Summary: Prima facie suggests that the incident was result of sudden flare up without illwill or premeditation, which constitutes an offence punishable u/s 302(c) PPC, therefore, the conviction awarded to the appellant for the said offence is modified with one u/s 302(c) PPC.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Respondent No.2 filed an application for transfer of appeal of the petitioner and revision petition of respondent No.1 in respect of the same subject before two different Courts for their fixation before one and the same Court to avoid conflicting opinion and the learned District Judge, Lahore while allowing the application vide impugned order kept the cases before himself for decision while observing that there are certain reservations of respondent No.2 in respect of both the Courts below hearing the said appeal and the revision. The petitioner laid challenge to the impugned order with the averments that the learned District Judge has travelled beyond the contents of the application and has shown his personal interest in the matter. Held that the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned District Judge has travelled beyond the prayer of the application before him and has shown personal interest is misconceived inasmuch as the learned District Judge, on his own or on the application of a litigant, is empowered to transfer the case from one Court to another Court subordinate to it or hear it himself. Section 24, CPC does not specify any ground on which the case can be transferred from one Court to another. In the present case, transfer was solicited for the purpose of avoiding multiple proceedings and conflicting decisions on the same subject, between the same parties, involving common questions of fact and law that are interdependent, and after hearing arguments of the both sides, the learned District Judge thought it expedient to keep the cases before him on account of its chequered history. Suffice to mention that there is neither any clog under the law debarring the District Judge from retaining and fixing the cases before himself nor the same renders the petitioner aggrieved of the impugned order. It is unpleasantly surprising that learned District Judge, Lahore has just fixed the cases before himself and is yet to proceed with the same, however, allegation of bias has been levelled against the Judge even before he proceeded with the matter, which is reflective of the shallowness of the contentions of the petitioner. Such preemptive allegation of bias devoid of any material or substance on record is liable to be thrown out invariably. It is a serious matter and such bald and unsubstantiated assertions cannot be countenanced and are not sufficient to upend the impugned order. It is obligatory on part of this Court to protect and safeguard the District Level Judiciary from any onslaught or intrusion, let alone in the form of observation, amounting to distrust or apprehension thereof qua the integrity of a Judicial Officer(s) in the discharge of the judicial work, by the learned District Judge, Lahore, who was exercising his discretion under Section 24, CPC, while deciding the Transfer Application of the respondent, more particularly, when no such allegation were levelled in the said application. Such observations bring the District Level Judiciary into disrespect that is exhibited by the fact that through the present petition generalized statement of bias has been made against the learned District Judge himself. This Court is of the opinion that the learned District Judges or the learned Additional Judges, across the province, while hearing the cases before them must show restraint in recording any observation in respect of the conduct of the Judicial Officers subordinate to them, which may tend to weaken the institutional independence of the Judiciary and bring it into disrespect. For the above reasons, the present petition is devoid of any merits and the impugned order is upheld with the modification that the observation of the learned District Judge, Lahore thereof in the terms that "The petitioner has also shown certain reservations against both the learned Addl. District Judges" are uncalled for and shall not be read as part of the impugned order.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan---Art. 146(1) Devolution of federal medical institution---Intergovernmental MoU---Validity and operational authority--- Held, that the Federation and Government of Sindh were competent to enter into a Settlement Agreement under Art. 146(1) of the Constitution, whereby the operational and management control of Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC) was conditionally entrusted to the Province of Sindh. Such delegation of executive functions, though not altering the federal status of JPMC affirmed by the Supreme Court (2020 SCMR 1), was valid to the extent of contractual recruitments made to meet emergent hospital needs. The MoU did not alter the employment status of federally appointed civil servants nor divest them of promotional rights. (b) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)--- Contractual recruitment---Effect on promotion prospects---Permanent employees' rights--- Held, that appointment of doctors and paramedical staff on a purely contractual basis for one year to address acute staff shortages at JPMC shall not affect the vested rights of permanent federal civil servants serving at the institution. Such contractual hiring cannot be used as a ground to defer, displace, or deny due promotions under the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Existing sanctioned posts available prior to the summary dated 26.04.2023 shall not be abolished or converted in a manner prejudicing the plaintiffs' service rights. (c) Constitution of Pakistan---Arts. 37, 38--- Welfare state---Healthcare access---Public interest vs. individual rights--- Held, that the concept of a welfare state under the Constitution mandates the State to ensure maximum good for the maximum number of people, particularly in essential public services such as healthcare. In a situation involving shortage of healthcare professionals at a major public hospital like JPMC, public interest in uninterrupted healthcare delivery must prevail over individual claims where no prima facie illegality is established. The plaintiffs, as civil servants, cannot invoke their federal status to obstruct measures taken under lawful authority for hospital functioning. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---O.XV, R.1--- Framing of issues---Lack of triable questions---Suit disposal--- Held, that where no material questions of law or fact remain requiring adjudication through trial and evidence, the suit may be disposed of under O.XV, R.1, C.P.C. In the instant matter, plaintiffs’ prayer to restrain contractual hiring was found to be incompatible with urgent institutional needs, and the relief was declined accordingly. Disposition: Both suits dismissed under O.XV, R.1, C.P.C. Government of Sindh permitted to recruit contractual staff as per MoU under Art. 146(1), Constitution. Rights of plaintiffs as federal civil servants, including promotions, to remain protected and unaffected by contractual appointments. Parties left to bear their own costs.