Latest 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. 232594 judgments in total.
- MUHAMMAD SHAHID Versus STATE1998 SCMR 217 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the dismissal of his pre-trial bail application by the High Court of Sindh in a criminal case registered under Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerned whether the petitioner was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, including the lack of independent eye-witnesses, absence of any injuries sustained by the complainant, and delayed lodging of the First Information Report. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and allowed it, granting bail to the appellant. The Court held that on a tentative assessment of the evidence collected by the police, where no injuries were caused and independent witnesses were lacking despite a daytime occurrence, a fit case for the grant of bail was made out.
Questions settled- Whether a petitioner is entitled to bail when no injuries are sustained and no independent eye-witnesses are cited in a daytime incident?
- Does a delay in lodging the First Information Report justify the grant of bail in an attempted murder case?
- When can the Supreme Court convert a petition for leave to appeal into an appeal and grant bail?
- DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SCHOOLS), LAHORE REGION, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD ABBAS1998 SCMR 215 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which allowed the respondent's service appeal, set aside his termination from service, and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The respondent had been appointed as an Elementary School Teacher on the recommendation of the District Education Recruitment Committee, but his services were subsequently terminated via a one-month notice on the ground that his appointment was temporary. The core legal question was whether the services of a teacher appointed through the prescribed selection committee could be summarily terminated on the basis of a temporary appointment clause. The Supreme Court held that the service rules do not envisage the concept of a 'purely temporary basis' and that the appointment, having been made in the prescribed manner, was regular under the law, rendering summary termination unlawful. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's judgment and dismissed the petition, laying down the principle that stipulations of purely temporary employment not recognized by the applicable service rules cannot be used to justify summary termination of civil servants.
Questions settled- Whether the service rules recognize the concept of a purely temporary appointment for civil servants?
- Can the services of an employee appointed through the prescribed recruitment committee be terminated summarily on one month's notice?
- Whether an appointment made on the recommendation of a recruitment committee constitutes a regular appointment under the Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus JAVED IQBAL1998 SCMR 2136 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter concerns a service appeal against the dismissal of an employee by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) following a fire incident that caused property damage. The core legal question is whether the Federal Service Tribunal correctly evaluated the evidence and the definition of 'misconduct' under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, when setting aside the dismissal. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal failed to properly consider the inquiry report and the specific legal requirements for establishing misconduct, which necessitates proof of habitual negligence or wilful damage. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the case for a fresh decision. The key principle laid down is that an appellate tribunal must comprehensively review the evidence and inquiry findings, and that 'misconduct' under the relevant rules requires demonstrating habitual negligence or wilful intent, rather than merely an isolated accidental occurrence.
Questions settled- Does a single incident of accidental loss of property constitute 'misconduct' under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
- Is an appellate tribunal required to consider the inquiry report and evidence in its entirety when deciding a service appeal?
- What constitutes 'misconduct' regarding negligence under the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978?
- STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR1998 SCMR 2109 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
- EHSAN ULLAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1998 SCMR 2079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-27Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus FINANCE DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD1998 SCMR 2077 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AKRAM Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1998 SCMR 2073 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed writ petitions filed by convicts tried by a Field General Court Martial. The petitioner, acting pro bono publico, argued that the convicts were not on 'active service' under the Army Act, 1952, and thus the trial was illegal. The Supreme Court addressed two primary issues: the locus standi of a pro bono petitioner in a criminal conviction case and the interpretation of 'active service' under the Army Act, 1952. The Court held that the petitioner lacked standing under Article 199 of the Constitution, as the principle of pro bono publico cannot be invoked to challenge the individual conviction of another person where the petitioner has no personal interest. On merits, the Court affirmed that under Section 7(1) of the Army Act, 1952, the Federal Government possesses the authority to deem persons subject to the Act as being on 'active service' via notification, regardless of the general definition provided in Section 8. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Can a person file a writ petition as pro bono publico to challenge the conviction of another individual?
- Does the Federal Government have the power to deem persons subject to the Army Act 1952 as being on active service via notification?
- Is a petitioner who lacks personal interest in a criminal conviction an 'aggrieved party' under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES, KARACHI Versus HANIF AMIN1998 SCMR 2066 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which granted a Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) pilot full back benefits for his suspension period. The respondent, a Captain, had been removed from service following criminal charges of gold smuggling, for which he was subsequently acquitted. Although the PIAC reinstated him, it denied him back pay for the intervening period. The core legal question was whether an employee reinstated after suspension and exoneration is entitled to full pay for the suspension period under the governing regulations. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that under Article 83 of the PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, an employee who is suspended and subsequently reinstated without dismissal or demotion is entitled to be treated as on duty. The Court held that since the respondent was exonerated on merits and reinstated with restored seniority, he was entitled to full pay for the suspension period, subject to adjustments for amounts already drawn. The petition was dismissed as lacking merit.
Questions settled- Is an employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation entitled to full pay for the period of suspension if they are reinstated without dismissal or demotion?
- Does the acquittal of an employee by a court of law on criminal charges entitle them to back benefits upon reinstatement under the P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985?
- GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN1998 SCMR 2062 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-29Read full judgment →
- KHALID JAVAID KHALID Versus IJAZ AHMED1998 SCMR 2061 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-30Read full judgment →
- SECRETARY, EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE Versus SHAZIA ABBAS1998 SCMR 2056 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of a judgment passed by the Lahore High Court regarding the termination of the respondent's service as a P.T.C. Teacher on a temporary basis. The core legal question is whether the termination of service of a government teacher can be challenged before the Service Tribunal or if a writ petition is maintainable before the High Court in view of the constitutional bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act or whether the High Court properly exercised writ jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the jurisdiction of the High Court is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution in service matters relating to civil servants?
- Does the termination of a temporary teacher's service fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
- Is an Intra-Court Appeal maintainable against the dismissal of a constitutional petition relating to terms and conditions of service?
- MUHAMMAD AZAM KHAN Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.1998 SCMR 204 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-10-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Constitution petition by the Peshawar High Court, which had refused to direct the Provincial Government to regularize the contractual appointments of the petitioners as Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates. The petitioners contended that the recommendation of the High Court Chief Justice for their regularization was binding and integral to the independence of the judiciary. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that contractual appointment confers no legal right to regular appointment, and a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to enforce a claim contrary to statutory requirements. The Court established that appointments to posts in Basic Pay Scale 16 to 20 must strictly adhere to the prescriptions of the law, including selection through the Public Service Commission, and that the principle of the independence of the judiciary does not place the judiciary above the law nor permit recommendations that violate statutory provisions.
Questions settled- Does a contractual appointment as a Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate confer a legal right to seek regularisation?
- Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the Government to regularise appointments in violation of prescribed statutory rules?
- Does the principle of the independence of the judiciary permit recommendations for judicial appointments that contravene existing laws?
- M. ASGHAR ALI Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, ISLAMABAD1998 SCMR 2022 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant, a former Cypher Assistant in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, challenged the withholding of his pension following audit objections regarding the payment of a Daily Allowance for his posting at The Hague. The core legal question was whether the government could lawfully deny pension benefits and reclaim previously paid allowances on the basis that the original claim was time-barred, despite the delay being attributable to the government's own administrative inaction. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Service Tribunal's order. The Court held that the audit objections were entirely frivolous, noting that the government was responsible for the delayed payment of the allowance. Consequently, the Court directed the Ministry of Finance to forthwith finalize the appellant's pension case. The judgment establishes the principle that a government department cannot penalize a public servant by withholding pension or reclaiming legitimate allowances based on audit objections arising from delays caused by the government's own administrative failures, particularly when the servant is not at fault for the procedural lapse.
