Summary: The petitioner, Muhammad Saleem, sought to challenge a judgment by the Balochistan Service Tribunal regarding his request for accepting his lien against a government post. The petitioner had joined the National Registration Authority (NADRA) but wanted to return to his parent department, the S&GAD, Government of Balochistan. The key issue was whether the petitioner could retain his lien after working in NADRA.The Court reviewed relevant rules and precedents, including the Balochistan Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules of 2012 and the Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules of 1993. The rules stated that a civil servant would cease to hold lien against a post when accepting an appointment in an autonomous body under the control of the government. The Court found that the petitioner's move to NADRA fell under this category, leading to the forfeiture of his lien. The Court distinguished the petitioner's case from previous precedents involving transfers within government departments.Ultimately, the Court concluded that the petitioner's claim lacked merit, and the petition was dismissed.Citations and Precedents:Sajjad Hussain v. Secretary, Establishment Division (1996 SCMR 284)Anoud Power Generation Ltd v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2001 SC 340)Muhammad Israrullah v. Assistant Director, Manpower (2005 SCMR 716)Government of N.W.F.P. v. Zafarmand Ali (2005 SCMR 1212)Farid Muhammad v. Secretary, Ministry of Food (1996 SCMR 818)

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a civil appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Referee Court, Muzaffarabad, on 14.04.2013. The appellant's land was acquired for the widening of the Muzaffarabad to Chokothi road through Award No. 9 finalized on 23.07.2011. The appellant claimed that the compensation awarded for the acquired land was not adequate and did not reflect the market value or account for the loss of fruitful and fruitless trees. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Referee Court properly assessed the compensation for the acquired land in accordance with the law. 2- Whether the market value of the land and other relevant factors, such as the loss of trees and the commercial potential of the land, were adequately considered. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The appellant argued that the Referee Court did not consider the true market value of the land and failed to assess the compensation for the loss of trees. The Referee Court had awarded compensation based on an assessment that did not consider the full extent of the land taken (2 Kanal 18 Marlas) and the market value, which the appellant claimed was Rs. 20,00,000 per Kanal. The court found that the Referee Court had not appreciated the evidence properly and had reached a conclusion without considering relevant sale deeds from the adjoining area. The judgment lacked a detailed explanation of how the compensation was determined, making it a non-speaking order. The court cited several precedents emphasizing the need for judicial orders to be well-reasoned and speaking orders that reflect the court's application of mind to the issues involved. The court held that the Referee Court's judgment and decree did not meet this standard and were passed in a perfunctory manner. The court set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.04.2013 and remanded the case to the Referee Court, Muzaffarabad, to decide the matter afresh within one month from the date of the announcement of this judgment. The Referee Court was directed to re-evaluate the evidence and determine the compensation in accordance with the law. ----Citations/Precedents: Mollah Ejahar Ali vs. Government of East Pakistan and others [PLD 1970 S.C. 173] Government of Sindh vs. Muhammad Juman and another [2009 SCMR 1407] Muhammad Iqbal Chaudhry and another vs. Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan and others [PLD 2004 S.C. 413]

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a retired Private Secretary (BS-18) from Mirpur University of Science and Technology (MUST), sought the release of his entire pension, leave encashment, and other outstanding emoluments after retiring. He alleged that despite the transfer of pension contributions from the Electricity Department to MUST, the university had not released his pension due to personal grudges and unsubstantiated allegations. The petitioner had been transferred from the Electricity Department to MUST in 2010 and promoted to higher grades during his tenure. MUST banned his entry to the university premises and did not process his pension and other retirement benefits. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of his entire pension and other retirement benefits from MUST. 2- Whether the inquiry conducted by MUST after the petitioner's retirement was valid. 3- Whether the petitioner's transfer and subsequent promotions at MUST were legitimate. 4- Whether the university acted with malice and mala-fide intention by not processing the petitioner's retirement benefits. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found that the petitioner was entitled to the release of his pension and other retirement benefits. The Vice Chancellor's approval of the petitioner's retirement and the absence of any outstanding dues against him, as confirmed by the university, supported this entitlement. The court determined that the inquiry conducted by MUST after the petitioner's retirement was without jurisdiction and nullity in the eye of law, as he was no longer an employee of the university when the inquiry was initiated. The petitioner's transfer and promotions were found to be legitimate, as they were approved by the respective selection committee and the syndicate. The petitioner could not be penalized for any faults committed by the authority during his promotions. The court observed that the university officials acted with malice and mala-fide intention in not processing the petitioner's retirement benefits. This view was supported by the precedents cited. The court directed MUST to release the entire pension of the petitioner, including contributions from the Electricity Department and other outstanding emoluments, and to pay leave encashment. The impugned order was set aside. ----Citations/Precedents: 2020 SCR 834 2016 SCR 360 Black’s Law Dictionary definitions for "employee" and "civil servant"

