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. 232,594 judgments in total.

• Farooq Arshad and 2 others vs Mst. Shazia Waseem and 3 others2022 MLD 1411 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-10Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmed Butt vs Azad Government through Board of Revenue Azad2022 MLD 480 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-10-29Read full judgment →
• Farman Hussain vs The State2022 PHC 296 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-28Read full judgment →
• Farid Ullah Khan vs Irfan Ullah Khan2022 SCP 70, 2022 SCMR 1231 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-04-26
  pre-emptionTalb-i-MuwathibatTalb-i-Ishhadright of pre-emptionhearsay evidencedirect evidenceconcurrent findings of factleave to appealmiscarriage of justicepreponderance of probability
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a revision petition by the Peshawar High Court, upholding concurrent judgments in a pre-emption suit. The respondent (pre-emptor) sought possession of land based on a superior right of pre-emption, claiming to have made Talb-i-Muwathibat (immediate demand) and Talb-i-Ishhad (demand by establishing evidence). The Supreme Court examined the evidence regarding Talb-i-Muwathibat and found serious legal lapses. It held that the pre-emptor failed to prove the immediate demand due to a crucial delay in making the demand after acquiring knowledge of the sale, reliance on hearsay evidence regarding the source of information, and circumstances inconsistent with his claim of late knowledge. The Court emphasized that oral evidence must be direct as per Article 71 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the chain of information for Talb-i-Muwathibat must be complete. The Court also ruled that it can interfere with concurrent findings of fact if they are vitiated by errors of law or misappreciation of evidence, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the petition was converted into an appeal, allowed, and the pre-emption suit dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with by the Supreme Court?
  • What are the essential elements required to prove Talb-i-Muwathibat in a pre-emption suit?
  • Does a delay in making Talb-i-Muwathibat upon obtaining knowledge of a sale legally defeat the right of pre-emption?
  • Is hearsay evidence admissible to establish the source of information for Talb-i-Muwathibat?
  • What is the evidentiary standard for oral evidence regarding a fact that can be seen or heard?
  Read full judgment →
• Farid Khan vs Fazal Maula & Others2022 PHC 512 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-03Read full judgment →
• Farhana Bibi vs Govt: of KPK & others2022 PHC 468 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-23Read full judgment →
• Farhan Ahmed vs The State2022 YLR 1085 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-17
  murdercircumstantial evidencesolitary witnessmitigating circumstancescommutation of death sentencejudicial confessioncriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of his wife and sentencing him to death, alongside a reference for the confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question revolved around whether the circumstantial evidence, supported by the testimony of a solitary witness and a judicial confession, was sufficient to sustain the conviction and whether the lack of a proven motive constituted a mitigating circumstance warranting the reduction of the sentence from death to life imprisonment. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt through consistent medical evidence, recoveries, and a reliable solitary witness. However, the Court ruled that the shroud of mystery surrounding the immediate motive and the events preceding the incident served as a mitigating circumstance. Consequently, the High Court upheld the conviction under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life, establishing that a single mitigating circumstance is sufficient to avoid the penalty of death.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the testimony of a single witness?
  • Whether the lack of a clear motive or explanation for events immediately preceding an offense constitutes a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence to life imprisonment?
  • Does a judicial confession materially corroborated by circumstantial evidence form a sufficient basis for upholding a conviction under the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Whether minor contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses warrant the acquittal of an accused in a murder trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Fareeda Rafique and others vs Azad Govt & Others2022 SC AJK 40 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir
  regularizationad-hoc appointmentcivil servantsopen meritservice tribunalfundamental rightsequality before law
  Summary & questions settled

  The titled appeals by leave of the Court were filed against the separate judgments of the Service Tribunal, which had dismissed appeals challenging the cancellation of the appellants' permanent regularizations as Computer Science Teachers and IT Lab Incharges. The core legal question addressed was whether employees initially appointed on a temporary or ad-hoc basis against project posts can be permanently regularized without following the prescribed open and transparent competitive selection process mandated by law. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir held that regularizing temporary or ad-hoc employees without open competitive examination violates constitutional principles of merit and equality before law, rendering such regularizations void ab initio. The Court laid down the principle that void or illegal appointment orders create no vested rights, that regular appointment must strictly follow statutory rules and open competition, and that continuation in temporary service does not entitle an employee to absorption into regular service without due process. Furthermore, the Court noted that the period of ad-hoc service is protected for age relaxation purposes under existing rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether temporary or ad-hoc appointees are entitled to permanent regularized induction without undergoing the prescribed open competitive selection process?
  • Does an illegal or void regularization order create any vested right or interest in favour of a civil servant?
  • Can contract or temporary service be converted into regular appointment in defiance of recruitment rules and established policy?
  • Is the period of continuous ad-hoc service countable towards upper age limit relaxation when competing in open selection processes?
  Read full judgment →
• Faraz Naveed vs District Police Officer Gujrat and another2022 SCP 200, 2022 SCMR 1770, 2022 PSC 1568 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-02-28
  service lawmisconductdepartmental inquirybenefit of doubthonourable acquittaldisciplined forcepolice rulesstandard of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector, was dismissed from service following his conviction for murder under Section 302 PPC and the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. Although the High Court subsequently acquitted him by extending the benefit of doubt, the departmental authorities refused reinstatement. The core legal question was whether an acquittal based on the benefit of doubt in a criminal trial automatically entitles a civil servant to reinstatement and exoneration in departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court held that criminal prosecution and departmental inquiries are distinct jurisdictions with different standards of proof—'beyond reasonable doubt' versus 'preponderance of evidence.' The Court ruled that an employer, especially in a disciplined force like the police, retains the prerogative to assess an employee's suitability and integrity. Acquittal on technical grounds or benefit of doubt does not wash away the stigma of misconduct or preclude departmental penalties. The petition was dismissed.

  Read full judgment →
• Faraz Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2022 SCP 198, 2022 PLJ SC 409 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  contractual employeesregularizationvested rightconstitutional jurisdictionimplementation of judgmentage relaxationabsorption
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the Islamabad High Court, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition seeking implementation of a Labour Court judgment and absorption into a newly created government cell. The petitioner, a former contractual Upper Division Clerk in the now-wound-up Vigilance Directorate of the Ministry of Communications, claimed a right to absorption and age relaxation. The core legal questions involved whether contractual employees possess a vested right to regularization or absorption, and whether a High Court can execute judgments of subordinate courts under constitutional writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that contractual employees have no vested right to regularization or absorption in the absence of a specific statutory basis, and that the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to execute judgments passed by subordinate courts or tribunals. The Court established that temporary, ad hoc, or contractual appointees must serve according to their contract terms and cannot claim regularization or reinstatement as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contractual or project employees have a vested right to seek regularization or permanent absorption?
  • Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked for the implementation or execution of a judgment passed by a Labour Court?
  • Does an ad hoc or temporary appointment create any enforceable legal right of regularization in favour of the appointee?
  Read full judgment →
• Faraz Ahmed vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others2022 SCMR 1680 · Supreme Court of Pakistan
  contractual employeesregularizationvested rightabsorptionconstitutional jurisdictionLabour Courtwind up of department
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Islamabad High Court dismissing the petitioner's writ petition, which sought the implementation of a Labour Court judgment regarding the absorption of a contractual employee following the winding up of the Vigilance Directorate. The core legal questions involve whether a contractual employee possesses a vested right to regularization or permanent absorption upon the abolition of their department, and whether the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution can execute judgments of subordinate courts. The Supreme Court held that contractual employees have no vested right to regularization or permanent absorption in the absence of a statutory basis or rules providing therefor, and that the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to execute or implement judgments passed by a Labour Court. The Court laid down the principle that temporary, ad hoc, or contractual employees serve at the pleasure of their employer and cannot claim automatic regularization or absorption unless appointed through a regular recruitment process against sanctioned posts under applicable rules and laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contractual employees possess a vested right to regularization or permanent absorption upon the winding up of their department?
  • Can the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution be invoked to execute or implement a judgment passed by a Labour Court?
  • Does an ad hoc, temporary, or contractual appointment create any enforceable legal right to continued employment or reinstatement?
  • Is a claim for regularization maintainable in the absence of a specific statutory basis or rule providing for the same?
  Read full judgment →
• Farah Mazhar and 3 others vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others2022 PLD Lahore 119 · Lahore High Court · 2021-07-19
  Exit Control Listfreedom of movementfundamental rightsbenamidarseparate legal entitycorporate liabilitytravel restrictionsabuse of discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the wife, sons, and daughter of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of a defaulted brokerage company, challenging the memorandum and order that placed and retained their names on the Exit Control List (ECL) under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981. The respondents argued that the petitioners were family members of an accused who embezzled investor funds, held properties as his benamidars, and were dual nationals likely to flee. The High Court observed that the petitioners were neither shareholders nor directors of the company, and had not been arrayed as accused in the subsequent National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference. The Court held that the right to travel abroad is an integral part of the fundamental right to life, liberty, and movement under Articles 9 and 15 of the Constitution. It ruled that mere relationship with an accused does not constitute a valid legal basis to restrict movement, and any apprehension regarding benami properties should be addressed through property attachment laws rather than personal confinement. The petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can the names of family members of an accused company director be placed on the Exit Control List solely on account of their relationship?
  • Does a benamidar incur penal liability or personal restrictions on movement under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Is the right to travel abroad protected as a fundamental right under Articles 9 and 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can the executive place a citizen's name on the Exit Control List without prior notice, hearing, or a speaking order detailing specific reasons?
  Read full judgment →
• Fiaz Ahmad and another vs Muhammad Rizwan and 2 others2022 YLR 1616 · Lahore High Court · 2021-05-27Read full judgment →
• Farah Mansoor vs Station House Officer, Police Station City Kamoky and another2022 YLR 280 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-25
  illegal detentionpolice accountabilityconstitutional petitiondepartmental inquirypolice misconductsupervisory negligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed in the Lahore High Court concerning the illegal detention of a 72-year-old woman. The core legal question addressed the accountability of police officials involved in the unauthorized detention and the subsequent administrative response by the police department. Upon the appearance of the City Police Officer, Gujranwala, the Court was informed that a criminal case, FIR No. 332/2021, had been registered against the Investigating Officer, Saif Ullah, A.S.I., under Section 155-C of the Police Order, 2002, and Section 342 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860. Furthermore, the Court noted that the Station House Officer had been suspended, an inquiry initiated, and the D.S.P. issued an explanation for poor supervision. The Court expressed satisfaction with the prompt and strict departmental action taken against the delinquent officials. Consequently, the Station House Officer’s show-cause notice was withdrawn, and the petitioner, satisfied with the remedial measures taken by the authorities, did not press the petition further. The petition was accordingly disposed of, emphasizing the Court's expectation that such incidents of illegal detention would not recur.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court dispose of a constitutional petition regarding illegal detention once the police department has initiated criminal and disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent officers?
  • Does the registration of an FIR against an investigating officer for illegal detention satisfy the court's intervention in a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Dad Khan Khoso vs National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others2022 SCMR 1612 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2017-03-29
  pre-arrest bailpost-arrest bailrule of consistencyNational Accountability Bureaudiscriminatory treatmentintelligible differentia
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions for leave to appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Sindh dismissing the petitioners' applications for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail in connection with corruption and accountability proceedings. The core legal question concerned whether bail could be refused to the petitioners when other co-accused with ostensibly similar or worse roles had not been arrested and were left at large. The Supreme Court converted the petitions into appeals and allowed them, confirming ad interim pre-arrest bail for some petitioners and granting post-arrest bail to another. The Court held that the prosecution's failure to provide an intelligible differentia justifying the differential treatment between arrested accused and those left at large constituted discriminatory enforcement, warranting the grant of bail to ensure parity, notwithstanding provisions of the accountability law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted on the principle of consistency when co-accused with similar or worse roles are left at large by the prosecution?
  • Can the prosecution claim differential treatment of accused persons without showing an intelligible differentia?
  • Does the existence of a culpable prima facie role justify discriminatory arrest and denial of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Government of the Punjab etc2022 LHC 3844, 2022 PLJ Lahore 659 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-28Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Government of the Punjab and Others2022 MLD 1900 · Lahore High Court · 2022-06-01Read full judgment →
• Fakhar Abbas vs State and anotherPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1159 · Lahore High Court · 2021-10-13
  criminal appealmurderfalsus in uno falsus in omnibuschance witnessesbenefit of doubtmedical evidencepost-mortem delayocular account
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly when the ocular account was provided by chance witnesses whose testimony was disbelieved regarding the acquitted co-accused. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The ratio decidendi emphasizes that the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is an integral part of Pakistani criminal jurisprudence; if a witness is found to have committed deliberate falsehood on a material aspect, their entire testimony must be rejected. Furthermore, the Court established that medical evidence is merely confirmatory and cannot identify a culprit in unobserved incidents. Additionally, unexplained delays in post-mortem examinations and the failure to establish the source of light during night-time occurrences create reasonable doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of a witness be relied upon if it has been disbelieved regarding other co-accused in the same case?
  • Does the rule falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus apply to criminal cases in Pakistan?
  • Is medical evidence sufficient to identify a culprit in an unobserved incident?
  • What is the legal consequence of an unexplained delay in conducting a post-mortem examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz ur Rehman @ Abdul Rehman vs The State2022 SHC 568 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-23
  terrorism financingproscribed organizationbenefit of the doubtanti-terrorismcriminal appealacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Anti-Terrorism Court convicting the appellant under sections relating to terrorism financing and membership of a proscribed organization. The core legal questions involve determining whether the prosecution successfully proved the appellant's affiliation with a banned organization and his involvement in collecting funds for terrorist activities beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to provide substantial evidence establishing membership, trace any financial transactions or accounts linked to a proscribed organization, or verify the recovered receipts through a handwriting expert. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt and ordering his acquittal. The key principle laid down is that the prosecution must prove its case through unimpeachable evidence, and any single material infirmity or reasonable doubt must be resolved entirely in favor of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution must establish the affiliation of an accused with a proscribed organization through concrete and unimpeachable evidence?
  • Does the failure to send recovered receipt books to a handwriting expert create a fatal doubt in a case involving terrorism financing?
  • Whether an accused is entitled to an acquittal when the prosecution fails to prove the essential ingredients of fund collection and transmission to a banned entity beyond a reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Ullah and others vs Dilawar Hussain and others2022 SCMR 1647 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-01
  inheritancelimited estatecustomary lawShariat lawco-sharerlimitationrevenue recordmutation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns the inheritance of agricultural land originally owned by Imam Din, who died in 1922. The property was held as a limited estate by his widow and subsequently his daughter, Mst. Noor Bibi, under prevailing customary law. Upon Mst. Noor Bibi’s marriage in 1944/45, her limited interest terminated. The core legal question was whether the property reverted to the legal heirs of the last full owner upon such termination and whether the law of limitation barred the suit for declaration filed by the heirs of the last full owner’s brothers. The Court held that upon the termination of a limited interest, succession opens in favor of the heirs of the last full owner as if Shariat law applied at the time of his death. The Court affirmed that inheritance rights vest by operation of law, and mutation entries are merely for fiscal purposes, not title. Furthermore, the Court established that the law of limitation does not run against co-sharers in possession of joint property, and mere delay in updating revenue records does not extinguish vested inheritance rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the law of limitation run against a co-sharer in possession of joint property?
  • Does the termination of a limited interest held by a Muslim female under customary law trigger the opening of succession for the heirs of the last full owner?
  • Is the attestation of a mutation of inheritance a document of title or merely for fiscal purposes?
  • Can a suit for declaration be maintained by legal heirs to correct revenue records after the termination of a limited estate?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs State and 3 othersPLJ 2022 Cr.C. 1137 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-28
  breach of peacedispute concerning landactual physical possessionquashing of proceedingsjurisdictional requirements
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner approached the Lahore High Court through a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the concurrent orders of the lower courts whereby proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were initiated and the disputed property was ordered to be sealed. The core legal question was whether the mandatory jurisdictional requirement of an apprehension of a breach of the peace existed to warrant proceedings under Section 145. The High Court held that the existence of an apprehension of a breach of the peace is a sine qua non for invoking Section 145, which must coexist with a land dispute, and that mere existence of a property dispute without imminent threat to peace does not justify such proceedings, especially when parties are already litigating before a civil forum. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside, establishing the principle that a Magistrate lacks jurisdiction under Section 145 in the absence of a verified and imminent apprehension of a breach of the peace.

  Questions settled

  • Is the apprehension of a breach of the peace a mandatory jurisdictional requirement for initiating proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a Magistrate exercise jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based solely on the existence of an immovable property dispute without any threat to public peace?
  • Does the pendency of civil litigation between the parties affect the maintainability of proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs Inspector General of Police, Islamabad and another2022 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 55 · Federal Service Tribunal · 2021-12-23
  misconductanonymous video clipdisciplinary proceedingssummary procedureforensic reportillegal gratificationpolice service
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed before the Federal Service Tribunal against the dismissal of the appellant from service for alleged misconduct involving taking illegal gratification, which was based on an anonymous WhatsApp video clip received by the DIG (Operation). The core legal question was whether an anonymous video clip could be used as sole evidence in a summary disciplinary proceeding without a regular inquiry or forensic verification. The Tribunal held that disciplinary proceedings initiated on an anonymous video without a formal complaint, forensic report, or regular inquiry violate principles of natural justice and cannot form the legal basis for a major penalty. The Tribunal laid down that audio and video evidence utilized in proceedings must comply with the admissibility requirements and forensic verification guidelines established by the superior courts, and that an authority cannot act as both complainant and judge in the same matter. Consequently, the impugned dismissal orders were set aside, the appellant was reinstated, and a de novo inquiry was ordered.

  Questions settled

  • Can an anonymous video clip be used as the sole basis for imposing a major penalty in disciplinary proceedings without a forensic report?
  • Whether disciplinary proceedings are vitiated when the authority initiating the action also acts as the complainant and judge?
  • Is a regular departmental inquiry mandatory when the authenticity of digital evidence like a video clip is unverified?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for the admissibility and proof of audio or video evidence in legal and departmental proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Shahzad vs The State2022 SCP 68, 2022 SCMR 905, 2022 PSC (Crl.) 766 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-03-14
  NarcoticsDrug traffickingControl of Narcotic Substances ActConvictionSentenceRecovery of narcoticsSafe custody of evidencePolice testimonyPresumption of guiltLesser penalty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition against the conviction and life imprisonment sentence of the petitioner under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, for possessing 10 kg of charas and 5 kg of opium. The core legal questions addressed were whether the non-association of public witnesses, alleged flaws in the safe custody and transmission of narcotics, and the non-production of the 'gatoo' (sack) from which the narcotics were recovered, undermined the prosecution's case. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the conviction and sentence. The Court held that police testimony is reliable unless animus is proven, and public reluctance to witness is a judicially recognized fact. It further clarified that the Control of Narcotic Substances (Government Analysts) Rules, 2001, are directory, not mandatory, and minor lapses do not automatically discard a prosecution case if salient features are proven. Non-production of a common carrying item like a 'gatoo' does not invalidate recovery, especially for large quantities, and Section 29 of the Act presumes guilt unless the contrary is proven.

  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Shabbir, etc vs SHO, etc2022 LHC 1544 · Lahore High Court · 2022-01-18Read full judgment →
• Faisal Saghir Sudozai vs Azad Government of The State of Jammu And Kashmir through Chief Secretary, Aj&K, Muzaffarabad and 4 others2022 PLJ AJ&K 42 · High Court of Azad Jammu and KashmirRead full judgment →
• Faisal Rasheed vs Sindh Employees Social Security Institution2022 SHC 252 · Sindh High Court · 2022-06-03
  public sector appointmentbackdoor appointmentdegree verificationservice regularizationconstitutional jurisdictionright to enter professionnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant constitutional petitions challenge office orders issued by the Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution (SESSI) dispensing with the services of the petitioners on the grounds of lack of academic qualifications, failure to fulfill codal formalities such as public advertisement, tests, and interviews, and failure to provide verified educational testimonials. The core legal question revolves around whether public sector appointments made without adherence to recruitment rules, public advertisement, and proper verification of credentials can be sustained, and whether termination without regular inquiry violates principles of natural justice. The Sindh High Court held that appointments in public institutions must strictly follow recruitment rules, open competitive processes, and public notice under Articles 18 and 199 of the Constitution, and that eligibility cannot be relaxed. However, noting that disputed questions of fact regarding initial appointments and degree verifications are involved, the court disposed of the petitions by directing the competent authority of SESSI to scrutinize the eligibility of each petitioner based on verified credentials and reports of the Nazir, ensuring a meaningful hearing and a speaking order while keeping the impugned dismissal orders in abeyance in the interim.

  Questions settled

  • Whether public sector appointments made without public notice and open competitive process violate the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Can an ad-hoc or temporary appointment in a public institution be automatically regularized without fulfilling the prescribed recruitment rules and qualifications?
  • Whether disputed questions of fact regarding initial appointments and academic qualifications can be adjudicated under the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the termination of public employees without adhering to mandatory statutory inquiry procedures warrant setting aside the dismissal orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Manzoor vs Ghulam Hussain and 03 others2022 PSC (Crl.) 714 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-12-14
  quashment of FIRinvestigationinherent powerscriminal procedurecognizable offencedisputed questions of factAzad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the High Court's order quashing an FIR concerning a land sale dispute. The core legal question is whether the High Court possesses the jurisdiction to quash an FIR during the pendency of a police investigation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in law by interfering with the investigation process. The Court reaffirmed that the police have the exclusive statutory duty to investigate cognizable offences, and the judiciary should not usurp this function. The High Court cannot resolve disputed questions of fact or prematurely terminate criminal proceedings at the initial investigation stage. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. Instead, the accused must exhaust alternative remedies, such as seeking acquittal under Section 249-A or 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the investigation concludes. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside, allowing the investigation to proceed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash an FIR during the pendency of a police investigation?
  • Does the High Court have the jurisdiction to resolve disputed questions of fact while exercising its constitutional or inherent powers?
  • Is the High Court permitted to assume the role of an investigating agency by interfering with the police's statutory duty to investigate?
  • What are the available remedies for an accused person to challenge criminal proceedings after the investigation is completed?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Khan vs The State2022 YLR 1341 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-22
  hostile witnesscross-examinationimpeachment of creditcriminal trialprosecution evidenceright of defenseQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition challenged a trial court order permitting the prosecution to re-summon a witness and declare him hostile after the defense had already completed cross-examination. The core legal question was whether the prosecution can seek to declare a witness hostile and impeach their credibility based on concessions made during cross-examination by the defense. The Peshawar High Court held that the prosecution cannot declare a witness hostile after the defense has concluded cross-examination. The Court clarified that the concept of a hostile witness is strictly applicable to statements made during examination-in-chief. If a witness provides testimony favorable to the defense during cross-examination, the benefit of that doubt accrues to the accused, and the prosecution cannot circumvent this by seeking to cross-examine its own witness later. The Court established that allowing such a practice would defeat the purpose of the right to cross-examination and negate the principles of evidence law. Consequently, the trial court's order was set aside, and the petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the prosecution declare a witness hostile after the defense has completed cross-examination?
  • At what stage of a criminal trial can a witness be declared hostile by the prosecution?
  • Does a witness's statement during cross-examination favorable to the accused justify the prosecution in seeking to impeach that witness?
  • Is the prosecution entitled to re-summon a witness to impeach their credibility regarding statements made during defense cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahmeed Akhtar vs Mst. Zainab Firdous2022 SHC 196 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-13Read full judgment →
• Fahmeed Akhtar vs 1st Additional District Judge, Sanghar and others2022 MLD 1728 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-13Read full judgment →
• Faheem Son Of Jameel Ahmed, By Caste Qaimkhani, Resident Of Hathungo, Taluka Khipro, District Sanghar vs The State2022 F.S.C 43 · Federal Shariat CourtRead full judgment →
• Faheem alias Bara vs The State and another2022 MLD 1298 · Sindh High Court · 2021-03-03
  rule of consistencyunlicensed weaponbenefit of the doubtrecovery memocriminal appealillegal dispossessionappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, for possession of an unlicensed weapon. The core legal questions involve the application of the rule of consistency when a co-accused tried on the same set of evidence has been acquitted by another court, and whether discrepancies in the description of the recovered weapon vitiate the conviction. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and acquitting the appellant. The Court held that once the prosecution evidence has been disbelieved regarding a co-accused in the same incident, the same evidence cannot be relied upon to convict another co-accused without independent, unimpeachable corroboration. Furthermore, the failure to record distinctive engravings on the recovered weapon in the arrest and recovery memo renders the recovery doubtful, entitling the accused to the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when a co-accused facing the same allegations is acquitted by a court on the same set of evidence?
  • Is a conviction sustainable when the prosecution fails to note distinctive serial numbers or inscriptions on a recovered weapon in the recovery memo?
  • Can prosecution evidence disbelieved against one accused be utilized to convict another co-accused without independent corroboration?
  Read full judgment →
• Fahad vs The State2022 P Cr. L J 279 · Sindh High Court · 2020-09-02
  control of narcotic substancessafe custody of narcoticschemical examiner reportcomplainant as investigating officerbenefit of doubtcriminal appealrecovery witnesscontradictions in evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under Section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment with a fine. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the recovery of narcotics, the failure to associate independent witnesses from a populated area, the absence of proof regarding safe custody and safe transit of the recovered substance during a six-day delay before chemical analysis, and the propriety of the complainant acting as the investigating officer. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to material contradictions in witness testimonies, lack of safe custody evidence, and procedural flaws. Consequently, the court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant by extending the benefit of the doubt. The key principles laid down are that failure to prove safe custody of a narcotic substance vitiates the chemical examiner's report, that a complainant should not investigate their own case to ensure fairness, and that a single reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexplained delay in sending a recovered narcotic substance to the Chemical Examiner without proof of safe custody vitiate the prosecution case?
  • Is it legally appropriate for the complainant of a criminal case to also act as its Investigating Officer?
  • What is the legal effect on a recovery when police fail to associate independent private witnesses from a populated area in violation of criminal procedure?
  • Does the presence of material contradictions between the testimony of the complainant and the recovery mashir render the prosecution evidence unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Executive Engineer FATA Constitution Division TESCO, Peshawar and others2022 PHC 404 · Peshawar High Court
  regularization of servicepermanent workmanwork-charged employeecontinuous cause of actionlabour lawgrievance petitionindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  This labour appeal challenged a Labour Court order that allowed a grievance petition seeking regularization of service for a work-charged employee. The core legal question was whether a long-serving work-charged employee, who performed duties of a permanent nature without breaks, acquired the status of a permanent workman and was entitled to regularization, despite the employer's contention regarding the nature of the appointment and limitation. The Court held that the respondent, having served continuously since 1993 without breaks and having received benefits akin to regular employees, attained the status of a permanent workman under the relevant labour laws. The Court further held that the claim for regularization constitutes a continuous cause of action, thereby rejecting the plea of limitation. The key principle laid down is that the nature of the work performed, rather than the nomenclature of the appointment, determines the status of a workman, and that discriminatory treatment in regularization for similarly placed employees violates constitutional guarantees of equality and fair treatment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a work-charged employee who serves continuously for a long period without breaks attain the status of a permanent workman?
  • Is a claim for regularization of service considered a continuous cause of action for the purpose of limitation?
  • Does the nature of the work performed determine whether a workman is permanent or temporary?
  • Can an employer discriminate in the matter of regularization among similarly placed employees?
  Read full judgment →
• Excellent Security Limited through Director vs Federation of Pakistan2022 CLC 2133 · Sindh High Court · 2021-12-24Read full judgment →
• Ever Shine Constructors vs Khairpur Special Economic Zone2022 SHC 220 · Sindh High Court · 2022-05-23Read full judgment →
• Essa Khan vs Mst. Lal Begum2022 MLD 968 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-12-01Read full judgment →
• Engro Foods Ltd. through General Manager vs Registrar of Trade Union2022 PLJ Karachi 106 · Sindh High Court
  trans-provincial establishmenttrade union registrationcollective bargaining agentjurisdictional defectindustrial relationsconstitutional jurisdictionprovincial vs federal jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the registration of a trade union under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 (SIRA) by the Registrar of Trade Unions, arguing that the petitioner was a trans-provincial establishment subject exclusively to the federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012 (IRA). The core legal question was whether the provincial Registrar possessed the jurisdiction to register a trade union for an establishment operating across multiple provinces, and whether such registration remained valid following the employer's recognition under federal law. The Court held that the question of whether an establishment is trans-provincial is a jurisdictional fact. Upon evidence that the petitioner was registered as a trans-provincial establishment under the federal IRA, the Court ruled that the federal law overrides the provincial SIRA by virtue of Article 143 of the Constitution. Consequently, the registration of the trade union under the SIRA was superseded, and pending proceedings for the determination of a Collective Bargaining Agent under the SIRA were declared to have abated. The key principle established is that provincial industrial relations laws cannot regulate trade unions within trans-provincial establishments.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of a trade union under provincial law remain valid if the employer is subsequently established as a trans-provincial entity governed by federal law?
  • Can an employer challenge the registration of a trade union in constitutional jurisdiction if the challenge is based on a jurisdictional defect?
  • Are workers employed through a labour contractor considered employees of the establishment for the purpose of trade union formation?
  • Does the federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012 override the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 regarding trade unions in trans-provincial establishments?
  Read full judgment →
• Engro Foods Ltd vs Registrar of Trade Union & others2022 SHC 354, 2022 PLJ 106, 2024 PLC 11 · Sindh High Court · 2022-08-18
  trans-provincial establishmenttrade union registrationindustrial relationsconstitutional jurisdictioncollective bargaining agentlegislative competenceprovincial vs federal law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the registration of a trade union under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 by the Petitioner, Engro Foods Limited, which contended it was a trans-provincial establishment subject to Federal law. The core legal question was whether a trade union registered under provincial law remains valid when the employer is a trans-provincial establishment governed by the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court held that the petition was maintainable and that the Petitioner’s status as a trans-provincial establishment was established by its registration under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. Consequently, the Court ruled that the registration of the trade union under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 was overridden by the Federal Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The key principle laid down is that trans-provincial establishments are governed exclusively by Federal law, and provincial industrial relations legislation is overridden by Federal law pursuant to Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Accordingly, the registration certificate issued under the provincial law lost its legal effect, and pending proceedings for determining a Collective Bargaining Agent under the provincial law were ordered to abate.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of a trade union under provincial law remain valid if the employer is subsequently determined to be a trans-provincial establishment subject to federal law?
  • Are workers employed through a contractor considered employees of the establishment for the purposes of trade union formation under the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to scrutinize the registration of a trade union in constitutional jurisdiction if jurisdictional defects are alleged?
  • Does federal industrial relations legislation override provincial industrial relations legislation in the case of trans-provincial establishments?
  Read full judgment →
• Engineer Nasir Shafqat Marri vs Pakistan Engineering Council Election Cell, Islamabad and others2022 SCMR 1920 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-09-02
  Pakistan Engineering CouncilGovernment Servants (Conduct) Ruleslegislative bodystatutory professional bodyex-officio memberselection contestleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the participation of certain Government servants in the elections to the governing body of the Pakistan Engineering Council, arguing it violated Rule 24(3) of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964, because the Council is a legislative body. The core legal question was whether the Pakistan Engineering Council qualifies as a legislative body under the Conduct Rules, thereby barring Government servants from contesting its elections. The Supreme Court held that the Pakistan Engineering Council is a statutory professional body rather than a political legislative body, and its power to frame regulations and bye-laws constitutes a supervisory and professional function rather than a political law-making function. Furthermore, the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976 itself contemplates Government servants serving as ex-officio members of the Council. The petition was accordingly dismissed and leave to appeal refused. The key principle laid down is that professional and regulatory statutory bodies empowered to frame subordinate regulations do not constitute legislative bodies for the purposes of political and electoral restrictions on Government servants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Pakistan Engineering Council is a legislative body within the meaning of Rule 24(3) of the Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964?
  • Are Government servants barred from contesting elections to the governing body of the Pakistan Engineering Council?
  • What is the nature of the rule-making and regulatory functions performed by the Pakistan Engineering Council under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976?
  Read full judgment →
• Engineer Mazhar Hussain and 10 others vs Provincial Government through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan and 3 others2022 YLR 447 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2020-06-11Read full judgment →
• Engineer Bismillah Kakar vs Federation of Pakistan, through Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production and 3 others2022 PLC 141 · Lahore High Court · 2021-12-15
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitytransfer orderNational Industrial Relations Act 2012workman vs employeralternate remedyunfair labour practiceservice grievance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a transfer order issued by the Pakistan Industrial Technical Assistance Centre (PITAC) against the petitioner, an engineer, from Lahore to Quetta. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise constitutional jurisdiction to set aside a transfer order when the petitioner’s service terms were non-statutory and there were disputed questions of fact regarding his status as a 'workman' or 'employer' under the National Industrial Relations Act, 2012. The Court held the petition not maintainable, declining to adjudicate the disputed status of the petitioner or the alleged violation of Section 17 of the Act. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 is not available where there are disputed questions of fact requiring evidence or where an alternate efficacious remedy exists. Specifically, if the petitioner is a workman, the National Industrial Relations Commission provides a statutory forum for grievances regarding unfair labor practices under Section 33 of the Act, and if the petitioner is an employer, the protections of Section 17 are inapplicable.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a transfer order when the petitioner's terms and conditions of service are non-statutory?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to determine disputed questions of fact regarding whether an employee falls within the definition of 'workman' or 'employer' under the National Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
  • Where a special law provides a specific remedy for unfair labor practices, can a litigant bypass that forum to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Employers Federation of Pakistan & others vs Government of Sindh &2022 KLR Labour & Services Cases 88 · Sindh High Court
  minimum wagesSindh Minimum Wages Act 2015Minimum Wages Boardlabour welfarecost of livingconstitutional fundamental rightsindustrial establishments
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a notification issued by the Government of Sindh under the Sindh Minimum Wages Act, 2015, which increased the minimum monthly wage for unskilled adult and juvenile workers from Rs. 17,500 to Rs. 25,000, superseding the Sindh Minimum Wages Board's recommendation of Rs. 19,000. The core legal questions involved whether the Provincial Government was bound by the Board's recommendations or possessed the independent authority to fix higher minimum wages, and whether the notification was legally sustainable. The Sindh High Court held that the recommendations of the Minimum Wages Board are advisory in nature and that the Provincial Government holds ultimate statutory competence and responsibility under Section 6 of the Act to determine, modify, and notify minimum wage rates. The Court ruled that the Government acted within its lawful authority in setting the higher wage rate in response to prevailing inflation and socioeconomic welfare considerations, while also directing that the matter be referred back to the Board under Section 6(5) to address any employer grievances regarding equity. The key principles established include the discretionary and advisory role of the Minimum Wages Board vis-à-vis the overriding executive authority of the Government, and the supremacy of constitutional guarantees of a dignified livelihood over mere procedural technicalities in labour welfare legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recommendations made by the Minimum Wages Board under the Sindh Minimum Wages Act, 2015 are binding upon the Provincial Government?
  • Does the Provincial Government possess the legal competence under the Sindh Minimum Wages Act, 2015 to fix a minimum wage rate higher than that recommended by the Minimum Wages Board?
  • Can a notification fixing minimum wages be challenged in constitutional writ jurisdiction on the ground of policy disagreement or departure from board recommendations?
  • Whether the determination of minimum wages under the Sindh Minimum Wages Act, 2015 constitutes a legislative or an adjudicative function?
  Read full judgment →
• Election Commission Of Pakistan through Secretary and others vs Appellate Authority, District Judge, Rawalpindi and 2 others2022 CLC 701 · Lahore High Court · 2021-08-23Read full judgment →
• Election Commission of Pakistan through District Election Commissioner, Quetta vs Munir Ahmed Khan Kakar and others2022 PCRLJ 913 · Balochistan High Court · 2019-12-13
  electoral offencesSessions Court proceduredismissal of complaintnon-appearance of complainantcriminal trial procedureElections Act 2017
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of criminal acquittal appeals filed by the Election Commission of Pakistan against orders passed by the Additional District Judge-V, Quetta, which dismissed complaints filed under Section 134 of the Elections Act, 2017 due to the non-appearance of the complainant. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Court, when conducting a trial under the Elections Act, 2017, possesses the authority to dismiss a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant, similar to the power granted to Magistrates under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaints. The ratio is that the legislature did not grant Sessions Courts the power to dismiss complaints for non-appearance under the procedural framework applicable to them. The Court affirmed that Sessions Courts must follow the procedure laid down in Chapter XXII-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which does not contain a provision equivalent to Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, the impugned dismissal orders were set aside, and the cases were remanded for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Sessions Court have the power to dismiss a complaint for non-appearance of the complainant in a trial under the Elections Act, 2017?
  • Is the power of a Magistrate to dismiss a complaint for non-appearance under Section 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applicable to trials conducted by a Sessions Court?
  • What is the correct procedure for a Sessions Court to follow when a complainant fails to appear in a case initiated under the Elections Act, 2017?
  Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Rasheed vs Azad Jammu And Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau through Chairman, Muzaffarabad and 2 others2022 MLD 1254 · High Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Iqbal vs Additional District Judge and others2022 CLC 947 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-23Read full judgment →
• Ejaz alias Jajji and others, Faiz Ahmed vs The State etc, Muhammad2022 LHC 2078 · Lahore High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmed vs Abdul Hameed2022 YLR 2354 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-01Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmed and another vs Deputy Inspector General Of Police, Operation2022 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 39 · Federal Service Tribunal
  civil servantpolice servicereinstatementdepartmental appeallocus poenitentiaeestoppel
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves appeals filed by two police officials challenging an order withdrawing their earlier reinstatement into service. The core legal questions relate to the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal over ICT police employees and whether an appellate authority can rescind a final departmental order of reinstatement under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975. The Federal Service Tribunal held that ICT police personnel fall within the definition of civil servants, making the Tribunal competent to adjudicate. On the merits, the Tribunal ruled that once an appellate authority passes a final order of reinstatement under Rule 14, it cannot subsequently withdraw or cancel that order, as the rules do not provide for review or reconsideration by the same authority, and the department is barred by the principle of locus poenitentiae and estoppel after legal rights have accrued. The appeals were accordingly allowed and the impugned withdrawal order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate service matters of Islamabad Capital Territory Police employees?
  • Can an appellate authority withdraw or cancel a final order of reinstatement passed under the Punjab Police (E&D) Rules, 1975?
  • Whether the principle of locus poenitentiae prevents a department from revoking a reinstatement order after it has taken legal effect?
  Read full judgment →
• Eid Muhammad vs The State2022 MLD 630 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-07-27
  illegal dispossessionproperty grabberscivil disputeland mafiacriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. The core legal question was whether the provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to civil property disputes or ordinary persons who are not members of a land mafia or property grabbers. The Balochistan High Court held that the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was specifically promulgated to curb the activities of property grabbers, land mafia, and Qabza groups, and does not apply to civil disputes between parties where the accused is not shown to be a land grabber or where a pre-existing civil dispute or long-standing possession is evident. The court laid down the principle that disputes of a civil nature, or cases where the accused does not belong to a land-grabbing group, fall outside the scope of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and consequently set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 apply to ordinary property disputes of a civil nature between private parties?
  • Can a person who is not proven to be a member of a land mafia or Qabza group be convicted under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  • What is the primary object and purpose of the promulgation of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehtisham Basharat vs D.I.G., etc2022 LHC 4863 · Lahore High Court · 2022-04-14Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah, etc vs The Federation of Pakistan, etc2022 LHC 5600 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-11Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah vs The State2022 YLR 503 · Lahore High Court · 2021-06-03
  murderdeath sentencelast seen evidenceWajtakkar evidencepointation recoverymedical jurisprudencebenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant, Ehsan Ullah, under sections 302(b), 364, and 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence and terms of imprisonment for the murder, kidnapping, and concealment of evidence regarding the deceased Bilal Yasin. The core legal questions before the Lahore High Court involved the reliability and corroboration of last-seen evidence, Wajtakkar evidence, the evidentiary value of pointation recoveries from open and accessible places, the consistency of medical evidence with the ocular account regarding the state of decomposition, and the standard of proof required in criminal trials. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, finding the last-seen and Wajtakkar witnesses untrustworthy, the recoveries from open spaces uncorroborated, and the medical testimony regarding skeletonization inconsistent with established medical jurisprudence. The Lahore High Court laid down the principle that weak ocular and circumstantial evidence cannot sustain a conviction, and any single circumstance creating reasonable doubt in a prudent mind must be resolved in favor of the accused as a matter of right. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and death sentence were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether last-seen evidence requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction for murder?
  • Is the recovery of a dead body or incriminating articles from an open and accessible place sufficient to connect an accused with the crime without independent corroboration?
  • Does an expert medical opinion regarding the time of death and putrefaction processes that contradicts established medical jurisprudence remain worthy of reliance?
  • What is the effect on the prosecution case when ocular evidence is irreconcilably inconsistent with medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ullah Chaudhry vs The State, etc2022 LHC 7240 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-22Read full judgment →
• Ehsan Ali vs Ahmed Ali and 2 others2022 YLR 2053 · Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court · 2021-11-03
  criminal appealacquittalhostile witnessfutility of proceedingsappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The instant criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Skardu, whereby the accused respondent was acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a case arising out of FIR registered under Sections 337-A, 504, and 506(ii) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question before the court was whether the acquittal of the respondent under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. was justified when prosecution witnesses failed to support the case and alleged eye-witnesses resiled from their previous statements. The court held that the trial court's judgment was well-reasoned, based on a correct appreciation of material on record, and that further proceedings would be a futile exercise. The court laid down the principle that where prosecution evidence fails to substantiate the charges and witnesses turn hostile, an order of acquittal under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. is sustainable and warrants no interference by the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable when prosecution witnesses fail to support the case?
  • Can an appellate court interfere with an order of acquittal if no material irregularity or illegality is pointed out?
  • Whether further proceedings remain a futile exercise when eye-witnesses resile from their previous statements?
  Read full judgment →
• Efu Life Insurance Limited through Chief Manager vs Labour Appellate2022 PLC 162 · Lahore High Court · 2021-11-23
  group insuranceworkmen's compensationjurisdiction of commissionerlabour appellate tribunalwrit petitionactive employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenges the orders passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, whereby the petitioner insurance company was directed to pay group insurance benefits to the widow of a deceased employee. The core legal questions involved whether the Commissioner had jurisdiction over the insurance company and whether the deceased employee was covered under the insurance policy at the time of his death. The Lahore High Court held that the Commissioner possessed the requisite jurisdiction to decide the compensation claim and that the petitioner failed to substantiate its claim of non-employment through evidence, having omitted to cross-examine the employer's witness and failing to discharge the burden of proof. The Court laid down the principle that claims regarding workmen's compensation fall within the domain of the Commissioner, while the tribunal under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000 is intended for policyholders, and concurrent factual findings based on unchallenged evidence cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 has jurisdiction to adjudicate a claim against an insurance company regarding group insurance?
  • Can an insurance company challenge the jurisdiction of the Commissioner for the first time when it failed to raise such an objection in its written reply before the Commissioner?
  • Whether a policyholder alone is entitled to approach the tribunal created under the Insurance Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does the failure to cross-examine a material witness on crucial facts render the opposing party's case binding regarding those facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Efu General Insurance Limited vs Zhongxing Telecom Pakistan (Private)2022 CLD 1486 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2021-06-08
  demand guaranteeadvance payment guaranteestrict complianceautonomous contractperformance bondencashment of guarantee
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a civil suit for the recovery of money under an advance payment guarantee issued by the petitioner insurance company on behalf of a sub-contractor in favour of respondent No. 1. The trial court decreed the suit, and the High Court dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Upon granting leave, the Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal and examined the legal nature of demand guarantees and performance bonds, which operate as autonomous contracts akin to letters of credit. The core legal question concerned the standard of compliance required for a demand made under a bank guarantee or performance bond. The Court held that the correct approach in this jurisdiction is to apply the rule of strict compliance to demands made under demand guarantees, requiring the beneficiary's demand to exactly match the terms of the instrument, subject to a high threshold for establishing substantial compliance where justified. The Court concluded that the contesting respondent's purported demand letter did not comply with the terms of the guarantee, as it lacked the requisite statement of breach and was merely a request for time extension. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the suit was dismissed, laying down the principle that demand guarantees require strict compliance unless exceptional circumstances justify substantial compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a demand made under a demand guarantee or performance bond is subject to the rule of strict compliance?
  • Does a failure to strictly comply with the terms of a demand guarantee absolve the issuing bank or insurance company from liability to pay?
  • Can a letter requesting an extension of a guarantee's validity period be legally treated as a valid notice for the encashment of the guarantee?
  • What is the standard required for a party to successfully invoke substantial compliance in lieu of strict compliance under a demand guarantee?
  Read full judgment →
• Edwin Coe LLP vs Naseim Ahmed Sarfraz2022 CLC 1064 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-02-02
  cost of litigationactual costsexecution proceedingsforeign judgmentcross-objectionsabuse of processspecial costsmandatory provisions
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant impugned an order of the District and Sessions Judge granting nominal costs of Rs. 100,000 under section 35 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 during execution proceedings of a foreign judgment, while the respondent filed cross-objections challenging the execution. The Islamabad High Court examined whether the award of actual litigation costs under the Cost of Litigation Act, 2017 is mandatory, how reasonableness and proportionality of attorney fees are to be determined, and whether cross-objections are maintainable against an interlocutory order that is not a decree. The Court held that awarding actual litigation costs to the successful party is a mandatory statutory requirement under section 35(1) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, serving to indemnify the winning party and discourage frivolous litigation. Furthermore, cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 are not maintainable against non-decree orders, and persistent relitigation of settled issues constitutes an abuse of process warranting special costs. The Court set aside the impugned cost order, remanded the matter for redetermination of actual costs incurred in the execution proceedings, and imposed special costs on the respondent for filing vexatious cross-objections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the award of actual costs of litigation to a successful party under section 35(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is mandatory or discretionary?
  • Can cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be maintained against an order that does not constitute a decree?
  • What principles govern the determination of reasonableness and proportionality of attorney fees when awarding litigation costs under the Cost of Litigation Act, 2017?
  • Whether an executing court can award litigation costs incurred in proceedings before another court or at a different adjudicatory tier?
  Read full judgment →
• Eden Builders (Pvt) Limited, Lahore vs Muhammad Aslam and others2022 SCP 282, 2023 PLJ SC 55, 2022 SCMR 2044 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 2022-09-13
  territorial jurisdictionexclusive jurisdiction clausereturn of plaintcontractual disputecivil procedureforum selection
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arose from a dispute over the territorial jurisdiction of civil courts regarding a suit for the cancellation of an agreement. The petitioner sought the return of the plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing a clause in the agreement that conferred exclusive jurisdiction upon the courts in Lahore. The trial court and the High Court had previously dismissed the petitioner's application, leading to the current proceedings. The core legal question was whether a contractual clause stipulating exclusive jurisdiction in a specific forum is binding upon the parties when the court otherwise possesses territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that while parties cannot confer jurisdiction upon a court that lacks it, they may mutually select a specific court from among those that already possess territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction. Finding that the agreement was executed in Lahore and related to property matters there, the Court upheld the exclusivity clause, allowed the appeal, and directed the return of the plaint for filing in the appropriate Lahore court.

  Questions settled

  • Can parties by mutual agreement confer exclusive jurisdiction upon a court that already possesses territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction?
  • Is a clause in an agreement designating a specific court for dispute resolution binding upon the parties?
  • Under what circumstances can a plaint be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Fiaz Rasan vs Chairman NAB2022 PHC 368 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-08-16Read full judgment →
• Eaton Phoenixtec MMPL Co., Ltd vs Messrs. New Rabia Enterprises2022 SHC 530 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Durre Shehwar vs National Accountability Bureau Through Chairman2022 MLD 1835 · Peshawar High Court · 2021-12-24Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad Shah, Advocate vs Aga Khan University Hospital through Management and 6 others2022 PLD Sindh 78 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-27Read full judgment →
• Duniya Gul & another vs Niaz Muhammad and 02 others2022 PHC 542, 2024 YLR 1290 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
• Dua Fatima and another vs Home Department through Secretary Sindh2022 PLJ Karachi 97 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-20Read full judgment →
• Dr.-Raees Ahmed vs Saira Banaras and others2022 PSC 677 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-09-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Zahid Hussain Zahid vs The Executive Director, Imperial College of Business etc2022 LHC 2277, 2024 YLR 238 · Lahore High Court · 2022-03-21Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sher Wali Khan vs Govt: of KPK & others2022 PHC 478 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-22Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shahid Mahmood Bokhari vs Government Of Punjab through Chief2022 PLJ Lahore 218 · Lahore High Court
  civil servantwrit jurisdictionArticle 212suspension orderdeputationterms and conditions of serviceservice tribunalmaintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Medical Superintendent (BPS-20) serving on deputation, challenged his suspension order issued by the Secretary, Specialized Healthcare and Medical Education Department. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed jurisdiction to entertain the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, and whether the petitioner, while on deputation, ceased to be a "civil servant" subject to the bar of Article 212. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked jurisdiction as the matter pertained to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. The Court affirmed that Article 212 constitutes an absolute, non-obstante bar against the High Court’s interference in service matters, which must be adjudicated by the departmental hierarchy and the Service Tribunal. It further clarified that a civil servant on deputation does not lose their status, and that a suspension order is an administrative act rather than a penalty. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petition was not maintainable, emphasizing that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory service remedies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to entertain a petition regarding the suspension of a civil servant?
  • Does a civil servant lose their status as a 'civil servant' while serving on deputation in an autonomous body?
  • Is an order of suspension of a civil servant considered a penalty that allows for judicial intervention?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar the High Court from interfering in matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi vs The State etc.2022 LHC 1948 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-01
  post-arrest bailpetroleum quota allocationOGRA jurisdictionFIA jurisdictionfurther inquiryanti-money laundering
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from petitions seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 420, 468, 471, 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, and sections 3 and 4 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2010, relating to alleged illegalities in the allocation of petroleum import quotas, issuance of provisional licenses, and marketing of petroleum products. The core legal questions involved whether the petitioners had a direct criminal role, whether the Federal Investigation Agency possessed jurisdiction in light of the exclusive mechanism provided under the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002, and whether the case warranted further inquiry. The Lahore High Court held that the petitioners' involvement called for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the petitioners acted in an official capacity according to established rules and recommendations, that the Federal Investigation Agency lacked prima facie jurisdiction, and that the accused were no longer required for investigation. Consequently, the court admitted the petitioners to post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Investigation Agency has jurisdiction to investigate matters falling under the regulatory framework of the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority Ordinance 2002?
  • Does the allocation of petroleum import quotas by public servants on the recommendations of the Oil Companies Advisory Committee constitute an offence under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether the case of the petitioners falls within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rehana Ali Shah vs Province Of Sindh, Sindh Local Government, District2022 PLD Sindh 31 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-08Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rana Zceshan vs Government of Punjab, etc2022 LHC 4900, 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1300 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-18
  ad-hoc employeetermination of serviceprofessional misconductregular inquirynatural justicestigmawrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order recommending the termination of his services as a Medical Officer on ad-hoc basis due to alleged professional misconduct, negligence, and inefficiency, along with a consequential relieving order. The core legal question was whether an ad-hoc or contract employee could be terminated or relieved on grounds amounting to a stigma of misconduct without conducting a regular inquiry and providing an opportunity of hearing. The Lahore High Court held that when an employee's termination or adverse action is founded on allegations of misconduct carrying a stigma, it is mandatory to hold a regular inquiry affording a fair opportunity of defense, regardless of the nature of employment. The court set aside the impugned and relieving orders for being passed without lawful authority and in violation of natural justice, while permitting the competent authority to proceed against the petitioner strictly in accordance with law by holding a regular inquiry. The key principle laid down is that stigmatized termination of any employee, including ad-hoc or contract appointees, necessitates a regular inquiry and adherence to procedural fairness.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ad-hoc or contract employee can be terminated on grounds of misconduct without holding a regular inquiry?
  • Is a relieving order passed on the basis of unproven allegations of professional misconduct sustainable without affording an opportunity of hearing?
  • Does termination carrying a stigma of misconduct against a temporary or contract employee require adherence to the rules of natural justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rafiullah etc vs University of Sawabi2022 PHC 380 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-26Read full judgment →
• Dr. Raees Ahmed etc vs Saira Banaras and others2022 PLJ SC (AJ&K) 71 · Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir · 2021-09-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Noor Muhammad Shah vs Ministry of National Health Services, Regulation and Coordination and 2 others2022 PLC (C.S.) 1567 · Islamabad High Court
  civil service promotionPerformance Evaluation ReportsCentral Selection Boardadministrative lawdeferment of promotionservice matterdepartmental responsibility
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a civil servant (BS-19) in the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (D.R.A.P.), challenged a memorandum deferring his promotion to BS-20. The Central Selection Board (C.S.B.) deferred his promotion, citing the absence of valid Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) for 2017-2018 and alleging he had obtained them from irrelevant officers. The core legal question was whether the C.S.B. could lawfully defer promotion based on missing PERs when the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations and Coordination, acting on Establishment Division advice, had already issued a certificate in lieu of PERs for those years. The Court held that the deferment was irrational and arbitrary. It found that the Ministry, not the petitioner, was responsible for the completeness of the dossier. Furthermore, the C.S.B. was misled by departmental representatives who failed to disclose the existence of the validly issued certificate. The Court established that a department cannot penalize a civil servant for missing PERs when it failed to maintain them or provided an alternative certificate in accordance with official guidelines, and that such administrative failures cannot be used to deny promotion.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant's promotion be deferred due to missing Performance Evaluation Reports when the department itself failed to ensure their completion?
  • Is a certificate issued in lieu of Performance Evaluation Reports, pursuant to official advice, a valid substitute for the purposes of promotion consideration?
  • Does the responsibility for maintaining complete Performance Evaluation dossiers lie with the civil servant or the administrative department?
  • Can the Central Selection Board defer a promotion based on reasons that contradict official administrative advice previously issued by the Establishment Division?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nadeem-ur-Rehman Siddiqui vs Government of Sindh & Others2022 SHC 564 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-05Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Jehangir Akbar vs State, etc.2022 PLJ Lahore 420 · Lahore High Court · 2021-09-23Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Asif Osawala vs Mrs. Qamar-Un-Nisa Hakro through Attorney and another2022 PLD Sindh 430 · Sindh High Court · 2022-02-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Arif vs Muhammad Anwar and 3 others2022 MLD 1598 · Balochistan High Court · 2020-12-21
  acquittal appealSection 265-K Cr.P.C.miscarriage of justiceappreciation of evidencemedical board reportremand of casecriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenged an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Quetta, which acquitted the respondents under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The trial court had granted the acquittal based on a medical board report disputing the complainant's injuries, without recording evidence. The core legal question was whether the trial court correctly exercised its discretion under Section 265-K to terminate proceedings prematurely. The High Court held that the trial court erred by relying on contested medical documents without allowing the prosecution to lead evidence or cross-examine witnesses. The Court emphasized that an acquittal under Section 265-K does not carry the same sanctity as an acquittal on merits after a full trial. The principle laid down is that the power to acquit under Section 265-K should not be used to throttle the process of justice when prima facie evidence exists; rather, courts must ensure that cases are decided on merits, providing parties a fair opportunity to prove their versions through evidence, thereby preventing a miscarriage of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acquittal order passed under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 carry the same sanctity as an acquittal on merits?
