Summary: Service matters. No vested right concept in promotion policy. Government can amend the same, if deemed appropriate.

Summary: Accordingly, while exercising inherent jurisdictionvested in this Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C, Article 199and 203 of the Constitution, and in order to prevent the abuse ofthe process of law, we hereby set-side the impugned order, andquash the proceedings against the petitioner, namely, Wali 26Muhammad Shaikh, in the aforesaid FIR, and also direct thePresiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) Sindh atKarachi, to record the prosecution witnesses, and conclude thetrial in respect of remaining accused persons, preferably, withina period of six (06) months from the date of receipt of thisorder, which shall be sent by the Office to the trial Court withinone week for compliance.

Summary: Promotion matters; fitness of employee; petition is maintainable;Once major penalty has been set-aside, then promotion cannot be denied on the same charges.

Summary: The petitioner sought to set aside this order and requested that the respondent not lodge a false FIR against the petitioner and co-accused. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Impugned Order violated the petitioner's constitutional rights under Articles 4, 9, and 14 of the Constitution. The petitioner contended that the order encroached upon their security and dignity, and was therefore void ab-initio. The court referred to relevant legal precedents, including cases like "Younis Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others" and "Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt and others," which discussed the role and powers of Ex-Officio Justices of Peace. These cases emphasized that such justices have quasi-judicial functions and can issue directions to the police authorities in cases of non-registration of criminal cases. The court upheld the Impugned Order, finding that it did not violate the petitioner's fundamental rights and that the order was in accordance with the law. The court also noted that the observations made were tentative and wouldn't prejudice any future dispute between the parties in a competent jurisdiction. As a result, the petition was dismissed.

Summary: Service matters (Back benefits)---The petitioner had requested various reliefs, including the payment of back benefits from a specified period, pensionary benefits, and the quashing of certain office orders. The petitioner had previously been removed from service by the respondents based on allegations of misconduct and violations of rules. The petitioner contested this removal and appealed the decision, leading to a series of legal proceedings. The judgment discussed the legal and factual aspects of the case. It highlights the sequence of events, including the petitioner's removal, the subsequent legal challenges, and the judgments issued by the court. The court discussed the petitioner's entitlement to back benefits and pensionary benefits based on the court's previous orders and the applicable rules and regulations. Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioner is entitled to receive pensionary benefits and other benefits for the period in question. The court ordered the respondents to re-calculate and make payment of these benefits to the petitioner within a specified timeframe.

Summary: Criminal Jail Appeal --- (Conviction Set aside, Delay in Identification, JM not examined, Recovered article not produced, at the time of Statement, No identification mentioned in given in FIR) ---- The appellant, Muhammad Ali s/o Yameen Khan, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder (Qatil-i-Amd) of deceased Azam Khan, along with a fine and compensation to the deceased's heirs. Other accused individuals, Ali Bath Khan S/O Meer Hajat Khan and Missal Khan S/O Asmatullah, were acquitted. The appeals and revision centered around the dissatisfaction with the trial court's judgment, including the conviction of Muhammad Ali, the acquittals of the other accused, and the sentencing.The prosecution's case was based on an FIR lodged by Gul Wali Khan, stating that Azam Khan was shot dead by three assailants after a Valima ceremony. The investigation led to the arrest of Muhammad Ali and others, and the case proceeded to trial, where nine prosecution witnesses were examined.The High Court, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, found that the prosecution failed to establish Muhammad Ali's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted significant inconsistencies in witness statements, lack of direct nomination of the accused in the FIR, questionable conduct of the identification parade, and discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence. The court also highlighted procedural lapses, such as the failure to put all incriminating evidence to the accused under Section 342 of the Cr.P.C.Consequently, the appeals filed by Muhammad Ali were allowed, leading to his acquittal based on the benefit of the doubt. The court ordered his immediate release unless required in connection with any other case. The acquittal appeal and criminal revision related to the other accused and sentencing, respectively, were dismissed based on the evidence and legal principles governing appeals against acquittal and the scope for sentence enhancement.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 152--- Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199--- Constitutional petition---Correction in judgment--- Scope--- Ejectment order correction of---Reasonable period---Scope---Appellate Court while maintaining the judgment of Rent Controller directed the tenant to vacate the premises within a period of three months from the date of judgment but instead of "Three months" "three years" was typed in the judgment---Landlord moved an application for correction of mistake appearing in the judgment of Appellate Court which was accepted and correction was made as three "months" instead of "years"---Validity---Tenant could not satisfy as to how the Appellate Court could grant three years time to him while dismissing appeal which remained pending for almost two years and six months---If such was not a typographical mistake, same was against the fair play and equity which needed to be demonstrated by the court while exercising discretion available with the Rent Controller/Appellate Authority to grant a reasonable time for vacating the premises---If Appellate Authority were allowed to grant such unusual long period of time not by mistake but by conscious judicial mind to vacate the premises on dismissal of appeal of tenant then the effect of dismissal of appeal would be nullified---Rent Controller or Appellate Court could not specify an unreasonable period for vacating the premises to a tenant---Reasonable period could be few months keeping in view the circumstances of tenant and nature of tenement and any period beyond few months could only be granted by consent of the landlord---Period of three years was accidental slip or typographical error in the Appellate Court's order---Appellate Court had lawfully corrected the same and no right had accrued to the tenant---Tenant was directed to vacate the premises within specified period---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Nizam-ud-Din v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed and others 1987 CLC 1682; Jehanzeb Aziz Dar v. Messrs Maersk Line and others PLD 2000 Kar. 258; Muhammad Yakoob v. Baqar and 2 others 1998 CLC 456; Khawaja Imran Ahmed v. Noor Ahmad and another 1992 SCMR 1152; Khawaja Muhammad Razzak v. Dr. Sultan Mehmood Ghori and another 2007 SCMR 1866 and Muhammad Iqbal v. Sultan Akbar and 2 others 1994 SCMR 16 ref. Nizam-ud-Din v. Ch. Muhammad Saeed and others 1987 CLC 1682; Jehanzeb Aziz Dar v. Messrs Maersk Line and others PLD 2000 Kar. 258; Muhammad Yakoob v. Baqar and 2 others 1998 CLC 456 and Khawaja Imran Ahmed v. Noor Ahmad and another 1992 SCMR 1152 distinguished. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----Ss. 14 & 15---Ejectment of tenant---Time for giving vacant possession to landlord---Reasonable period---Scope.

