Summary: In view of the above, the competent authority of respondents is directed to consider the case of the petitioner-widow for her family pension if her deceased husband had a requisite length of service to claim pensionary benefits on account of family pension. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by a speaking order within one month from the date of receipt of this order after hearing the petitioner. By consent, this petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs.

Summary: Specific Relief Act, Scope of (Section 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877)

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXI, R. 103---Decree holder---Rights and duty---Decree, execution of---Procedure---Decree-holder instead of filing execution petition took the suit file to the Nazir of the Court and managed to get report from the Nazir and filed application for order thereon from the Court---Validity---Neither any direction was issued for the defendants to appear before the Nazir nor he had summoned them---No justification existed for the Nazir to prepare report and refer the matter to the Court for further direction---Civil Court became functus officio after passing judgment and decree---Executing Court had to follow the provisions of O. XXI, C.P.C. for execution of judgment and decree if execution petition was filed by the decree-holder---Once the suit was decreed plaintiff ceased to be plaintiff and became a decree-holder---Decree-holder was not supposed to obtain any further order in the disposed of suit---Decree-holder acquired rights under the decree and to enforce his rights he had to file an execution application---Nazir of the Court could not assume the role of Executing Court and prepare a report after examining the judgment and decree at his own or on the request of plaintiff---Additional Registrar (O.S) of the High Court was directed to hold an inquiry against the concerned staff of the suit branch for sending the suit file to the Nazir office---Staff who had sent file if found guilty of inefficiency or corruption should be proceeded against according to service Rules---Nazir of the Court was directed not to receive and retain any suit file in his office in which there was no direct order of the Court---Nazir should not entertain any written or oral request of the parties to prepare any report/reference in a suit disposed of through the judgment and decree unless Executing Court had been approached.

Summary: High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain dispute relating to terms and conditions of service of civil servant, which include transfer, posting and disciplinary matters such as order for suspension of service, etc.

Summary: Where an application under Section 12 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 is allowed resulting in change of custody, such an order is appealable as a decision given in terms of Section 14(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1964, therefore, in view of proviso of Section 3(2) of Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 an Intra Court Appeal would not lie in the matter.

Summary: The appointing authority has discretion and is well within its jurisdiction to fix or change criteria for appointment and promotion to a particular post and the aspiring candidate has no right to object to fixation of the said eligibility criteria unless the same is shown to be against any express provision of law, perverse, unreasonable or against a vested right. A past practice cannot be made a ground to undo the criteria fixed by the competent authority for appointment to the said post.

Summary: The holistic and conjunctive reading of section 12 along with section 10(1) and 9(5) of the Ordinance shows that decree can only be set aside under section 12 of the Ordinance if it was passed for failure to file PLA. Such application could be filed within a period of 21 days of the date of decree or where the summons were not duly served, when he had knowledge of the decree. However, if PLA was filed and the same was decided on merits, application under section 12 of the Ordinance or application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC are not maintainable rather only appeal under section 22 of the Ordinance is maintainable.

Summary: The complainant, reported that while he and his friend were stuck in traffic at Sir Shah Suleman Bridge, a person with a pistol appeared and snatched his friend's mobile phone. The complainant filed an FIR against the accused under section 394 P.P.C. During the hearing of the bail application, arguments were presented by both sides. The applicant's counsel contended that the accused was innocent and falsely implicated by the complainant due to a minor altercation between their vehicles. The counsel alleged that the complainant had a motive to frame the accused, who was wrongly charged based on fabricated evidence. The Deputy Prosecutor General opposed the bail application, stating that the accused was caught red-handed with the weapon, and the complainant had identified him as the perpetrator. The prosecution argued that sufficient incriminating evidence connected the accused to the crime, including witness statements and a positive Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report for the recovered pistol. After considering the arguments and the available evidence, the judge denied the bail application, stating that the accused had failed to establish a case for bail at that stage. The judge directed the trial court to record evidence from material witnesses within two months. The accused was given the option to file a fresh bail application before the trial court based on new grounds, if necessary.

Summary: Service matters (Regularisation of Employee)

Summary: U/S 9(C) Matter