Summary: Background: The case involves an appeal by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) and a reply from Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) concerning the political affiliation of returned candidates (MNAs and MPAs) following the Supreme Court's Short Order dated 12.07.2024. The ECP filed CMA 7540/2024 seeking guidance on confirming the political affiliation of these candidates, particularly in light of an organizational vacuum within PTI. PTI responded with CMA 8139/2024, providing documentation and correspondence identifying Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Mr. Omar Ayub Khan as PTI's Chairman and Secretary General, respectively, who had certified the returned candidates. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the Election Commission can seek further guidance from the Court on confirming political affiliations despite having acknowledged PTI's leadership. ---2) Whether the ECP's actions and refusal to process certifications issued by PTI’s leadership are constitutionally and legally valid. ---3) Whether the returned candidates (MNAs and MPAs) should be recognized as representatives of PTI based on the certifications issued by Barrister Gohar Ali Khan and Mr. Omar Ayub Khan. --- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court, in addressing the Election Commission's application for guidance, emphasized that the lack of an election symbol or organizational vacuum within a political party, such as PTI, does not affect its constitutional right to participate in elections and field candidates. The Court reiterated that PTI is recognized as a political party that secured general seats in the 2024 elections, as per the Short Order dated 12.07.2024. The Court found that PTI had submitted the required certifications, issued by Barrister Gohar Ali Khan (Chairman) and Mr. Omar Ayub Khan (Secretary General), confirming the political affiliation of the returned candidates. These certifications, dated 18.07.2024, 24.07.2024, and 25.07.2024, were valid and sufficient to fulfill the requirements of the Short Order. The Court noted that the ECP's application was a "contrived device" and a dilatory tactic aimed at obstructing the implementation of the Court's decision. The Court stated that the ECP cannot "approbate and reprobate" by recognizing PTI's leadership in some instances while seeking clarification in others. The Court also cited the de facto doctrine, which protects the acts of a person who holds office, even if there are questions about their de jure status. The Court found that the certifications submitted by PTI were valid, and the returned candidates were correctly deemed to be representatives of PTI as of the dates of their respective declarations. The Court strongly criticized the ECP's attempt to cloud a matter that was "absolutely clear" as per the Constitution and the law. The Court directed the ECP to discharge its obligation of issuing the list of returned candidates, as required under the Short Order, without further delay. ---Citations/Precedents: The Court's decision relied on its previous Short Order dated 12.07.2024, specifically the interpretations of Articles 51 and 106 of the Constitution.

Summary: (a) Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act (XII of 2011)--- ----Ss. 57 & 59(7)---Original order, assailing of---Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), filing of---Statutory period to pass first Appellate Order, non-observance of---Effect---Such pending Appeal to be transferred to the Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board---Scope---Record revealed that appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) within time which was disposed of after 1,918 (one thousand, nine hundred and eighteen) days of expiry of statutory period i.e. 120 days---Commissioner (Appeals) failed to provide any substantial justification for passing "the first Appellate Order" after the statutory deadline---In the absence of evidence or valid reasoning for such delay, it could not be attributed to the appellant---Section 59 (7) of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 (‘the Act, 2011 ‘ ) mandates that the Commissioner (Appeals) must transfer any undecided appeal to the Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board (‘Tribunal’) if it is not resolved within the statutory period---There is no documentation explaining why the Commissioner (Appeals) continued the proceedings beyond said period---Department mentioned that there was a significant backlog of appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and it was practically impossible to resolve them within the statutory timeframe, however, such arguments lacked legal validity, as the law already provides a remedy for such situation by requiring the transfer of undecided appeals to the Tribunal---The word "as" used in S. 59(7) of the Act 2011 creates a deeming effect, indicating that if an undecided appeal is transferred the Appellate Tribunal, it is considered as if it was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)---After the expiration of the statutory period, the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) effectively becomes coram non judice, meaning it had no authority to continue legal proceedings; which implies that any actions taken beyond the said period lack legal standing, reinforcing necessity for adherence