Summary: Background: The petitioner, a Junior Handicraft Teacher at Government Girls High School in Garhi Dupatta, District Muzaffarabad, filed a writ petition under Writ Petition No. 3798 of 2022. The petitioner, a permanent employee of the Education Department, claimed that her arrears and monthly salary were not being paid despite her continuous service. The case was admitted for regular hearing, and the Director Technical admitted the claims made by the petitioner. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s fundamental rights under the Constitution were violated by the non-payment of her salary and arrears. 2- Whether the petitioner is entitled to immediate payment of the outstanding salary and arrears. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court acknowledged the admitted stance of the petitioner by the Director Technical, stating that matters admitted need not be proven. The non-payment of the petitioner’s salary and arrears constituted a gross violation of her constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights, particularly rights No. 1 and 15. The court emphasized that Fundamental Right No. 1 is the mother of all fundamental rights and that no one can be deprived of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The enforcement of these rights is essential for the concept of better governance as provided in the preamble of the Constitution. The court concluded that the petitioner’s grievance warranted judicial intervention to enforce her fundamental rights. Consequently, the writ petition was accepted, and respondents No. 6 and 7 were directed to pay the petitioner’s salary from May 2021 to the present date immediately. A compliance report was ordered to be submitted before the Registrar of the Court.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: The petitioners, residents of Bhimber, filed Writ Petition No. 3139/2023 under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974. They sought a direction for the respondents to include their names on the tentative/provisional merit list for reserved seats for the session 2023-24. The petitioners claimed to have scored over 88% and 84% respectively, but were excluded from the merit list. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners are eligible for inclusion on the merit list under the reserved quota for Mangla Dam Effectees. 2- Whether the exclusion of the petitioners from the merit list violates any constitutional or statutory provisions. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court reviewed the conditions mentioned in the tentative/provisional merit list and noted that it was subject to correction in case of any errors or omissions. The petitioners claimed to be Mangla Dam Effectees and provided their Intermediate Examination Result Cards and certificates issued by the Deputy Commissioner Rehabilitation and Commissioner Mangla Dam Affairs. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in "Imran Ali Vs Public Service Commission, Azad Jammu and Kashmir" (2013 SCR 795), which directed the government to provide a mechanism for the rights of Mangla Dam Effectees who are settled in Pakistan. The court also referred to Article 22(iii) of the Interim Constitution, 1974, which defines Mangla Dam Effectees as those residing in any province of Pakistan. The petitioners were found to be residing in District Bhimber, Azad Jammu and Kashmir, not in any province of Pakistan. The court concluded that the petitioners do not qualify for the reserved quota for Mangla Dam Effectees as specified in the Constitution. Instead, they should be considered against the quota for District Bhimber. ----Citations/Precedents: Imran Ali Vs Public Service Commission, Azad Jammu and Kashmir (2013 SCR 795) Article 22(iii) of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution, 1974

Summary: Messrs ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY LTD.-Respondent (Against order dated 30.11.2021, passed by the High Court of Sindh, Circuit Court, Hyderabad on M.A. No. 1719 of 2020 moved in C.P. No.D-217 of 2001). Contempt of Court Ordinance (V of 2003)- -Ss. 3 & 4-Constitution of Pakistan, Art.204-Contempt of High Court-Employees of a company-Termination from service-Judgment issued by the High Court directing reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits-Non-compliance by the company (employer)-Whether company (employer) made substantial compliance with the judgment of the High Court?-Held, that seemingly, the directions issued by the High Court for reinstatement in service with all benefits, which the petitioners (employees) were entitled to at the date of termination of their services, were not complied with-Therefore, the petitioners filed an application in the High Court for initiating contempt proceedings for the non-compliance of judgment-However, the High Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings based on the statement of the alleged contemnors (company) that substantial compliance of the judgment had been made-Impugned order of the High Court did not reflect whether any verified statement of accounts was filed in the High Court by the alleged contemnors to demonstrate compliance and payments, if any, made to the petitioners-Additionally, no due diligence was made by the High Court to ensure compliance with its own judgment-Despite the High Court passing various harsh and deterrent orders on different dates of hearing for ensuring compliance and implementation of its judgment, the contempt application was disposed of precipitously and inconsiderately, and the sole observation was that substantial compliance had been made-What substantial compliance was allegedly made should have been reflected in the order to determine whether due compliance had been achieved or not-So, in all fairness, it was not enough for the High Court to dispose of the contempt application on the ground that if the petitioners had any substantial claim against the respondent (company), they were at liberty to seek a remedy, if any, under the law-Court has to assess the contempt and its gravity and may also purge it if an unqualified apology is tendered by the contemnor; however, there is no concept or parameter to relieve or emancipate the contemnors on the notion that substantial compliance has been made, which had not been demonstrated in the present case-Court has to evaluate the compliance of its judgment in its entirety and not the ratio or percentage of compliance-In the present case denial of exercising jurisdiction proactively in the contempt proceedings for revitalising and assuring the compliance of judgment not only rendered the main judgment worthless and inconsequential, but for all practical purposes, also undermined the writ of the Court and watered down the efficacy of the orders passed by different benches in the same proceedings for ensuring compliance-Petitions were converted into an appeal and allowed; the impugned Order of the High Court was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the High Court for deciding the contempt application afresh and for examining whether the judgment had been implemented as per the directions issued by the High Court or not. Petitioners in Person. Respondent not Represented.

Summary: Right of Access to Information Act (XXXIV of 2017)- -Ss. 11(3), 17, 19(2)(e) & 20(2)-Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199- - Non-compliance of order of Information Commission-Statutory jurisdiction to initiate contempt proceedings-Powers of the Commission to initiate contempt proceedings-Scope-Petitioner appeared before High Court, instead of waiting patiently for the agency and or forum (Commission) to decide the application in a reasonable period of time-Petitioner had already adopted proceedings by filing application under S.20(2) of the Right of Access to Information Act, 2017, which were pending-Under S.20(2) of the aforesaid Act, Commission had been conferred powers to initiate contempt proceedings against the delinquents, therefore, resort to the writ jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution for implementation of the order of the Commission was not maintainable-Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Petitioner in person.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending