Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
Shahnawaz and Others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Summary: Seniority matter--SRP--Police Constables--Adverting to the point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that they were appointed in SRP Karachi and posted in RRF Karachi since 2009, thus their seniority is liable to be maintained in Karachi range, suffice it to say that prima-facie, the RRF was / is not part of the Karachi range, but is a combination of different regions/units of the Sindh police, merely their appointment in SRP Karachi and posting in RRF Karachi does not support their case to the effect that they belonged to Karachi Range Police, for the reason that they never remained posted in the Karachi range police, therefore, their seniority cannot be ordered to be mixed with Karachi range police. The record further reflects that their recommendations for initial appointments by their regional head were made based on their respective place of domicile. Petitioners have failed to point out that their appointment was / is based on Karachi domicile, therefore they are precluded to claim vested right for seniority and promotion at Karachi Range on the aforesaid analogy--Dismissed.
Mian Trust (Petitioner) V/S Lyari Expressway And ors (Respondent)
Summary: [Amenity Plot] It may be noted that in view of the express statutory Bar, inter alia, as provided in Regulation 18-4.1 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002, a land reserved for amenity purpose cannot be converted and utilized for any other purpose. In this regard, a reported Judgment in the case of Mansoor Sharif Hamid vs. Shafique Rehman-2015 SCMR 1172 handed down by Honble Supreme Court, cited by the learned counsel for Petitioner is relevant.
Arshad Ali Khan (Petitioner) V/S FBR and Others (Respondent)
Summary: Maintainability of Petition against a Show Cause Notice; held not maintainable.
Prof. Javed Ahmed Badvi & another (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Summary: [CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973 (Appointment of Vice Chancellor )] Petitioner No.2 has impugned the recruitment process initiated by the Universities and Boards Department, Government of Sindh, for the position of Vice-Chancellor, Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Medical University, Larkana, (SMBBMU)---We are of the view the ground of awarding marks to the shortlisted candidates by the Search Committee was not their mandate under reference set forth by the competent authority. On the subject, unreported order dated 21.12.2017 passed by Honble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled Civil Petition No.655-K of 2017 (Re-Prof. Abdul Razak Shaikh v. Province of Sindh and others) and Professor Dr. Razia Sultana supra is clear in its terms
Amsons Textile Mills (Pvt) Limited (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)
Summary: res judicata in suit after decision in constitution petition.
Muhammad Ali Javed and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Summary: The general principles of up-gradation that to our mind emerge from the enunciations of the Supreme Court can be elucidated as follows: (i) Up-gradation is not the same as promotion, the latter being a term specifically defined in civil service statutes; (ii) Up-gradation is essentially an upgrade of the post to a higher pay-scale and not a promotion to a higher grade. Thus, the incumbent of the upgraded post retains his substantive grade;(iii) Up-gradation is meant for isolated posts, where the service structure does not provide avenues for promotion to a higher pay-scale thus putting the incumbent at a disadvantage as compared to other employees, its purpose being to address the stagnation and frustration of the employee of such post so that he/she remains productive;(iv) To justify up-gradation, the Government will have to demonstrate that it is required for restructuring or reforming the department or to meet exigencies of service in the public interest. In other words, up-gradation should be pursuant to a scheme or a policy;(v) Up-gradation should not be to the prejudice of other employees and should not be used to by-pass prescribed rules of promotion.Rel. Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456); Regional Commissioner Income Tax v. Munawar Ali (2017 PLC (C.S.) 1030); and Federal Public Service Commission v. Anwar-ul-Haq (2017 SCMR 890).
NOMAN MARWAT S/O KAISAF KHAN (Applicant) V/S IVTH ADJ KHI MALIR & ORS (Respondent)
Summary: In principle, the offense under section 489-F PPC is punishable with imprisonment of three years, thus, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr. P.C; and, the grounds for cancellation of bail are altogether different from the grant of bail; and once pre-arrest bail is confirmed, the exceptional and extraordinary grounds, as well as strong reasons, are required to recall the bail order granted earlier to the accused. The principles enunciated, governing for grant of bail and cancellation whereof has been set at naught by the Honorable Supreme court in the case of Sharif Khan V/S The State and another, 2021 SCMR 87
Muhammad Jamil Khan (Petitioner) V/S SESSI (Respondent)
Summary: [Sindh Employees, Social Security Institution Service Regulations, 1976] Claims, and counter-claims of the parties are disputed questions of facts, which cannot be adjudicated by High Court while exercising the Constitutional Jurisdiction, therefore, on the aforesaid plea, the petitions filed by the petitioners cannot be adjudicated under Article199 of the Constitution.
Muhammad Ahmed Khan (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Summary: Regularization---The petitioner, claimed that he was appointed provisionally in the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation on a temporary basis as a Wireman in 1994 but his services were terminated in 1995. The petitioner's counsel argued that his case fell within the definition of a "sacked employee" as per Section 2(f) of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010. The counsel cited previous cases as precedents and requested the court to allow the petition on similar grounds. The court reviewed the petitioner's arguments and the applicable law. It analyzed the language of Section 2(f) of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, which defines a "sacked employee" and outlines the time frame and conditions for reinstatement. The court examined the petitioner's appointment letter and termination letter, highlighting that his provisional appointment was subject to termination at any time. The court concluded that the petitioner's case did not fall within the ambit of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010, as the Act applied only to Government-owned entities established or controlled by the Federal Government. Given the specific circumstances of the petitioner's appointment and termination, the court found that he did not qualify for relief under the Act. As a result, the court dismissed the petition and any pending applications, without imposing any costs on the parties.
Muhammad Asim Abbasi (Petitioner) V/S Govt of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Summary: Service matters (age relaxation)