to established timelines in the appellate process---Therefore, in accordance with the fundamental principle of providing legal protection to the appellant, it is deemed appropriate to declare all proceedings initiated by the Commissioner (Appeals) beyond the expiry of the statutory period as "null" and "void", including "the first Appellate Order"---Consequently, instant appeal will be treated as if it has been transferred to this Tribunal under S. 59 (7) of the Act 2011; relevant issue was answered accordingly---Since regarding matter-in-hand (Workers Welfare Fund/WWF) the decision of the Council of Common Interest that WWF would remain with FBR was in field, the assessing officer was not justified in levying WWF upon Appellant ; hence; relevant point was answered in negative i.e. in favour of Appellant and against the Department---Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board set-aside the impugned Original Order---Appeal was allowed. (b) Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act (XII of 2011)--- ----S. 59(7)---Original order, assailing of---Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), filing of---Passing of first Appellate Order beyond statutory period---Effect---Original order---Legality---Appellant prayed for setting-aside "the first Appellate Order" as the same was void---Validity---In case "the first Appellate Order" be declared void then "the Original Order", passed against the appellant, would come in filed and the appellant would gain nothing---Although law provides the Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board (Tribunal) as a recourse when the Commissioner (Appeals) fails to decide an appeal within the prescribed statutory period, but it does not explicitly address the validity of orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) after said period has lapsed---It is a widely recognized fact that it is impractical to create legal provisions for every potential scenario or unforeseen circumstance---Therefore, the courts, as protectors of the fundamental rights of all citizens, must seek to implement or adopt more effective solutions in situations; said approach ensures that they do not overlook the illegalities or irregularities committed by subordinate forums---Since regarding matter-in-hand (Workers Welfare Fund/WWF) the decision of the Council of Common Interest that WWF would remain with FBR was in field, the assessing officer was not justified in levying WWF upon Appellant ; hence; relevant point was answered in negative i.e. in favour of Appellant and against the Department---Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board set-aside the Original Order---Appeal was allowed. (c) Sindh Workers Welfare Fund Act, 2014 ( XXXIII of 2015 )--- ----S.5(1)---Circular dated 25.05.2021 issued by the Federal Board of Revenue---Prospective effect Workers Welfare Fund (WWF), collection of---Adjustment of WWF against tax liability---Contention of the Appellant was that the WWF liability was adjusted against relevant income tax refund regarding financial year 2017---Plea of the Department, citing a Circular dated 25.05.2021 issued by the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), was that the adjustment of WWF against tax liabilities was restricted and the Appellant was unable to benefit from said Circular (dated 25.05.2021)---Validity---There is no dispute regarding the legal principle that in financial matters, all introduced rules, notifications, and circulars are applied prospectively---Effect of the Circular dated 25.05.2021 is also prospective---Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board set-aside the Original Order---Appeal was allowed. OBS Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Manager Legal v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Ex-Officio Chairman Federal Board of Revenue and 2 others 2022 PTD 290 ref. (d) Sindh Workers Welfare Fund Act, 2014 ( XXXIII of 2015 )--- ----S.5(1)---Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance (XXXVI of 1971), S.4(1)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 153 & 154(7)---Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act (XII of 2011), Preamble---Workers Welfare Fund (WWF), collection of---Whether Federal or Provincial Department?---Contention of the Appellant was that the WWF liability was adjusted against relevant income tax refund regarding financial year 2017---Validity---Notably, the WWF was previously a federal subject which was being collected under the Workers Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 (‘the Ordinance, 1971’)---However, following the 18th Amendment, WWF became a provincial subject, leading to the enactment of the Sindh Workers Welfare Fund Act, 2014 by the province of Sindh; said Act has since become functional---Due to the fact that most Provinces had not established a viable mechanism for addressing the collection and distribution of WWF, they continued to manage their affairs concerning WWF in accordance with the Ordinance 1971 within their respective jurisdictions ; which reasons / scenario prompted the referral of the matter to the Council of Common Interests (‘the CCI’)---During the 41st Meeting of the CCI, the issue was discussed, leading to the development of a mutually agreed mechanism ; and the consensus reached was that WWF would continue to be managed by the Federal Government and remain governed by the Ordinance, 1971---Pertinently, the respondent side (Department) had not challenged the decision of the CCI before the Parliament, mandated under Art. 154(7) of the Constitution---Since the decision of the CCI that "WWF shall remain with FBR" was in field, the assessing officer was not justified in levying WWE amounting Rs.4,234,000/-; hence; relevant point was answered in negative---Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board set-aside the Original Order---Appeal was allowed. (e) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 153 & 154 (7) & Fourth Sched., Federal Legislative List , Part II---Council of Common Interests---Functions and authority---Council of Common Interests (CCI) was established under Art.153 of the Constitutions to resolve disputes between the Federation and the Provinces or among the Provinces themselves, thereby promoting inter-provincial harmony---The CCI is composed of the Prime Minister as the Chairman, the Chief Ministers of all Provinces, and three members from the Federal Government who are nominated by the Prime Minister as needed---The CCI occupies a crucial role within the constitutional framework, with responsibilities that extend beyond mere discussions; it is tasked with formulating and regulating policies concerning matters specified in Part II of the Federal Legislative List ("the FLL") of the Constitution and exercising supervision and control over related institutions---The constitutional provisions governing the CCI's functions are mandatory, meaning that no other individual, body, or authority can assume these responsibilities---Furthermore, the CCI does not hold unrestricted power, as it is accountable to the Parliament---In case of disagreement with the CCI's decisions, either the Federal Provincial Government may refer the issue to the Parliament, which can issue binding directions to the CCI---Therefore, the CCI serves as an essential constitutional institution that effectively addresses differences, problems, and irritants between the provinces and the Federation, as well as among the Provinces themselves---Ignoring the decisions made by the CCI effectively renders it dysfunctional, leading to a clear violation of the constitutional mandates and commands---Bypassing such an important constitutional body would mean making the provisions of the Constitution ineffective and redundant, which cannot be permitted. Privatization Commission through Secretary and others v. Aftab Hussain and others PLD 201 SC 267 ref. Syed Hamza Ahmed Hashmi for Appellant. Manzoor Ahmed, AC (Unit-37). Javed Akhtar, Departmental Representative. Dates of hearing: 30th July and 13th August, 2024.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 31.01.2023, passed by the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in I.C.A. No.514 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.2042 of 2020). (a) Civil service--- ----Contract employees---Regularization in service---Scope---Regularization of a contractual employee constitutes a fresh appointment into the stream of regular appointments in civil services. Province of Punjab through Secretary Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Government of the Punjab, Lahore and others v. Dr. Javed Iqbal and others 2021 SCMR 767 ref. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 90, 91 & 99---Executive authority of the Federation, exercise of---Scope---Article 90 of the Constitution provides that the executive authority of the Federation shall be exercised in the name of the President by the Federal Government, which includes the Prime Minister and Federal Ministers but the said authority has to be exercised subject to the Constitution---It means that whenever the authority is exercised, it has to be within the limits prescribed by the Constitution---Neither the Prime Minister nor the members of the Federal Cabinet are permitted to perform their functions beyond the legal provisions i.e. the Constitution, statutory law, and the rules. (c) Civil service--- ----Contract employees---Regularization of posts in BS-16 and above---Cabinet Sub-Committee, powers of---Scope---Rules of Business, 1973, were duly framed to conduct the business of the Federal Government---Under these rules, although there is a concept of Cabinet Sub-Committees on different subjects, there is no provision for the intervention of a Cabinet Sub-Committee in governing the terms and conditions of service of employees---However, the Cabinet Sub-Committee can recommend reforms in the service structure, which can be approved by the Cabinet in accordance with the law and the Constitution---As, the Cabinet Sub-Committee lacks the authority to recommend the regularization of posts in BS-16 and above, therefore, any recommendation by the Cabinet Sub-Committee to regularize appointments in BS-16 and above is void ab initio and without any lawful authority. (d) Void order--- ----Any action that is void ab initio and without lawful authority cannot be protected under the doctrine of a 'past and closed transaction'. (e) Civil service--- ----Contract employees---Regularization in service---Factors to be considered by an employer/institution opting for regularization of its contract employees---Any institution opting for regularization of its employees must be either mandated by law or must carry out regularization through a well-thought-out policy of the institution concerned laying down the criteria and the process for regularization; performance evaluation of the contractual employee must be assessed to determine if the employee meets the standards required for a regular position; there must be availability of positions that match the skills and experience of the contractual employee; the budgetary considerations and financial implication of a regular employee must be weighed and considered---There must be a fair assessment of the employee's qualifications, performance and merit, so as to ensure only competent and committed employees are granted permanent employment status. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice Islamabad and another v. Fazal-e-Subhan and others PLD 2024 SC 515; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Forest, Peshawar and others v. Sher Aman and others 2022 SCMR 406 and Messrs State Oil Company Limited v. Bakht Siddique and others 2018 SCMR 1181 ref. (f) Employment--- ----Appointments and promotions in public sector organizations---Transparency, merit and open competition, significance of---Appointments in the public sector based on corruption, nepotism, favoritism, lack of due process, and misuse of authority have long been a significant issue in our society---These practices undermine the principles of fairness and equality, eroding public trust in governmental institutions---When positions are filled not on merit but through personal connections or corrupt practices, it not only deprives deserving candidates of opportunities but also weakens the overall efficiency and integrity of the public sector---Upholding the values of transparency, merit, and open competition in public sector employment is essential for fostering a system where the most qualified individuals serve, ensuring that public resources are utilized effectively and justly for the benefit of all---Without adherence to these principles, the public sector risks becoming a tool for the powerful rather than a service for the people, perpetuating cycles of inequality and inefficiency---Therefore, it is imperative that the recruitment and promotion processes in the public sector be conducted with the highest standards of fairness and accountability, free from any undue influence or bias. Hafiz S.A.Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Mrs. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos.949 and 1028 of 2023). Tariq Mahmood, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1025 of 2023). Abdul Rahim Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1032 of 2023) Muhammad Ramzan Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1033 of 2023). Dr. G. M. Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1034 of 2023). S.A. Mahmood Khan Sadozai, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos.2-3 (in C.P. No.949 of 2023). Zubair Hussain Jarral, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents (in C.Ps. Nos.1025 and 1134 of 2023). Nemo for Respondents (in other cases). Hassan Nawaz Makhdoom, Additional Attorney General, Hammad Nazar, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Overseas Pakistani and HRD Muhammad Abdullah, A.D. Legal FPSC for the Federation. Date of hearing: 8th July, 2024.

Summary: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss.2(d) & 9---Suit for declaration etc. along with damages filed by customer against the Bank---Damages arising out of alleged tortious acts, claim of---Banking Court, jurisdiction of---Scope---Plea of the appellant (plaintiff /customer) was that the Bank had made an unlawful attempt to repossess the vehicle (auto finance facility) which was thrwarted but certain items, including jewellery, were removed from the vehicle causing him mental torture---Customer filed appeal as the Banking Court disposed of the case (returned the plaint), recording a finding that it lacked jurisdiction in the matter as the substance of the claim of damages did not fall within the parameters of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Validity---Claim for pecuniary compensation could either arise from a tortuous act i.e. not based on any contract or a breach of a contractual obligation not pertaining to an accommodation or facility of finance as defined under S.2(d) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and for these two categories of claims obviously the Banking Court was not an appropriate forum ---However, a claim for pecuniary compensation could also arise in account of the failure of a Financial Institution to fulfill its obligation in relation to any financial accommodation or facility; it is this category of claim which certainly comes within the scope of S.9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and a suit relating thereto is always maintainable before a Banking Court---Such claim being outside the ambit and preview of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, could have been struck out; then, the remaining claims could be proceeded for determination on merits---High Court, while setting aside impugned judgment, remanded the matter to the Banking Court for reconsideration and decision afresh---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Citibank N.A v. Syed Shahanshah Hussain 2009 CLD 1564 and Messrs M.M.K Rice Mills v. Grays Leasing and others 2006 CLD 1147 ref. Appellant in person. Ghulam Rasool Korai for Respondent No.1. Date of hearing: 13th September, 2024.