Questions settled- Can the government withhold a public servant's pension based on audit objections regarding a delayed payment that resulted from the government's own administrative delay?
- Is a government employee entitled to a Daily Allowance in lieu of Foreign Allowance and House Rent Allowance upon arrival at a new foreign mission?
- Can audit authorities declare a claim time-barred when the delay in processing the payment was caused by the government's own administrative inaction?
- IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN SHAH Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1998 SCMR 2009 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These appeals concern the refusal of the Federal Investigation Agency to promote the appellants to BPS-17, despite their seniority. The appellants challenged the Federal Service Tribunal’s dismissal of their appeals, which had been based on the department’s claim that no vacancies existed. The core legal question was whether the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) acted lawfully in ignoring the appellants while promoting junior officers. The Supreme Court held that the DPC’s proceedings were an "eyewash" because they failed to adhere to the principle of seniority-cum-fitness and did not provide reasons for bypassing the appellants. The Court emphasized that a statutory body must perform its duties faithfully, honestly, and diligently, and cannot merely assert a lack of vacancies to avoid a proper, reasoned assessment of candidates. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals, directing the respondents to re-examine the appellants' cases in juxtaposition with the promoted officers to determine their merits for promotion. This judgment reinforces the principle that administrative bodies must provide a transparent, merit-based justification when exercising discretionary promotion powers.
Questions settled- Can a Departmental Promotion Committee justify ignoring a senior candidate for promotion solely by claiming a lack of vacancies?
- Is a Departmental Promotion Committee required to provide reasons when ignoring a senior candidate for promotion in favor of a junior one?
- What is the scope of judicial review regarding the proceedings of a Departmental Promotion Committee?
- WARES KHAN Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR1998 SCMR 2003 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arose from the dismissal of the appellant's service appeal by the N.-W.F.P. Service Tribunal. The appellant, a police investigating officer, was compulsorily retired following departmental proceedings for allegedly making false statements, misdescribing evidence, and damaging the reputation of a senior police officer (a D.I.-G.) during a high-profile murder trial. The appellant contended that he was denied a personal hearing, that the departmental appeal was summarily rejected without considering material grounds, and that the punishment was excessive. The Supreme Court observed that the departmental proceedings lacked transparency, the appellate authority failed to address substantive grounds, and the Service Tribunal decided the matter prematurely without awaiting the final verdict of the Supreme Appellate Court in the criminal case. Finding that the appellant had no malice, that the errors were mere slips, and that the proceedings suffered from material irregularities, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the retirement order, and reinstated the appellant with all back benefits.
Questions settled- Whether a departmental appeal can be summarily rejected by the appellate authority without addressing material grounds of substance raised by the employee?
- Does the failure of a Service Tribunal to await the final verdict of the appellate criminal court before deciding a related service appeal constitute a premature and unsustainable decision?
- Can an extreme penalty of compulsory retirement be sustained where the alleged misconduct is shown to be a mere slip without any established malice?
- MUHAMMAD JAVAID GHOURI Versus LECTURER/DEMONSTRATOR, BLOOD TRANSFUSION SERVICE, PUNJAB, LAHORE1998 SCMR 1990 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from the removal of the appellant, a Junior Clerk, from service under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 on the charge of unauthorized absence from duty. After being granted nine days of casual leave, the appellant repeatedly applied for extensions on medical grounds supported by certificates from private practitioners, but failed to resume duty or ascertain the fate of his applications. The authorized officer dispensed with a regular inquiry under Rule 6.3 of the Rules and proceeded to remove him. The Service Tribunal upheld the removal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a regular inquiry was properly dispensed with as sufficient documentary evidence of the charge was available on record. The Court ruled that under the Revised Leave Rules 1981, the competent authority is entitled to seek a second medical opinion, and the appellant's failure to make himself available for medical examination or to track his leave applications justified his removal.
Questions settled- Whether an authorized officer can dispense with a regular inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1975 if sufficient documentary evidence is already available on record?
- Is a civil servant obligated to ascertain the fate of their applications for extension of leave?
- Does the competent authority have the power to seek a second medical opinion regarding an employee's ailment under the Revised Leave Rules 1981?
- IQBAL HAIDER Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1998 SCMR 181 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an interim order passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan amidst a constitutional crisis characterized by a breakdown of governance and direct interference with the judiciary. The core legal question addressed was whether the Court could intervene to protect its own integrity and the constitutional order when faced with systematic attempts to undermine the Chief Justice, including rowdyism within the Court premises, mob attacks on the Court building, and the failure of the executive to provide security. The Court held that in these extraordinary circumstances, where the judiciary was being made an object of mockery and its security compromised, it was compelled to act. Consequently, the Court ordered the suspension of the operation of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principle laid down is that the Supreme Court possesses the inherent authority to pass interim orders to preserve the constitutional machinery and ensure the safety and independence of the judiciary when the executive branch fails to uphold its constitutional obligations and actively obstructs the administration of justice.
Questions settled- Can the Supreme Court suspend a constitutional amendment as an interim measure during a constitutional crisis?
- Does the Supreme Court have the authority to request security from the Army when the executive fails to protect the judiciary?
- Is the Chief Justice the sole authority empowered to constitute Benches of the Supreme Court?
- ABDUR REHMAN Versus STATE1998 SCMR 1778 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 320 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for rash and negligent driving resulting in death. The core legal question was whether the absence of a post-mortem examination of the deceased renders a conviction for such an offence legally unsustainable. The Supreme Court held that the absence of a post-mortem report is not fatal to the prosecution’s case, provided that the cause of death and the accused's culpability are established through other reliable evidence. The Court affirmed the conviction, emphasizing that medical evidence serves merely as corroboration rather than substantive proof. It laid down the principle that courts are competent to rely on ocular testimony and circumstantial evidence to determine the cause of death when such evidence is convincing and unimpeachable. Consequently, the failure to conduct a post-mortem does not automatically exonerate an accused if the immediate, proximate, and direct causal link between the rash act and the death is independently proven. The appeal was dismissed.
Questions settled- Is the absence of a post-mortem examination fatal to a prosecution case for rash and negligent driving resulting in death?
- Can a court rely on ocular testimony to establish the cause of death in the absence of medical evidence?
- Does medical evidence constitute substantive proof or merely corroborative evidence in criminal trials?
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF Versus STATE1998 SCMR 1764 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan arose from a petition for leave to appeal where leave was granted solely to consider the quantum of sentence. The appellant had been convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentenced to death by the trial court, which was subsequently confirmed by the Lahore High Court. The prosecution's alleged motive was that the appellant brought women of bad character to his house, which was objected to by the deceased. However, during trial, the prosecution witnesses failed to support or prove this motive, rendering it shrouded in mystery. The Supreme Court held that where a specific motive is alleged in the First Information Report (F.I.R.) but the prosecution fails to establish it at trial through cogent evidence, capital punishment is not warranted. Applying this established principle, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, converting the appellant's death sentence to life imprisonment and extending the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.
Questions settled- Whether a death sentence is warranted when the specific motive alleged by the prosecution in the F.I.R. is not proved by cogent evidence at trial?
- What is the legal effect on the quantum of sentence when the events immediately preceding the occurrence remain shrouded in mystery?
- Can a court award capital punishment under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 if the prosecution witnesses fail to support the motive set up in the F.I.R.?
- AKHUNZADA BEHRAWAR SAEED, ADVOCATE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN Versus JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH, CHIEF JUSTICE OF PAKISTAN1998 SCMR 173 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-28Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MIR Versus LALA KHAN1998 SCMR 1607 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, arising from a judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, concerns the conversion of a murder conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code to section 304, Part I, on the grounds of grave and sudden provocation. The respondent had opened fire with two pistols at a shop, killing one Akhtar Muhammad and injuring the complainant, Jalat Khan, allegedly due to humiliation over past offences against the respondent's wife. The trial court had convicted the respondent under section 302 and sentenced him to death. The High Court converted the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, finding the respondent acted under continued mental agony. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, examined the evidence and judicial confession, and held that the respondent acted with premeditation after deliberation following morning prayers, negating the existence of grave and sudden provocation. The Supreme Court restored the conviction under section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but considering the peculiar circumstances including the unconfirmed death sentence and the background motive, declined to restore the death penalty, instead imposing life imprisonment alongside the concurrent section 307 sentence.
Questions settled- Whether premeditated firing at a victim following a period of reflection constitutes grave and sudden provocation sufficient to reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder?
- Can continued mental agony and societal shame in a tribal society over a past wrong justify the reduction of a murder charge under section 302 to section 304 Part I of the Pakistan Penal Code?
- Whether a conviction under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code should automatically attract the death penalty upon being restored by the appellate court, or if lesser punishment of life imprisonment can be awarded based on peculiar circumstances?
- WAPDA Versus KARAMAT ALI BAJWA1998 SCMR 1559 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had modified the dismissal of a WAPDA employee for six months of willful absence to a lesser penalty of stoppage of increment. The core legal questions were whether Rule 5-A of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, applied to prolonged willful absence and whether the Tribunal’s reduction of the penalty was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that Rule 5-A is inapplicable to cases of extended willful absence, as it is intended for minor infractions like lateness or malingering. Furthermore, the Court ruled that while the Service Tribunal possesses broad powers under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, to modify penalties, such discretion must be exercised reasonably and supported by cogent reasons. The Court determined that the Tribunal’s characterization of dismissal as "harsh" for six months of unauthorized absence was arbitrary and lacked a reasonable basis. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment, affirming that the original penalty of dismissal was appropriate.
Questions settled- Does Rule 5-A of the WAPDA Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978, apply to cases of prolonged willful absence from duty?
- Is the Service Tribunal's power to modify penalties under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, absolute or subject to the test of reasonableness?
- Can a Service Tribunal reduce a penalty of dismissal to a minor punishment without providing cogent and reasonable grounds?
- MAA DIN Versus STATE1998 SCMR 1528 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-24Read full judgment →
- WAZIR ALI KHOJA Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.1998 SCMR 1452 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal arose from an order of the High Court of Sindh, which dismissed a Constitution petition challenging the termination of the petitioner's services as Senior Executive Vice-President of the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., a denationalized and privatized banking institution. The core legal question was whether a Constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was maintainable against a denationalized commercial bank and whether its employee could invoke writ jurisdiction for service grievances. The Supreme Court held that the respondent bank, being a denationalized entity currently under private management, did not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province so as to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199. The Court affirmed that service disputes of employees of privatized institutions cannot be equated with the enforcement of fundamental rights and that disputed questions of fact cannot be investigated in constitutional proceedings. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused.
Questions settled- Whether a Constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against a denationalized and privatized commercial bank regarding service termination?
- Does the termination of service of an employee in a denationalized financial institution give rise to the enforcement of fundamental rights?
- Whether disputed questions of fact requiring detailed investigation can be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199?
- When does an autonomous or denationalized corporation perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province?
- AMJAD HUSSAIN Versus SECRETARY, FINANCE DIVISION, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD1998 SCMR 1442 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's claim for the fixation and protection of his salary under Fundamental Rule 22, clause A(i). The core legal question was whether an employee moving from an autonomous body created by the Government to a post in the Federal Government is entitled to pay protection as a civil servant. The Supreme Court held that the appellant retained his status as a civil servant and was entitled to invoke Fundamental Rule 22(A)(i) for the protection of the salary he was drawing in his parent department, noting that the Government cannot deny rightful salary on technical grounds like limitation. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the respondents were directed to re-fix the appellant's salary.
Questions settled- Whether an employee moving from a government-created body to the Federal Government is entitled to pay protection under Fundamental Rule 22?
- Can the Government deny the rightful salary of a civil servant on technical grounds such as limitation?
- Do employees of a body created by the Government through a resolution retain their status as civil servants?
- M.Y. ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Abdul Hameed Qureshi, M. Sardar Khan, Ch. Akhtar Ali, Fakhurddin G. Ibrahim, Ejaz M. Khan,1998 SCMR 1404 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns 29 civil appeals challenging the government's withdrawal of tax and duty exemptions granted to industrial units established in the Gadoon Amazai Industrial Estate (GAIE). The core legal questions were whether the government could unilaterally withdraw these exemptions, whether the doctrine of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation prevented such withdrawal, and whether Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, protected the government's action. The Court held that the government is empowered to withdraw exemptions, and Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, effectively nullifies claims of vested rights based on contracts or letters of credit established before withdrawal, as it mandates that the rate of duty includes amounts payable upon the withdrawal of exemptions. However, the Court distinguished sales tax, ruling that Section 31-A does not apply to the Sales Tax Act, 1951, meaning vested rights regarding sales tax exemptions remain protected. The key principles laid down are that promissory estoppel cannot be invoked against statutory provisions, and that while the government may withdraw exemptions, it should ideally honor its commitments for a reasonable period to support industrial development in backward areas.
Questions settled- Does Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, apply to the withdrawal of sales tax exemptions?
- Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked against a statutory provision like Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969?
- Does the withdrawal of a tax exemption notification retrospectively affect contracts or letters of credit established prior to the withdrawal?
- Does the power to grant an exemption under the Customs Act, 1969, inherently include the power to withdraw it?
- MOINUDDIN AHMAD Versus CHAIRMAN, F.P.S.C., ISLAMABAD1998 SCMR 1389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
- TOWN COMMITTEE, GAKHAR MANDI, GUJRANWALA Versus AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT1998 SCMR 1382 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-02-12Read full judgment →
- RIAZ AHMAD Versus COLLECTOR, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SALES TAX, MULTAN1998 SCMR 1380 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the majority judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against his removal from service. The petitioner, appointed as a Sepoy in 1985, remained absent from duty without authorization from 19-11-1985 and approached the department for re-entry after a lapse of approximately eight years. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, resulting in his removal from service after a show-cause notice and reply. The core legal question was whether a full-fledged departmental inquiry was mandatory in cases of unauthorized absence where facts were undisputed. The Supreme Court held that where unauthorized absence from duty is established on record and the facts are simple and undisputed, there is no requirement to hold a full-fledged inquiry. The Court laid down the principle that a full-fledged inquiry is unnecessary to resolve controverted facts when the foundational fact of long-term unauthorized absence is undisputed and the employee fails to substantiate claims of attempting to report for duty.
Questions settled- Is a full-fledged departmental inquiry mandatory in every case of disciplinary action involving unauthorized absence from duty?
- Does an employee's unexplained long-term absence from service justify removal without recording extensive evidence?
- GHULAM SARWAR Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD1998 SCMR 1375 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation and the principle of res judicata. The petitioner, a trained graduate teacher, had his services terminated in 1980 for alleged unauthorized absence. Following a series of procedural delays, including a previous appeal dismissed for non-prosecution and a subsequent constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court that directed the department to decide the petitioner's review, the department rejected his claim in 1994. The petitioner then filed a fresh appeal before the Tribunal, which was again dismissed. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the Tribunal erred in applying the doctrine of res judicata to an appeal previously dismissed for non-prosecution, and whether the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Tribunal should be calculated from the date of the final departmental decision, particularly when a prior appeal was filed prematurely. The Court seeks to clarify the procedural requirements for service appeals involving departmental remedies and the impact of non-prosecution orders on future litigation.
Questions settled- Does an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution operate as res judicata against a subsequent appeal filed after the exhaustion of departmental remedies?
- Can an appeal filed before the finalization of departmental proceedings be considered premature, and does its dismissal for non-prosecution bar a later appeal filed within time after the departmental decision?
- From what date should the limitation period for a service appeal be calculated when a departmental review petition is pending?
- MUHAMMAD AZAM Versus INAYAT SHAH1998 SCMR 1356 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-06Read full judgment →
- KHALID RASHID SHAHBAZ Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1998 SCMR 1330 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the appellant's service appeal concerning the merger and seniority of officers of the Pakistan National Centre within the Information Group. The core legal questions involve whether the officers of the Pakistan National Centre were validly merged or absorbed into the Information Group through administrative office memoranda, whether tentative seniority lists create enforceable rights, and the validity of the Prime Minister's directive regarding cadre separation. The Supreme Court held that the tentative seniority lists do not create legal rights, the purported merger lacked necessary legislative backing or competent regularisation, and the Prime Minister's decision to maintain separate cadres was valid. The Court concluded that employees cannot automatically become members of a distinct service group without a competent order and adherence to prescribed rules, thereby dismissing the appeal and upholding the Tribunal's decision.
Questions settled- Whether tentative seniority lists create any legitimate legal basis or right for claiming a cause of action?
- Can employees of an autonomous body or attached department automatically become members of a distinct service group without a specific, competent order and regularisation under prescribed rules?
- Whether an administrative office memorandum lacking legislative backing can legally effect the merger of two distinct service cadres?
- SHER ZAMAN Versus NAWAB KHATOON1998 SCMR 133 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-05Read full judgment →
- KHALID NADEEM Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P.1998 SCMR 1313 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- SAJID SAEED Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN1998 SCMR 1311 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
- BIBI NAJMA Versus ABDUL REHMAN1998 SCMR 1304 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the respondent against his brother (later represented by his legal heirs, the petitioners). The respondent claimed that the parties had referred their property disputes to private arbitration, resulting in an award in 1982 which was accepted, acted upon, and implemented by both brothers for several years without dispute. The petitioners contested the suit, arguing that the award was never acted upon, had not been made a rule of the court, and was therefore invalid. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court decreed it, which was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Balochistan in revision. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition and refused leave, holding that while an unfiled award generally cannot be enforced, a party may sue or defend on the basis of an out-of-court arbitration award if it has been accepted and voluntarily acted upon by the parties by mutual consent. Such a suit does not run afoul of Section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1940.
Questions settled- Can a party file a civil suit or raise a defense based on an arbitration award made out of court if that award has been accepted and acted upon by the parties?
- Is a suit based on an implemented out-of-court arbitration award barred by Section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Does an arbitration award require to be made a rule of the court to be relied upon if the parties have already voluntarily implemented its terms?
- MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD1998 SCMR 1296 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-29Read full judgment →
- CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 248-Q OF 1997: IN RE Versus CONSTITUTIONAL PETITION NO. 248-Q OF 1997: IN RE1998 SCMR 127 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-27Read full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF N.-W.F.P. Versus MOMIN KHAN1998 SCMR 1253 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD NASEER KHAN Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT1998 SCMR 1235 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-07Read full judgment →
- MURAD BAKHSH Versus JEHANGIR1998 SCMR 1227 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-07-04Read full judgment →
- ASAD ALI Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN1998 SCMR 122 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-11-26Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE QURESHI Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD1998 SCMR 1166 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
- SAGHAR HUSSAIN Versus ASIMA BATOOL1998 SCMR 1151 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AFZAL Versus STATE1998 SCMR 1141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court which partly accepted the petitioner's appeal by setting aside his conviction and sentence under section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, while upholding his conviction and sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder. The core legal question involved the reliability of the deceased's dying declaration, the corroboration of evidence, and the legal use of a co-accused's judicial confession. The Supreme Court held that the dying declaration, corroborated by eyewitness testimony, circumstantial evidence, and the judicial confession of a co-accused used for corroborative purposes, conclusively established the petitioner's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The key principle laid down is that a dying declaration inspiring confidence can safely form the basis of a conviction when corroborated by other independent evidence, and a co-accused's judicial confession may legally be used to corroborate the prosecution's case against another accused.
Questions settled- Can a dying declaration form the basis of a conviction when corroborated by independent evidence?
- Whether the judicial confession of a co-accused can be used to corroborate the facts narrated in a dying declaration against an accused?
- Does the failure of a witness to mention certain details render a dying declaration false?
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ISLAMABAD1998 SCMR 1100 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MUJEEB AHSAN Versus SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION1998 SCMR 1098 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Works Manager/Chemical in the Pakistan Ordnance Factories, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed his claim for ante-dated promotion to BPS-18 with effect from June 15, 1991, instead of December 3, 1992. The petitioner had previously succeeded in an appeal before the Tribunal, which directed the department to consider him for promotion in accordance with the rules. Although he was subsequently promoted, the promotion was made effective from a later date rather than the date his juniors and batchmates were promoted. The Supreme Court of Pakistan granted leave to appeal to determine the core legal question of whether a civil servant is entitled to ante-dated seniority from the date their juniors and batchmates were promoted after the Service Tribunal has declared them entitled to promotion.
Questions settled- Is a civil servant entitled to ante-dated seniority from the date their juniors and batchmates were promoted after the Federal Service Tribunal has declared them entitled to promotion?
- MUNAWAR HUSSAIN Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, JHELUM1998 SCMR 1067 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for leave to appeal challenged the dismissal of an eviction application filed by the petitioner against the respondents. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller acted lawfully in closing the petitioner's evidence and dismissing the ejectment petition after the petitioner repeatedly failed to produce evidence despite being granted numerous adjournments over a period exceeding one year. The Supreme Court held that the Rent Controller's decision was justified, noting that the petitioner exhibited extraordinary negligence by failing to produce witnesses or evidence despite multiple opportunities. The Court affirmed that while technical rules of procedure may be relaxed in rent proceedings, a court cannot be held hostage to a party's persistent failure to prosecute their case. The ratio established is that a Rent Controller possesses the inherent authority to close a party's evidence and dismiss a petition when that party consistently fails to produce evidence or diligently pursue the matter, notwithstanding the non-strict application of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Qanun-e-Shahadat in such proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller close a party's evidence for failure to produce it after multiple adjournments?
- Is a Rent Controller required to strictly follow the Code of Civil Procedure in rent proceedings?
- Does the failure to produce evidence in a rent case justify the dismissal of an ejectment petition?
- MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus STATE1998 SCMR 1035 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by Muhammad Mansha against the judgment of the Federal Shariat Court, which maintained his conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, sentencing him to seven years rigorous imprisonment and thirty stripes, while acquitting him under section 16 of the same Ordinance. The core legal question revolves around whether the testimony of the prosecutrix, standing alone, was appraised correctly and in accordance with established judicial principles for the safe administration of justice, particularly given contentions regarding medical corroboration and contradictions in evidence. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the appraisal of evidence and the reliability of the prosecutrix's statement require detailed examination. The key principle laid down is that where a conviction rests on the testimony of a single witness, the evidence must be meticulously scrutinized to ensure it withstands tests of consistency and reliability for safe administration of criminal justice.
Questions settled- Whether a conviction under section 10(3) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 can be sustained solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix?
- Does the medical evidence provide necessary corroboration in cases involving a married woman of questionable repute?
- Whether contradictions and improbabilities in the statement of a prime witness warrant interference with concurrent findings of lower courts?
- ZULFIQAR ALI Versus STATE1998 SCMR 1016 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1998-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected appeals arose from convictions under the Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 for allegedly levelling false charges of zina against the complainant. The appellants were initially convicted by the trial court, and on appeal, the Federal Shariat Court converted the conviction from section 7 to section 11, sentencing them to imprisonment and stripes for qazf liable to tazir. Upon further appeal, the Supreme Court examined the nature of the accusations made by each appellant. The Court held that an initial complaint alleging zina-bil-jabr (rape) against a third party does not constitute qazf against the victim of the forced act, as zina with consent is a bilateral act whereas rape involves coercion. Regarding the other appellants who submitted affidavits to the police witnessing the act, the Court held that statements made in good faith to a lawful authority fall under the second exception to qazf, provided there is no judicial finding that the evidence was false. A mere summary dismissal or opinion by a police officer does not constitute a judicial finding. The appeals were consequently allowed and the appellants acquitted.
Questions settled- Does an allegation of zina-bil-jabr against a male accused constitute the offence of qazf against the female victim who was allegedly compelled?
- Can a police officer's summary dismissal or opinion during investigation be treated as a judicial finding of a false accusation for the purposes of the Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Are statements or affidavits submitted to investigating authorities protected under the second exception to the definition of qazf when made in good faith?
- What constitutes 'good faith' under section 52 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the context of reporting allegations of zina to law enforcement agencies?
- STATE Versus MUHAMMAD AKRAM SHEIKH, ADVOCATE1997 SCMR 985 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-07-09Read full judgment →
- FARMAN ALI Versus STATE1997 SCMR 971 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD ZAFAR BUKHARI1997 SCMR 963 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-15Read full judgment →
- SAHIB KHAN Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN1997 SCMR 853 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ALI Versus BASHIR AHMAD1997 SCMR 622 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD MANSHA Versus STATE1997 SCMR 617 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SADIQ Versus STATE1997 SCMR 611 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
- INAYAT ALI Versus SIRAJ DIN1997 SCMR 552 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment decreeing a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement regarding agricultural land and a residential property. The core legal question was whether the respondent had sufficiently established the sale agreement and the payment of consideration, and whether the burden of proof shifted to the deceased seller to explain the receipt of substantial funds. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the respondent successfully proved the payment of Rs. 2,94,000 towards the sale price. Crucially, the deceased failed to provide a credible explanation for receiving this large sum if it were not part of the sale consideration, nor could he substantiate the claim that the money was adjusted towards lease payments. The Court established that once the receipt of substantial funds is proven in the context of a sale claim, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove an alternative arrangement. Furthermore, revenue records reflecting lease status do not negate a sale agreement where the transaction remains legally incomplete.
Questions settled- Does the existence of revenue records showing a lease status automatically negate a claim for specific performance of a sale agreement?
- When does the burden of proof shift to a defendant to explain the receipt of substantial funds in a suit for specific performance?
- Is a handwriting expert's report conclusive in determining the validity of a sale agreement when other evidence of payment exists?
- ABID HUSSAIN Versus STATE , Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate instructed by M. Yousaf, Advocate-on-Record1997 SCMR 548 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal arises from a conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, where the appellant was sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment for allegedly abducting a woman for illicit intercourse. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had produced sufficient evidence to establish that the woman was detained or subjected to sexual intercourse against her will, or if the parties had entered into a valid marriage as sui juris adults. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the prosecution failed to provide any evidence of abduction, detention, or non-consensual sexual activity. The Court noted that the mere fact of the woman being seen in the company of the appellant did not constitute an offence, particularly given her background in a free society. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence, ruling that the appellant and the woman, being sui juris, had contracted a valid marriage of their own free will. The principle laid down is that in the absence of evidence proving the essential ingredients of an offence, a conviction cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Does the mere act of being seen in the company of another person constitute an offence under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution fails to provide evidence of detention or non-consensual sexual intercourse?
- Is a marriage contracted by sui juris adults of their own free will a valid defense against charges of abduction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
- ZAHOOR AHMAD AWAN Versus STATE1997 SCMR 543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for transporting 80 kilograms of heroin found in a truck they were occupying. The core legal question is whether the mere presence of the accused in a vehicle containing contraband is sufficient to establish criminal possession and guilty knowledge under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, absent evidence linking them to the ownership of the vehicle or the narcotics. The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants had exclusive knowledge of the concealed heroin or ownership of the contraband. The Court emphasized that the investigating agency acted with ulterior motives by failing to identify the actual owners of the truck and the drugs, instead focusing solely on the occupants. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions, ruling that in the absence of proof of knowledge or ownership, the possibility that the appellants were unaware of the concealed contraband could not be excluded, thus entitling them to the benefit of the doubt.
Questions settled- Is the mere presence of an individual in a vehicle containing contraband sufficient to establish possession and guilty knowledge?
- Can a conviction for drug trafficking be sustained when the prosecution fails to investigate the ownership of the vehicle or the narcotics?
- Does the failure of the investigating agency to pursue the actual owners of contraband create a reasonable doubt regarding the culpability of the occupants?
- BEHLOL Versus QUETTA MUNICPAL CORPORATION , Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, Additional Advocate-General, Balochistan1997 SCMR 536 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RASHID Versus STATE1997 SCMR 534 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from the conviction of the appellant and three others under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for which they were sentenced to seven years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellant challenged his conviction before the Federal Shariat Court, which dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds that it was time-barred by 538 days. The appellant subsequently filed a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The core legal question was whether the Federal Shariat Court correctly dismissed the appeal as time-barred in the absence of any application for condonation of delay or supporting affidavit. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the appeal was indeed significantly delayed by approximately one year and nine months, and no valid explanation or supporting affidavit had been provided to justify this delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the appeal by the Federal Shariat Court, holding that in the absence of a proper application for condonation of delay, the appellate court cannot proceed to examine the merits of a time-barred appeal.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court examine the merits of an appeal that is barred by limitation without an application for condonation of delay?
- Is an appellate court justified in dismissing an appeal in limine when it is filed significantly beyond the statutory period of limitation without explanation?
