore And Another vs Ghulam1994 PLC (C.S.) 434 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Supreme Court of Pakistan challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the respondent's penalty of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement with pecuniary benefits. The core legal questions before the Supreme Court were whether the Federal Service Tribunal erred in failing to address the issue of limitation regarding the service appeal and whether it was appropriate for the Tribunal to reduce the penalty without deciding the appeal on its merits, particularly when the appeal was allegedly time-barred. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the objection regarding the limitation period and erred by not disposing of the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that a service tribunal is legally obligated to address the question of limitation and dispose of an appeal on its merits, rather than merely reducing a penalty based on a request, especially when the maintainability of the appeal is challenged.
Questions settled- Is a service tribunal required to decide the question of limitation before disposing of an appeal on merits?
- Can a service tribunal reduce a penalty of dismissal to compulsory retirement without first adjudicating the appeal on its merits?
- Does a request by a respondent for the reduction of a penalty constitute a valid ground for a tribunal to bypass a decision on the merits of the appeal?
- Postmaster General, Southern Circle, Lahore and another vs Ghulam1994 SCMR 258 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by leave of the Court challenges the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which disposed of the respondent's service appeal by converting the penalty of dismissal from service into compulsory retirement with pecuniary benefits. The core legal questions involve whether the Tribunal erred in failing to address the issue of limitation and in reducing the penalty without deciding the appeal on merits. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was required to address the question of limitation and dispose of the appeal on merits rather than reducing the penalty upon a request without adjudication. The Court laid down the principle that service tribunals must properly consider limitation and decide matters on merits, particularly when objections regarding time-bar are raised, rather than altering penalties based solely on concessions or requests without examination of the case.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Service Tribunal is bound to decide the question of limitation before granting relief in a service appeal?
- Can the Federal Service Tribunal reduce a penalty without disposing of the appeal on merits?
- Does a request for reduction of penalty by the appellant justify bypassing the determination of a time-bar objection?
- Plasticrafters Labour Union Through General Secretary vs M/s.1994 PLC 196 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
- Plastic Crafters Labour Union And Other vs Plastic Crafters (Pvt.)1994 PLC 512 · National Industrial Relations Commission · 1994-03-17Read full judgment →
- Pir Sabir Shah vs Federation of Pakistan and others1994 PLD Supreme Court 738 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This direct petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by the Chief Minister of the North-West Frontier Province (N.-W.F.P.) challenging a presidential Proclamation issued under Article 234 of the Constitution. The Proclamation directed the Governor to assume the functions of the Provincial Government, declared that the powers of the Provincial Assembly would be exercised by Parliament, and ordered that the Chief Minister and his Cabinet cease to hold office. The core legal questions were whether the court's jurisdiction was barred under Article 236(2); whether the Acting Governor's appointment could be collaterally challenged; whether the Proclamation was valid; and whether the President could permanently dismiss a Cabinet under Article 234. The Supreme Court, by a 7-to-2 majority, held that while the temporary assumption of provincial functions was valid due to a Constitutional deadlock, the Proclamation was in excess of presidential authority under Article 234 to the extent that it permanently dismissed the Cabinet. The Court ruled that upon the lapse of the Proclamation, the Chief Minister and his Cabinet stand revived, though the Governor may re-fix a date requiring a vote of confidence under Article 130(5).
Questions settled- Does the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 236(2) of the Constitution bar judicial review of a Proclamation that is without jurisdiction, coram non judice, or mala fide?
- Can the validity of the appointment of an Acting Governor be challenged collaterally in a proceeding contesting a Proclamation based on his report?
- Does the power of the President under Article 234 of the Constitution extend to the permanent dismissal of a Chief Minister and the Provincial Cabinet?
- Is the Governor's power to summon the Provincial Assembly under Article 130(5) controlled or restricted by the Speaker's power under Article 54(3) of the Constitution?