Summary: DMC--the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents for up-gradation of his post i.e Compounder in BPS-16--The grounds agitated by the petitioner in the instant petition that his up-gradation is permissible as per notification dated 13.05.2006, are not tenable for the reasons alluded in the preceding paragraph--we are not convinced with the assertion of petitioner that he is entitled for up-gradation in BS-16--Dismissed.

Summary: Suit decreed. Independent promotion orders cannot be recalled through Admin Order No. 17/2016 without proper Notice and confronting the Plaintiffs. --- The plaintiffs contested the legality of Administrative Order No. 17/2016, which cancelled a previous Administrative Order No. 13/2013 that had upgraded their employment grade from Pay Group IV to Pay Group V, providing them with associated benefits.The plaintiffs argued that the cancellation of Administrative Order No. 13/2013 was unlawful, done without proper authority, jurisdiction, and in violation of constitutional principles. They sought a declaration to this effect and an injunction to prevent the enforcement of the impugned order.The defendant, on the other hand, maintained that the cancellation was a decision within the competence of the authority that initially issued Administrative Order No. 13/2013, and thus, no legal infraction occurred.The court, led by Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, examined the issue, focusing on whether the cancellation of Administrative Order No. 13/2013 (and by implication, the plaintiffs' promotions) was lawful and done in accordance with due process and principles of natural justice.The judgment concluded that the plaintiffs were indeed promoted from Pay Group IV to V based on the initial Administrative Order No. 13/2013, and these promotions were validly confirmed through individual promotion letters. The subsequent cancellation of Administrative Order No. 13/2013 through Administrative Order No. 17/2016, without proper notice or opportunity for the plaintiffs to be heard, was deemed unilateral, unlawful, and in violation of principles of natural justice.Thus, the court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, affirming the validity of their promotions and the illegality of the defendant's action in cancelling Administrative Order No. 13/2013 without due process. The promotion orders dated 8.4.2013 were held to remain valid and in effect, despite the attempted cancellation through Administrative Order No. 17/2016.

Summary: The applicant claimed ownership of a property known as the "Subject Property" based on documents, including an allegedly forged Form A and a letter from Mukhtiarkar's office. The respondents argue that the applicant's claims are baseless, asserting that the applicant's allegations are themselves based on fraud and misrepresentation.The order also referred to a historical process for acquiring land in barrage areas, as per the Standing Order 10 of the Revenue Department. It highlighted the significance of certain procedural steps, such as obtaining Form A and T.O. Form, in establishing ownership. The order questions the applicant's claim of possession of the Subject Property and notes that the applicant had previously filed a suit related to the property in 2010, which was later withdrawn. The court concluded that the applicant's claims lack sufficient evidence and that the applicant failed to prove his proximity to the alleged allottee of the property. The court also emphasized the importance of specifying allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. It ultimately dismissed the application stating that the arguments presented by both parties were considered, but the application lacked merit.