- MUHAMMAD ARSHAD Versus PERVEZ1997 SCMR 532 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, which set aside the convictions and sentences of the respondent recorded by the Punjab Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) Faisalabad under sections 302, 392, and 435 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the convictions based on extra-judicial confession, recovery evidence, and last-seen evidence, which were found to be of doubtful validity. The Supreme Court held that the High Court rightly rejected the weak extra-judicial confession made to an almost stranger after six weeks, the doubtful recovery evidence, and the unsatisfactory last-seen evidence. Consequently, the court affirmed the High Court's finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, laying down the principle that concurrent findings of fact based on dubious evidence cannot sustain a conviction, and dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
Questions settled- Whether an extra-judicial confession made to an almost stranger after a significant delay can form the basis of a conviction?
- Is recovery evidence reliable when attended by doubtful circumstances?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with the High Court's acquittal order when prosecution evidence is found unsatisfactory?
- UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Versus MEHLODY READYMADE GARMENTS1997 SCMR 520 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-14Read full judgment →
- ABDULLAH JAVEED ASMI Versus M. WARYAM KHAN1997 SCMR 483 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus STATE1997 SCMR 462 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-08-02Read full judgment →
- COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND WEALTH TAX Versus MUHAMMAD ASIF1997 SCMR 46 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-10Read full judgment →
- ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN Versus ARIF HUSSAIN1997 SCMR 428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-13Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus STATE1997 SCMR 412 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the dismissal of a criminal bail application by the High Court. The petitioner was an accused in a case involving an armed robbery at an auto service station where cash was allegedly taken. The core legal questions pertained to whether an accused not nominated in the First Information Report (FIR) is entitled to bail when no identification parade was conducted through eyewitnesses, and whether the pendency of multiple criminal cases against the accused or the mere recovery of cash before police mashirs constitutes sufficient ground to deny bail. The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and granted bail to the petitioner. The Court held that the mere fact that an accused is implicated in multiple cases of robbery is not sufficient ground to deprive him of his liberty. Furthermore, in the absence of an identification parade and other corroborating evidence, the mere recovery of cash before police officers does not justify withholding bail.
Questions settled- Is the mere fact that an accused is implicated in multiple criminal cases sufficient ground to refuse bail?
- Whether an accused unnamed in the FIR is entitled to bail when no identification test was held through eyewitnesses?
- Does the mere recovery of alleged stolen cash before police mashirs justify withholding bail in the absence of other connecting evidence?
- JUMA SHER Versus SABZ ALI1997 SCMR 407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-02-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had set aside the Rent Controller's ejectment order against the respondent-tenant and ordered the restitution of possession under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The landlord had sought eviction under section 17 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act 1963 on the ground of personal requirement. The High Court reversed the finding on personal need, holding that the landlord failed to specify the type of business intended and that the Rent Controller improperly refused official records. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Rent Controller's finding. Furthermore, the Supreme Court declined to suspend the High Court's restitution order, holding that a landlord cannot retain possession without a subsisting ejectment order and that restitution preserves the status quo until the appeal is decided on merits, distinguishing prior case-law where no regular appeal was pending.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court was justified to reverse the finding of the learned Controller of Rents on the question of personal requirement?
- Is a landlord entitled to remain in possession of a rented premises in the absence of a subsisting ejectment order by a competent court of law?
- Whether an appellate court's direction for restitution of possession of a shop to a tenant should be suspended during the pendency of a leave to appeal petition?
- ABDUL RASHID Versus STATE1997 SCMR 373 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal, brought with leave of the Supreme Court, challenged the judgment of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his sister-in-law. The prosecution case was supported by three eye-witnesses who were related to the deceased and present inside her residence at the time of occurrence, along with the recovery of a blood-stained knife. The appellant contended that the ocular account was unreliable due to the relationship of the witnesses, that they were chance witnesses, and that the alleged motive was unproven given the medical evidence regarding the severity of the victim's injuries. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that relationship alone does not render eye-witnesses interested or untrustworthy, nor are relatives present inside a family residence chance witnesses. However, accepting that the victim could not have communicated the motive prior to death owing to fatal heart and lung injuries, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove motive, which warranted mitigating the sentence from death to life imprisonment.
Questions settled- Does the mere relationship of eye-witnesses to the victim render their testimony interested or unreliable in the absence of a motive to falsely implicate the accused?
- Can relatives present inside a private family residence where an offence takes place be categorized as chance witnesses?
- Does the failure of the prosecution to prove the alleged motive entitle the convict to mitigation of sentence from death to life imprisonment?
- KARIM BAKHSH Versus ZULFIQAR1997 SCMR 334 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
- NAVEED NAWAZISH MALIK Versus GHULAM RASOOL BHATTI1997 SCMR 193 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a contempt of court application arising from the alleged violation of a Supreme Court order. The petitioner, a landlord, obtained an ejectment order against respondent No. 1, who subsequently secured time from the Supreme Court to vacate the premises based on an undertaking. Instead of vacating, respondent No. 1 colluded with respondent No. 2 to fabricate a new tenancy agreement and possession claim, thereby obstructing the execution of the ejectment order. The core legal question was whether the respondents' actions constituted contempt of court. The Court held that the respondents were guilty of contempt for contumaciously violating the court's order and conspiring to frustrate the administration of justice through forged documents and false evidence. The Court emphasized that while a breach of a private compromise might not be contempt, the violation of an order based on an undertaking given to the court constitutes contempt. Furthermore, third parties knowingly obstructing the court's process are also liable. Consequently, the Court convicted both respondents, imposing sentences of imprisonment and fines.
Questions settled- Does the breach of an undertaking given to the court constitute contempt of court?
- Can a third party who knowingly assists in frustrating a court order be held liable for contempt of court?
- What is the distinction between an undertaking given to a party versus an undertaking given to the court regarding contempt liability?
- Does the filing of false documents and creation of fictitious claims to frustrate an execution order amount to contempt of court?
- MUSSARAT SULTANA Versus MUHAMMAD SAEED1997 SCMR 1866 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-11-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court in a second appeal regarding a suit for the recovery of dowry articles or their monetary value. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellant, which was upheld by the first appellate court. However, the High Court in second appeal interfered with the concurrent findings of fact and reduced the decretal amount. The core legal question was whether the High Court could lawfully interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the valuation of dowry articles in second appeal. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the High Court erred in reappraising the evidence and setting aside concurrent findings of fact where the lower courts' findings were based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and were not tainted by misreading or illegality. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court's judgment, laying down that interference with concurrent findings of fact in second appeal is impermissible unless the evidence is misread or the findings are based on surmises, conjectures, or inadmissible evidence.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court in second appeal has jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the valuation of dowry articles?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact in a second appeal?
- Does the evaluation and weight attached to a witness's statement regarding property valuation relate to the appreciation of evidence?
- MUHAMMAD YAQOOB Versus COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION/ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PESHAWAR1997 SCMR 1670 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These civil appeals arose from land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act 1894 for a WAPDA residential colony. The core legal questions concerned the determination of fair market value, the applicability of interest rates on excess compensation, and the appropriate rate for compulsory acquisition charges. The Supreme Court held that the lower courts erred by restricting compensation based on a misinterpretation of the landowners' pleadings. The Court clarified that while one-year average sales are a relevant factor, they are not the absolute yardstick for market value when other evidence of potentiality exists. Regarding interest, the Court ruled that under the applicable N.W.F.P. amendment, the landowners were entitled only to 6% simple interest from the date of possession, rejecting claims for 8% compound interest. Furthermore, the Court upheld the 15% compulsory acquisition charge, determining the acquisition was for a public purpose rather than for a "Company." The judgment establishes that market value assessment must consider all evidence of potentiality, and statutory interest rates are governed by the law in force at the time of the court's determination.