  • Is it appropriate for a trial court to acquit an accused based on a disputed medical report without recording evidence?
  • What is the primary consideration for a court when deciding whether to exercise its power under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an appellate court re-appreciate evidence to set aside an acquittal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Abdullah & 10 others vs Federation of Pakistan through its2022 IHC 250 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-10-25Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mehmood Ayaz vs Government of Punjab through Secretary Health2022 LHC 3479, 2024 PLC (C.S.) 352 · Lahore High Court · 2022-05-13
  appointment of administratormerit listexecutive discretioncogent reasonsjudicial reviewtransplantation of human organsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged a notification issued by the Government of the Punjab appointing respondent No. 5 as Administrator of the Punjab Human Organs Transplantation Authority (PHOT A). The petitioner had secured the top position on the merit list prepared by the Monitoring Authority after a rigorous evaluation process, but the Chief Minister approved the appointment of respondent No. 5 instead. The core legal question was whether the Chief Minister has unbridled discretion to override the merit list and appoint a candidate lower in merit without providing cogent reasons. The Lahore High Court held that while the competent authority has the prerogative to differ with recommendations, such departure must be grounded in valid, fair, and cogent reasons subject to judicial review, and the arbitrary supersession of the top-ranking candidate is illegal. The court laid down the principle that executive discretion in appointments made upon structured evaluation must be exercised transparently and cannot be used to arbitrarily bypass candidates highest on merit without justifiable cause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Chief Minister has unbridled discretion to appoint a candidate lower on the merit list over the candidate ranked highest by a selection or monitoring authority?
  • Does the bypassing of a top-merit candidate require cogent and justifiable reasons subject to judicial review?
  • Can the High Court interfere under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 when executive discretion in public appointments is exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner?
  • Whether recommendations of a statutory monitoring authority regarding appointments must be given due weight by the competent authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mahreen Baloch vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Home2022 YLR 1602 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Khurshid Iqbal, District & Session Judge vs Federation of Pakistan2022 PLJ Peshawar 147 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Jehanzeb and others vs Govt of KPK2022 PHC 374 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-09-28Read full judgment →
• Dr. Irshad Ali Lodhi vs Province of Sindh & Ors2022 SHC 522 · Sindh High Court · 2022-11-17Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hazrat Khan vs The State and others2022 PHC 300 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-07-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hassan Shahryar vs Sana Waqar and 2 others2022 LHC 7304 · Lahore High Court · 2022-09-27Read full judgment →
• Dr. Habibur Rehman Soomro vs Federation of Pakistan and Others2022 SHC 40 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-17Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ghulam Abbas Miana vs Govt of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa etc2022 PHC 492 · Peshawar High Court · 2022-11-10Read full judgment →
• Dr. Fahad Iqbal, Dhis-Coordinator, District Health Officer Office, Mardan2022 PHC 52 · Peshawar High Court
  constitutional petitionupgradationcivil servantretrospective upgradationstagnationpromotionBPS-18
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by Management Cadre officers in the Health Department of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, seeking a declaration against alleged discriminatory treatment and praying for the upgradation of their posts to BPS.18 with retrospective effect from the date other posts were upgraded. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether civil servants can claim upgradation of their posts as a matter of right and whether such upgradation can be granted retrospectively (ante-dated). The Peshawar High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that upgradation is not a vested right or a form of promotion, but rather a policy-based measure meant to alleviate stagnation for employees stuck in a grade for a considerable period without promotion avenues. The court established that upgradation cannot be claimed as a matter of right, does not involve seniority advancement, and cannot be granted retrospectively in the absence of a statutory provision or requisite length of service.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil servant claim upgradation of a post as a matter of right?
  • Whether the benefit of upgradation can be granted retrospectively?
  • What is the legal distinction between promotion and upgradation of a post?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Amna Mahmood vs Federation Of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2022 PLC (C.S.) 223 · Islamabad High Court · 2021-07-06
  administrative lawdue processnatural justicepublic appointmentwrit petitionselection processministerial act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a scholar recommended by a Search and Selection Committee for the Pakistan Chair at Jordan University, challenged the respondents' failure to issue a posting order following the Prime Minister's approval of her appointment. The respondents subsequently sought to re-advertise the position, citing generalized concerns regarding the qualifications of some candidates in the original selection process. The core legal question was whether the authorities could unilaterally nullify a selection process approved by the Prime Minister without providing specific reasons or due process to the affected candidate. The Court held that the respondents could not arbitrarily discard the petitioner's selection based on vague, generalized allegations of disqualification. The Court emphasized that if the petitioner was deemed unqualified, she was entitled to a hearing and a reasoned decision. The ratio established that government authorities cannot reverse prior approvals or penalize candidates for departmental irregularities without due process, and that the principles of natural justice require that a candidate be given an opportunity to defend their credentials before their selection is set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a government department unilaterally nullify a selection process approved by the Prime Minister based on generalized and ambiguous allegations of disqualification?
  • Is a candidate entitled to a hearing and a reasoned order before their selection is set aside on grounds of lacking required qualifications?
  • Does a candidate suffer prejudice when a department reverses its own prior approval without providing specific reasons for the reversal?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Amjad Ali vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, through Chief2022 PHC 188 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Amir Bux Channa & another vs Isra Islamic Foundation (Guarantee) Ltd.2022 SHC 548 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Akbar Anjum vs Bahauddin Zakariya University etc2022 LHC 824, 2024 MLD 1410 · Lahore High Court · 2022-02-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdus Saboor vs Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health and others2022 PHC 44 · Peshawar High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Qadir A. Akhund vs M/s. Hermain Travels (Pvt.) Ltd2022 SHC 100 · Sindh High Court · 2022-03-16Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Qadir A. Akhund vs M/s. Hermain Travels (Pvt.) Ltd, and another2022 KLR Civil Cases 236 · Sindh High Court · 2022-04-01Read full judgment →
• Dr. Abdul Karim Channa vs Federation of Pakistan2022 SHC 44 · Sindh High Court · 2022-01-31
  pensionary benefitsretainership serviceregularization of servicequalifying serviceconstitutional petitionCivil Aviation Authorityservice regulations
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a former Medical Officer with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), filed a constitutional petition seeking the inclusion of his prior retainership-based service period towards his total qualifying service for pensionary benefits. The core legal question was whether service rendered on a contractual or retainership basis, which was subsequently regularized, qualifies for pension calculation. The Court held that the petition was maintainable, noting that constitutional jurisdiction can be invoked against a public authority like the CAA even regarding non-statutory service regulations. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that temporary or contractual service followed by regularization must be counted towards pensionary benefits. It established that while pension eligibility requires meeting a minimum qualifying service threshold, the period of prior contractual service is to be included in calculating the quantum of pension once that threshold is met. Consequently, the Court directed the respondents to include the petitioner's entire period of service, from his initial appointment, for the purpose of settling his pensionary dues within sixty days.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against the Civil Aviation Authority regarding non-statutory service regulations?
  • Can service rendered on a retainership or contractual basis be counted towards qualifying service for pensionary benefits upon regularization?
  • Does the period of contractual service count towards the calculation of pension quantum if the employee has met the minimum qualifying service threshold?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr Shireen Mehrunnisa Mazari vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice & 11 others2022 IHC 236 · Islamabad High Court · 2022-09-23Read full judgment →