- Pir Sabir Shah vs Election Commission of Pakistan Etc.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 563 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
- Pir Sabir Shah vs Election Commission of Pakistan and others1994 PLD Lahore 516 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
- Pir Sabir Shah vs Election Commission of Pakistan And Other1994 PLD Lahore 516 · Lahore High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
- Pir Muhammad Qureshi vs Chairman, P.O.F. Wah Cantt. And 2 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 1588 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-05-17Read full judgment →
- Pir Bakhsh vs The Secretary to Government of Punjab, Law1994 PLD Supreme Court 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal by leave addresses whether the Political Assistant, Dera Ghazi Khan, lacked jurisdiction to entertain and dispose of a civil suit instituted after a delegation notification under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. The appellant challenged the judgments of special forums and the High Court, arguing that the word 'pending' in paragraph 4 of the Deputy Commissioner's delegation notification restricted the delegate's power solely to cases already pending on the date of the notification. The core legal question is whether the use of the term 'pending' in the delegation order was a clerical or typographical mistake that should be interpreted contextually to include general authorization for future suits. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the word 'pending' was a mere typographical error in light of the statutory scheme and the surrounding context, and that the de facto and continuous exercise of jurisdiction without objection was valid. The Court affirmed that courts can rectify or supply omissions to reflect the true intent of the authority and prevent injustice.
Questions settled- Whether the use of the word 'pending' in a delegation notification under section 15 of the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 restricts the delegated powers exclusively to cases pending at the time of issuance?
- Can a court correct or interpret a clerical or typographical error in an administrative delegation order to reflect the true intention of the authority?
- Does the de facto exercise of jurisdiction by an officer over a prolonged period cure technical defects in appointment or delegation?
- Are proceedings conducted by a Political Assistant under the Civil Procedure (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968 vitiated by a technical defect in the wording of a delegation notification?
- Pir Bakhsh and others vs The State1994 MLD 854 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-13Read full judgment →
- Pimpa (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies-1994 PTD 123 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This income tax reference before the Sindh High Court arose from an application by an assessee company under section 136(2) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, challenging the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's order upholding the rejection of declared export profit results and the application of a 25% gross profit rate. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was legally justified in rejecting the declared export profit results due to the non-maintenance of records pertaining to the supply of cloth and the receipt of readymade garments. The Court held that mere non-maintenance of day-to-day consumption and production accounts or failure to supply full addresses of suppliers does not justify rejecting an assessee's book version unless there are positive omissions, irregularities, or defects showing that the accounts fail to disclose the true income. The Court established that an assessing officer cannot reject accounts based on records that are not normally maintained in a particular trade, nor can they treat purchases as fictitious without verification. Consequently, the Court answered the reference in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee.
Questions settled- Whether the non-maintenance of day-to-day consumption and production accounts legally justifies the rejection of an assessee's book results?
- Can an assessing officer reject books of accounts in the absence of any omission, irregularity, or positive evidence showing that accounts do not disclose the whole income?
- Whether the assessing officer is bound to verify purchases by examining suppliers before treating them as fictitious?
- Is the yield obtained in one assessment year a valid guidance for estimating the yield or rejecting accounts in any subsequent year?
- Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and another vs Income Tax Officer and another1994 PTD 1216 · Supreme Court of India · 1993-07-13Read full judgment →
- Phali Gul vs Shamsul Arifin and anothers1994 PLD Peshawar 171 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
- Phali Gul vs Shamsul Arifin And Another1994 PLD Peshawar 171 · Peshawar High Court · 1994-03-05Read full judgment →
- Pervez Masih vs Director, Atomic Energy Medical Centre, Nishtar1994 PLC (C.S.) 273 · Lahore High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
- Pervez Ijaz Sheikh vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad And 20 Others1994 PLC (C.S.) 890 · Federal Service Tribunal · 1994-01-23Read full judgment →
- Pervez Ijaz Sheikh vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government1994 SCMR 1523 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning the assignment of seniority in the Secretariat Group as time-barred and misconceived. The petitioner, initially promoted in the Postal Group, was later inducted into the Secretariat Group as a Deputy Secretary and sought seniority from the date of his regular promotion in his parent group. The core legal questions involve the computation of limitation periods for service appeals regarding seniority disputes, the effect of subsequent judicial pronouncements on time-barred claims, and whether a civil servant can await the outcome of litigation initiated by colleagues to circumvent limitation bars. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly found the appeal time-barred, as the petitioner failed to challenge the gradation list issued in 1990 and could not claim a fresh period of limitation by filing a belated representation based on a subsequent judgment. The key principle laid down is that a civil servant cannot bypass statutory limitation periods or revive stale claims by submitting belated representations awaiting judicial decisions rendered in cases of other employees.