Summary: PLJ 2024 AJK 47 Present Sadaqat Hussain Raja CJ IJAZ SALEEM RETIRED PRIVATE SECRETARY BS - 18 MIRPUR - - Petitioner versus VICE - CHANCELLOR MIRPUR UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (MUST) MIRPUR and 3 others - - Respondents WP No 1921 of 2023 decided on 21122023 Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - Art 44 - - Retirement - - Non - releasing of pension - - Inquiry - - Allegation of - - Issuance of NOC for payment of pension - - Upgradation of post of petitioner - - Recommendations of selection committee - - Malafide intension - - Entitlement for pension - - Direction to - - The post of petitioner was upgraded as per recommendations of selection committee and his promotion was made due to act of authority he could be penalized for fault if any committed by authority - - The petitioner was not employee of University when inquiry was initiated against him - - Impugned order of inquiry was without jurisdiction and nullity in eye of law - - Official of University with malice and mala - fide intention was not completing retirement file of petitioner - - The petitioner was entitled to release pension and other shares - - Petition accepted [Pp 51 52 53 54] A B C D 2020 SCR 834 and 2016 SCR 360 ref Raja Gul Majeed Khan Advocate for Petitioner Mr Naeem Ahmed Mughal Advocate on behalf of MUSTJudgement Result:Petition accepted

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908)-- ----Ss. 115 & 151--Application for consolidation of suit--Accepted--Both suits and consumer were same--Conflicting judgments--Challenge to-- Both suits had been filed about same CNG station from where gas was being supplied through same consumer and subject matter of both suits were same with regard to deduction bills and dispute about outstanding arrears in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, which may result into conflicting judgments, trial Court had consolidated both suits by accepting application of respondents-- No infirmity, legal or factual, had been pointed out in impugned order passed by trial Court--Civil revision dismissed. ---- The respondent, Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. (SNGPL), filed an application for consolidation of two suits. One suit was filed by SNGPL for the recovery of outstanding arrears against Raza CNG Station, and the other suit was filed by Raza CNG Station seeking a declaration and permanent injunction, challenging meter inspection reports and deduction bills issued by SNGPL. The trial court accepted the application for consolidation of both cases due to their similar subject matter. The petitioners challenged the consolidation order through this civil revision. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the consolidation of two suits was justified, considering they involved the same parties and subject matter. ----- 2) Whether the trial court's order for consolidation of the suits could result in any legal or factual infirmity. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision, upholding the trial court’s decision to consolidate the suits. The court reasoned: Both suits involved the same CNG station and the same consumer number. The dispute centered around the same subject matter—deduction bills and outstanding arrears. Consolidation was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and the possibility of conflicting judgments. The petitioners did not point out any legal or factual infirmity in the trial court's decision, which was found to be proper. ----- Outcome: The civil revision was dismissed in limine, and the consolidation order was upheld to prevent inconsistent rulings and ensure an efficient resolution of the disputes.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, Muhammad Tariq Sahi, challenged the enhancement of the reserve price for the auction of Block No.116-A South District Sargodha for mining purposes by the Government of Punjab. The reserve price was increased by 500%, which the petitioner claimed was done without lawful authority and with malicious intent to prevent him from participating in the bid. ----Issues: Whether the 500% increase in the reserve price of Block No.116-A was lawful and justified. Whether the petitioner's exclusion from the bidding process due to the enhanced reserve price constitutes mala fide action by the respondents. The scope of judicial review under Article 199 of the Constitution in matters concerning the fixation of reserve prices by public authorities. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The respondents, including the Assistant Advocate General, argued that the reserve price was determined by a Special Experts Committee considering various factors, such as market trends and the reserve prices of surrounding blocks. The petitioner’s claim of mala fide intention was countered by highlighting that the reserve price was fixed in the public interest to reflect the market value and prevent monopolistic practices. The court acknowledged that the fixation of the reserve price is within the prerogative of the government department concerned. However, any arbitrary, whimsical, or capricious exercise of this authority is subject to judicial scrutiny. The petitioner needed to prove that the reserve price was so unreasonable that no prudent authority could have set it. The court found that the reserve price of Rs.40,00,00,000/- for Block No.116-A was justified based on the explanations provided by the respondents. The reserve price was determined by the Special Experts Committee in line with market forces and trends, and no arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of authority was established by the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly, with the court noting that if the auction fails to attract bids meeting or exceeding the reserve price, the matter should be referred back to the Special Experts Committee for review. ----Citations/Precedents: Messrs 3N-Lifemed Pharmaceuticals Vs. Government of Punjab through Secretary Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department and others (2023 CLC 948): Addressed the scope of judicial review concerning the exercise of discretion by public authorities. Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan through Authorised Officer and 11 others Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs and Interfaith Harmony, Islamabad and 2 others (PLD 2020 Sindh 42): Emphasized the need for public authorities to exercise their discretion fairly, reasonably, and without arbitrariness, in line with the Wednesbury principle.