Summary: Background The case revolves around multiple civil petitions challenging the Islamabad High Court's judgment dated 31.01.2023, which found the appointments of various individuals to posts in the Bureau of Emigration & Overseas Employment (BE&OE) to have been made in violation of the law. The High Court referred the matter to the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) to determine the petitioners' eligibility for their respective posts. The petitioners, who had been regularized through a Cabinet Sub-Committee's decision, disputed this outcome and brought the matter before the Supreme Court. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the regularization of petitioners' appointments to various positions in BS-16 to BS-18 in the BE&OE was lawful. ---2) Whether the Cabinet Sub-Committee had the authority to regularize appointments in BS-16 and above, which typically require FPSC involvement. ---3) Whether the appointments and subsequent regularization of petitioners were consistent with applicable rules and regulations, including the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1973. ---4) Whether the High Court was correct in referring the petitioners' cases to the FPSC for further evaluation. --- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the Islamabad High Court's decision, stating that the petitioners' appointments were made in violation of the law, as the proper recruitment procedures were not followed. The appointments were regularized by the Cabinet Sub-Committee, but the Court noted that the Sub-Committee lacked the legal authority to regularize appointments in BS-16 and above without involving the FPSC. The Court emphasized that under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, appointments to BS-16 and above are to be made through competitive examinations conducted by the FPSC. The Cabinet Sub-Committee's decision to regularize these appointments was, therefore, void ab initio and without lawful authority. The Court further ruled that the FPSC should determine the fitness and eligibility of the petitioners under the law, in line with the High Court's judgment. The Court rejected the argument that the regularization of petitioners constituted a "past and closed transaction," noting that any illegal act cannot be protected under such a doctrine. The petitions were dismissed, and the matter was referred to the FPSC to assess the petitioners' qualifications and eligibility for the posts they held. ---- Citations/Precedents: Province of Punjab v. Dr. Javed Iqbal (2021 SCMR 767) Federation of Pakistan v. Fazal-e-Subhan (PLD 2024 SC 515) Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman (2022 SCMR 406) Messrs State Oil Company Limited v. Bakht Siddique (2018 SCMR 1181) Shahid Pervaiz v. Ejaz Ahmad (2017 SCMR 206)

Summary: Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972--- Recruitment process for a certain post ? It is vested domain of Selection Board/ Committee to examine the qualification and the eligibility criteria as well as fitness of a candidate. The Court is not the substitute forum of a Selection Board / Committee as such it cannot direct an appointing authority to issue appointment letter in favour of a candidate and any such intrusion would amount to committing judicial overreach which is unwarranted by law.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972--- Recruitment process for a certain post ? It is vested domain of Selection Board/ Committee to examine the qualification and the eligibility criteria as well as fitness of a candidate. The Court is not the substitute forum of a Selection Board / Committee as such it cannot direct an appointing authority to issue appointment letter in favour of a candidate and any such intrusion would amount to committing judicial overreach which is unwarranted by law. 970Writ Petition- Land- Proprietary rights 585-15 MALIK AMANAT RASUL VS FED. OF PAKISTAN ETC. Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan 11- 09- 2024 2024 LHC 5274 2025 PLC (CS) 262 [Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Summary: Summary pending