Questions settled- Can a civil servant claim a fresh period of limitation for challenging a seniority gradation list by filing a belated departmental representation based on a subsequent judicial decision?
- Does awaiting the outcome of litigation filed by other colleagues constitute sufficient ground for condoning delay under the Limitation Act 1908 in service matters?
- Whether an appeal filed before the Federal Service Tribunal against a gradation list issued several years prior is maintainable when no timely departmental appeal was pursued.
- Pervaiz Afzal And Others vs SH, Hussan Ali And Another1994 CLC 951 · Lahore High Court · 1993-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, which decreed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The core legal question was whether the trial Court was justified in refusing adjournments and denying the appellants the opportunity to produce their defense evidence solely on the ground of complying with an administrative time-limit fixed by the High Court for deciding the suit. The Lahore High Court held that administrative directions given by a superior court to expedite proceedings do not curtail or abridge the trial court's statutory discretion and jurisdiction under Order 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant reasonable adjournments for producing evidence. The Court ruled that denying a party reasonable opportunity to examine expert evidence and summon necessary witnesses amounts to condemning them unheard. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the impugned judgment and decree were set aside, and the suit was remanded for fresh disposal with directions to afford the appellants adequate opportunities to produce their evidence.
Questions settled- Does an administrative direction by a High Court to a trial court to decide a suit within a specified timeframe divest the trial court of its judicial discretion to grant adjournments under the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Whether refusing a party the opportunity to produce rebuttal evidence and examine witnesses solely due to paucity of time constitutes a violation of the principles of natural justice?
- Does the expiry of a time-limit fixed by a superior court for the disposal of a suit adversely affect the validity of proceedings or judgments rendered thereafter?
- Can a trial court's refusal to allow an expert witness sufficient time to prepare photographs and reports on disputed documents be sustained when it effectively denies a fair trial?
- Pashora Singh and another vs State of Punjab1994 SCMR 200 · Supreme Court of India · 1992-10-09Read full judgment →
- Parveen Akhtar vs Daniel Gulzar And AnotherK.L.R.1994 Civil Cases 438 · Lahore High Court · 1992-12-15Read full judgment →
- Parks Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Director, Excise and Taxation And Other1994 CLC 1034 · Lahore High Court · 1993-06-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two consolidated writ petitions challenging the imposition of entertainment duty by the Excise and Taxation Department on Chair-lift operations in Murree and Patriota. The petitioners argued that Chair-lift rides do not constitute 'entertainment' as defined under Section 2(d) of the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958, and therefore, they are not liable for such levies. The core legal question was whether the operation of a Chair-lift, which provides a joy-ride to the public upon payment, falls within the statutory ambit of entertainment. The Lahore High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Chair-lift operations constitute entertainment subject to duty. The Court established that the statutory definition of 'entertainment' is not exhaustive and encompasses any organized amusement, recreation, or pastime where the public is admitted upon payment. Furthermore, the Court ruled that contractual clauses cannot override statutory provisions regarding tax liability. Consequently, the Chair-lift service, being a form of public amusement and recreation, is liable to entertainment duty under the Act.
Questions settled- Does the operation of a Chair-lift constitute 'entertainment' under the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958?
- Is the definition of 'entertainment' provided in the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958, exhaustive?
- Can contractual terms between a lessor and lessee override the statutory liability to pay entertainment duty under the Punjab Entertainment Duty Act, 1958?
- Pakistan through Defence Secretary vs Messrs Desert Cat And AnotherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 527 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation And Another vs Riaz Ahmad1994 PLC (C.S.) 480 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court directing the petitioners to fill vacant posts of Assistant Divisional Engineer in accordance with the promotion and recruitment quotas prescribed under Rule 2(a) of the Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules of 1976. The core legal question revolves around whether the High Court was justified in issuing a writ of mandamus enforcing service rules against the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation in respect of employees transferred under the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Ordinance, 1991. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the legality of the High Court's direction and whether the respondents were amenable to writ jurisdiction despite becoming corporation employees. The holding is that leave is granted to examine the propriety of issuing a writ of mandamus based on the said rules, maintaining the interim order pending final adjudication.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court is justified in issuing a writ of mandamus on the basis of promotion and recruitment rules against the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation?
- Does the transfer of departmental employees to the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation under section 9 of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Ordinance, 1991 alter their status as civil servants under the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd., Karachi Through Secretary vs Qazi Ghulam Shabbir Sammau1994 PLC 630 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
- Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal1994 PLC 553 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This writ petition challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain a grievance petition filed by an employee of the Pakistan State Oil Company Limited, whose employment was governed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The petitioner argued that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, because the establishment was covered by the Essential Services Act. The core legal question was whether the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, to an establishment automatically ousts the jurisdiction of Labour Courts to adjudicate grievance petitions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Pakistan Television Corporation v. M. Babar Zaman, the High Court held that the Act only supersedes other laws to the extent of direct contrariety. It affirmed that the mere application of the Essential Services Act does not ipso facto oust the Labour Court's jurisdiction. The court established the principle that the Act's regulatory and punitive provisions do not encroach upon the adjudicatory setup for matters not specifically covered by the Act, allowing ordinary labour laws to apply.
Questions settled- Does the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, to an establishment automatically oust the jurisdiction of Labour Courts to hear grievance petitions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- To what extent do the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, supersede the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Can a Labour Court adjudicate a grievance petition for an employee whose employment is covered by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952?
- Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal And Others Med1994 PLC 22 · Lahore High Court · 1986-06-28Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways vs Shaukat Ali, Hamdani And Others1994 PLC 514 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal directed against judgments of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petitions and maintained the orders of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the Punjab Labour Court. The private respondents had filed applications under section 15(2) of the Act for the recovery of amounts illegally deducted from their wages. The petitioner resisted the applications, raising objections regarding maintainability, jurisdiction concerning promotions versus increments, and whether the respondents fell within the definition of workers under the Act. The Authority and the Labour Court decided against the petitioner, and the High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petitions. The Supreme Court considered the contentions raised regarding the misapplication of Pay Rules, 1962, and previous case law, and consequently granted leave to appeal to examine whether the lower forums and the High Court erred in their findings.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 15(2) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is maintainable for claims relating to promotions rather than increments?
- Whether employees drawing more than a specified monthly wage are excluded from the definition of workers under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
- Whether the provisions of the Pay Rules, 1962 apply to matters of promotion or revision of pay scales?
- Pakistan Railways vs Shaukat Ali Hamdani and others1994 SCMR 1799 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1992-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns petitions for leave to appeal filed by Pakistan Railways against judgments of the Lahore High Court, which upheld orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Punjab Labour Court. The private respondents had initiated proceedings for the recovery of amounts allegedly deducted illegally from their wages. The petitioner contested these claims, arguing that the applications were not maintainable, that the underlying dispute related to promotion rather than increments—thereby falling outside the Authority's jurisdiction—and that the respondents, earning over Rs. 1,000 per month, did not qualify as 'workers' under the Act. The Authority and the Labour Court ruled against the petitioner on both legal and merit-based grounds, decisions subsequently affirmed by the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the Pay Rules, 1962, were misapplied regarding the distinction between promotion and pay scale revision, whether the impugned judgments conflicted with established Supreme Court precedents, and whether the Labour Court erred in its reliance on conflicting High Court jurisprudence.