Questions settled- Is the one-year average of sales preceding a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 an absolute yardstick for determining market value?
- Does the acquisition of land for a WAPDA residential colony constitute a 'public purpose' or an acquisition for a 'Company' for the purposes of compulsory acquisition charges?
- Under the Land Acquisition (N.-W.F.P. Amendment) Ordinance 1983, is a landowner entitled to simple or compound interest on excess compensation?
- Can a court award compensation higher than the amount claimed by the landowner in their objection petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- HAZRATULLAH Versus DISTRICT COUNCIL, HARIPUR1997 SCMR 1570 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-22Read full judgment →
- BASHARAT ALI Versus DIRECTOR, EXCISE AND TAXATION, LAHORE1997 SCMR 1543 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal with leave against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal which partly allowed the appellant's service appeal by substituting his dismissal from service with removal from service. The appellant, a Junior Clerk in the Excise and Taxation Department, was dismissed on charges of temporary embezzlement and producing a forged treasury receipt, following a show-cause notice and summary procedure without a regular departmental inquiry, despite his categorical denial of the charges. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the department was justified in dispensing with a regular inquiry on the basis of the available record. The Court held that where charges of serious misconduct are emphatically denied by an accused civil servant involving disputed questions of fact, a regular inquiry involving the recording of evidence and opportunity of cross-examination cannot be dispensed with. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Tribunal and the department, ordering the reinstatement of the appellant with back benefits subject to gainful employment verification, and established that dispensing with a regular inquiry in cases of disputed serious factual allegations violates the principles of natural justice and fair hearing.
Questions settled- Whether the department is justified in dispensing with a regular inquiry when an accused civil servant categorically denies serious charges of misconduct involving disputed questions of fact?
- Can a major penalty be imposed upon a civil servant without holding an inquiry under the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975?
- What constitutes a fair hearing in departmental disciplinary proceedings against a civil servant?
- HUSSAIN AHMAD Versus IRSHAD BIBI1997 SCMR 1503 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-05-20Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD SHAFIQUE Versus STATE1997 SCMR 1492 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-12Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD AZAM Versus STATE1997 SCMR 1489 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-20Read full judgment →
- GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL1997 SCMR 1428 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
- REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Versus WALI MUHAMMAD1997 SCMR 141 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal, filed by the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, challenged a Federal Service Tribunal order that reinstated a former Supreme Court Research and Reference Officer. The core legal question was whether employees of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, whose terms and conditions are governed by rules framed under Article 208 of the Constitution, qualify as 'civil servants' amenable to the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that such employees are not 'civil servants' as defined by the Civil Servants Act, 1973, because their service conditions are regulated by rules framed under Article 208, distinct from the legislative framework governing civil servants under Article 240. The Court affirmed that the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over disputes involving Supreme Court employees. The key principle laid down is that the 'service of Pakistan' and 'civil servant' are not synonymous; the latter is a specific category, and employees of the judiciary governed by Article 208 rules fall outside the scope of the Civil Servants Act and the Service Tribunals Act.
Questions settled- Are employees of the Supreme Court of Pakistan 'civil servants' within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate service disputes involving employees of the Supreme Court of Pakistan?
- Is the expression 'service of Pakistan' synonymous with the term 'civil servant' under Pakistani law?
- Does the rule-making power under Article 208 of the Constitution exclude Supreme Court employees from the scope of the Civil Servants Act, 1973?
- SULTAN Versus STATE1997 SCMR 1389 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-05-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, Sultan and Allah Bakhsh, were convicted by the trial court for murder and attempted murder, along with other co-accused. The High Court acquitted several co-accused but maintained the petitioners' convictions, relying on ocular testimony corroborated by forensic evidence regarding recovered spent cartridges. The petitioners sought leave to appeal, arguing that the chain of custody for the spent cartridges was broken because the police officer who transported them to the Forensic Laboratory was not examined, rendering the recovery evidence unreliable. The complainant party also sought leave to appeal against the acquittal of the other co-accused. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to the petitioners, noting that the contention regarding the chain of custody and the reliability of the recovery evidence required examination. Conversely, the Court refused leave to appeal to the complainant party, holding that in the presence of deep-seated enmity and the lack of independent corroboration for the ocular testimony against the acquitted co-accused, the High Court's decision to acquit them was justified.
Questions settled- Can a conviction be sustained based on ocular testimony that lacks independent corroboration in cases of admitted enmity?
- Does the failure to examine the police officer who transported forensic evidence to the laboratory create a fatal gap in the chain of custody?
- Is the High Court justified in acquitting co-accused when the ocular testimony against them lacks corroboration?
- MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ SHARIF Versus STATE1997 SCMR 1361 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns three Constitutional petitions filed directly under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking bail. The petitioners contended that their pending bail applications in the Lahore High Court could not be adjudicated because the presiding judges were affected by a prior Supreme Court judgment regarding judicial appointments, rendering them unable to participate. The core legal question was whether the Supreme Court should exercise its extraordinary original jurisdiction to grant bail when ordinary remedies remain available but temporarily stalled. The Court held that direct Constitutional petitions are not maintainable when ordinary forums and remedies are available and must be exhausted first. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its original jurisdiction, treating the petitions as leave to appeal. It directed the Acting Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court to constitute a proper bench, as required by the Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984, to resolve the bail applications within three days. The key principle established is that litigants must exhaust ordinary legal remedies before invoking the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 184(3).
Questions settled- Is a direct Constitutional petition under Article 184(3) maintainable when ordinary legal remedies are available?
- Must a petitioner exhaust ordinary forums before invoking the Supreme Court's extraordinary original jurisdiction?
- Can the Supreme Court direct the High Court to constitute a specific bench to hear a pending bail application?
- GHULAM NABI Versus FAQIR MUHAMMAD1997 SCMR 1352 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-29Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus SHAUKAT ALI1997 SCMR 1307 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from petitions for leave to appeal concerning a conviction and sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, where the High Court had altered a death sentence to life imprisonment and dismissed a revision against co-accused. During the proceedings, the convict filed an application alleging a compromise with the legal heirs of the deceased. The core legal questions involved whether the principle of section 309 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding waiver by one of multiple Walis applies to cases where punishment is awarded by way of Ta'zir, and whether a murder case can be compounded under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if not all legal heirs agree to the compromise. The Supreme Court held that where an accused has been sentenced to life imprisonment as Ta'zir rather than death as Qisas, section 309(2) cannot be pressed into service, and compounding under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires the consent of all legal heirs. The key principle laid down is that partial waiver or compromise by some heirs alone is insufficient to compound the offence or alter a sentence of Ta'zir when dissenting legal heirs refuse to join the compromise.
Questions settled- Whether the principle of section 309 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 can be applied to a case where punishment for murder is awarded by way of Ta'zir?
- Can a case under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be compounded under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if all legal heirs do not agree to the compromise?
- Does the waiver of Qisas by some of the Walis compel the enforcement of section 309(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when the sentence is imprisonment for life as Ta'zir?
- QADIR BAKHSH Versus NIZAM-UD-DIN KHAN1997 SCMR 1267 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a pre-emption suit. The core legal questions involved whether a general power of attorney authorized the agent to institute a pre-emption appeal on behalf of the principal, and whether the extension of time for depositing pre-emption money without notice to the opposite party was legally sustainable. The Supreme Court held that powers of attorney must be strictly construed and that the attorney in this case lacked express or implied authority to file the pre-emption appeal, rendering the first appellate proceedings not maintainable. The Court further noted that extending the time limit for depositing pre-emption money without notice to the defendant, in whom a valuable right had accrued, is legally objectionable and requires sufficient cause. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the pre-emption decree was set aside.