Questions settled- Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936 have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving promotion rather than increment?
- Do employees drawing more than Rs. 1,000 per month qualify as 'workers' under the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
- Does paragraph (II) of the Pay Rules 1962 apply to the revision of pay scales or exclusively to promotions?
- Pakistan Railways vs Sakiii Muhammad and 2 others1994 PLD Lahore 338 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways vs Sakhi Muhammad And 2 Others1994 PLC 383 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways vs Sakhi Muhammad And 2 Other1994 PLD Lahore 338 · Lahore High Court · 1994-02-19Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways vs Labour Appellate Tribunal And Others1994 PLC 401 · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-24Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways vs Javed Nasim & Co.1994 MLD 1992 · Lahore High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways Through The Divisional Superintendent, Lahore vs Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore Through Chairman And 2 Others1994 PLC 505 · Lahore High Court · 1994-03-01Read full judgment →
- Shahnaz Bibi vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 7) · Lahore High Court · 1993-10-02Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways and others vs Muhammad Anwar Bhatti1994 SCMR 680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal filed by Pakistan Railways and others against Muhammad Anwar Bhatti. The core legal question concerns the competency of the General Manager of Pakistan Railways to enhance a penalty previously imposed upon the respondent by an authorized officer, specifically whether such enhancement could be lawfully carried out without conducting a regular inquiry as mandated by the applicable service rules. Granting leave to appeal, the Court held that the matter requires detailed examination to determine the procedural prerequisites and statutory limitations governing the enhancement of penalties by higher authorities within the railway establishment.
Questions settled- Whether the General Manager, Pakistan Railways is competent to enhance a penalty imposed upon an employee by the authorised officer without holding a regular inquiry under the applicable rules?
- Pakistan Railways And Another vs Muhammad Ilyas And 61 Other1994 CLC 795 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Railway vs Kohinoor Oil Mills1994 MLD 1556 · Lahore High Court · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation vs Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad And Others1994 PLC 573 · Lahore High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
- Pakistan M.O. Agriculture vs Messrs Over Field and others1994 MLD 372 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-20Read full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi vs Wafaqi1994 PLD Supreme Court 484 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition filed by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC). The dispute arose from the termination of respondent No. 2's services in 1981, which he later challenged before a Review Board constituted by the Government in 1989 to address terminations based on political grounds. Although the Board allegedly recommended relief, no written order was produced. Respondent No. 2 subsequently approached the Wafaqi Mohtasib, who found maladministration and directed PIAC to provide retirement benefits and compensation. The core legal questions involve the jurisdiction of the Wafaqi Mohtasib under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, specifically regarding service-related grievances, and the authority of the Review Board to adjudicate the termination. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the contentions regarding the interpretation of the notification constituting the Review Board and the statutory provisions of the Wafaqi Mohtasib Order are of general legal importance. The operation of the impugned judgment was stayed pending final adjudication.
Questions settled- Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib have jurisdiction to entertain a complaint regarding service-related grievances of a public servant under the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983?
- Can a party that participated in proceedings before a Review Board without objection later challenge the Board's jurisdiction?
- Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib have the authority to enforce recommendations of a Review Board where the written findings are unavailable?
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Sultan Ahmed1994 MLD 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-02Read full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Karachi Municipal1994 PLD Karachi 343 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Insurance Corporation vs Pakistan National Shipping1994 MLD 667 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-15Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Fruit Juice Company Ltd., vs Zila Council Multan & KhaniwalK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 155 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Fruit Juice Company Ltd., Multan vs Zila Council Multan and Khanewal1994 MLD 1538 · Lahore High Court · 1993-07-14Read full judgment →