Questions settled- Whether a general power of attorney must be strictly construed to ascertain if an agent is authorized to institute a pre-emption suit or appeal?
- Is an appeal filed by a general attorney maintainable when the power of attorney does not expressly or by necessary implication cover the subject property or proceeding?
- Whether notice to the opposite party is mandatory when an application for extension of time to deposit pre-emption money is made?
- MUHAMMAD SHOAIB SUDDLE, D. I.-G. POLICE, KARACHI Versus STATE1997 SCMR 1234 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-12-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two petitions for leave to appeal against the Sindh High Court's dismissal of pre-arrest bail applications filed by police officers in connection with the killing of Mir Murtaza Bhutto and his associates. The core legal question was whether the petitioners established sufficient grounds for the grant of pre-arrest bail, specifically whether their arrest was sought for ulterior motives of humiliation and harassment rather than the furtherance of justice. The Supreme Court held that for pre-arrest bail, a petitioner must demonstrate not only a prima facie case but also that arrest would cause irreparable harm or be motivated by ulterior objectives. Regarding Dr. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle, the Court found he was not present at the scene, was not named in the interim challan, and the prosecution lacked material linking him to the alleged conspiracy; thus, bail was granted. Conversely, regarding the other petitioners, the Court observed their presence at the scene of the fatal firing, concluding they failed to make out a case for pre-arrest bail. The Court affirmed that pre-arrest bail is appropriate where arrest is sought for ulterior motives.
Questions settled- What are the essential criteria for the grant of pre-arrest bail in Pakistan?
- Can pre-arrest bail be granted to a public official when the prosecution lacks material evidence linking them to the alleged conspiracy?
- Does the mere presence of a police officer at the scene of a fatal incident preclude the grant of pre-arrest bail?
- Is the absence of a petitioner's name in the interim challan a relevant factor for the court in considering pre-arrest bail?
- ABDUL KHALIQ Versus SECRETARY, SENATE SECRETARIAT, ISLAMABAD1997 SCMR 1196 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
- NOOR MUHAMMAD Versus MUHAMMAD GULZAR1997 SCMR 1194 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-31Read full judgment →
- ABDUL HAKEEM Versus HABIBULLAH1997 SCMR 1139 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-10-08Read full judgment →
- MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE Versus STATE1997 SCMR 1132 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-04-05Read full judgment →
- WAPDA Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF NAEEM1997 SCMR 1128 · Supreme Court of PakistanRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal by the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) challenged the applicability of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 to its employees. The core legal question was whether WAPDA employees are excluded from the protections of the Standing Orders Ordinance by virtue of WAPDA's status as a statutory corporation and the existence of its own service rules. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Standing Orders Ordinance remains applicable to WAPDA employees. The Court reasoned that WAPDA is a statutory corporation rather than an extension of executive authority, and its internal service rules lack statutory character, failing to satisfy the proviso required to exclude the Standing Orders Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court clarified that while WAPDA service is deemed 'service of Pakistan,' employees who qualify as 'workmen' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 are excluded from the definition of 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, thereby retaining their entitlement to the protections afforded by the Standing Orders Ordinance.
Questions settled- Does the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply to employees of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority?
- Are the service rules framed by the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority considered statutory in character?
- Does an employee of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority who qualifies as a workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 fall within the definition of a civil servant?
- BASHIRAN BIBI Versus JEWNI1997 SCMR 1079 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-10-16Read full judgment →
- MUSHTAQ AHMAD MOHAL Versus HONOURABLE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE1997 SCMR 1043 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 challenged the Lahore High Court’s decision to re-advertise 14 additional vacancies for Civil Judges-cum-Judicial Magistrates on an open merit basis, rather than appointing candidates from an existing merit list created for an earlier recruitment cycle. The core legal question was whether the High Court was bound to fill these vacancies using the previous zonal quota system and whether the recruitment process was governed by the rules in force at the time of the initial advertisement or the time of appointment. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the 20-year constitutional protection for the quota system under Article 27 had expired in August 1993, rendering zonal allocation unconstitutional for these vacancies. The Court affirmed that recruitment rules applicable at the time of appointment govern the process, not those at the time of advertisement. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that public appointments must be transparent and open to all citizens to satisfy the constitutional guarantee of equal opportunity under Articles 18 and 27.
Questions settled- Does the expiration of the twenty-year period under Article 27 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 render the zonal quota system for public appointments unconstitutional?
- Are the recruitment rules and conditions applicable at the time of appointment or at the time of the initial advertisement?
- Does the failure to publicly advertise vacancies for public appointments violate the fundamental right to equal opportunity under Article 18 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Can a candidate claim a vested right in the recruitment criteria or zonal allocation policy in force at the time of the initial advertisement?
- WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD1997 SCMR 1013 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which directed the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) to consider the respondent, a Sub-Engineer, for promotion to B-17. The core legal question was whether the respondent, holding a Diploma in Drafting and Designing, was eligible for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Mechanical) under the Pakistan WAPDA (Water Wing) Service of Engineers Rules, 1968, despite lacking a specific diploma in those technologies. The Supreme Court held that the relevant rule, which requires a 'Diploma or a Certificate of Overseer,' does not distinguish between specific technologies. The Court reasoned that since the respondent met the criteria of being in BPS-16, having ten years of service, and passing the professional examination, he was eligible for promotion. The principle laid down is that where statutory rules for promotion prescribe a general qualification (such as a 'Diploma'), administrative authorities cannot impose additional, unstated requirements regarding the specific technology of that diploma to disqualify an otherwise eligible candidate, particularly when the candidate has previously been integrated into the relevant seniority list without objection.
Questions settled- Does the requirement of a 'Diploma' for promotion under the Pakistan WAPDA (Water Wing) Service of Engineers Rules 1968 necessitate a diploma in a specific technology?
- Can administrative authorities impose additional eligibility criteria for promotion not explicitly stated in the governing service rules?
- Is a Sub-Engineer holding a Diploma in Drafting and Designing eligible for promotion to Assistant Engineer under the 20% quota rule?
- MIR AHMAD GUL Versus STATE1996 SCMR 979 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-02-13Read full judgment →
- GHULAM ABBAS Versus STATE1996 SCMR 927 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1994-08-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning criminal proceedings. The core legal question involves the sustainability of the petition for bail before this Court when alternative grounds relating to age and infirmity remain unexhausted before the Trial Court. The Court decided to dismiss the petition as not pressed upon the petitioner's request, while granting liberty to approach the Trial Court afresh for bail specifically on the grounds of age and infirmity. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner may withdraw a bail petition before the apex court to seek appropriate remedies on unexhausted factual grounds directly from the Trial Court.
Questions settled- Can a petitioner withdraw a petition for leave to appeal to seek bail before the Trial Court on new grounds?
- Is it permissible to approach the Trial Court for bail on the ground of age and infirmity after withdrawing a petition before the Supreme Court?
- ABDUL RASHID Versus GHULAM NABI KHAN1996 SCMR 864 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
- RASTA MAL KHAN Versus NABI SARWAR KHAN1996 SCMR 78 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →