Summary: ----Art. 199 – Public Procurement – Cancellation of Tenders – Government Accountability – Principles of Transparency The petitioner challenged the cancellation and reissuance of tenders concerning the construction of government facilities in Islamabad, alleging irregularities and lack of transparency in the tendering process. The tenders were repeatedly published, modified, and ultimately awarded without clear reasoning or justification for their cancellation. The court emphasized the principles of transparency, fair play, and accountability in public procurement processes, holding that arbitrary cancellations undermine public trust and create suspicion. Reliance was placed on the guidelines provided by the Planning Commission of Pakistan and previous rulings of the Supreme Court. (b) Governance – Fiscal Responsibility – Employment Policies – Provincial Development Plans** The court highlighted the province's financial constraints and emphasized the need for prudent fiscal policies. It was noted that: Around 80,000 government posts remain vacant in Balochistan. Creation of new posts should be restricted to essential sectors such as health, education, and police. Redundant posts should be reassigned or restructured. A ban was placed on unnecessary appointments in the Civil Secretariat. Emphasis was placed on promoting employment in the private sector, freelancing, and entrepreneurship rather than increasing reliance on public-sector jobs. (c) Pension Liabilities – Financial Sustainability – Austerity Measures The court expressed concern over escalating pension liabilities, projected to exceed PKR 71 billion for the fiscal year 2023–2024. Recommendations included: Introduction of contributory pension schemes. Appointment of employees on a contract basis with compensation for pension benefits. Limiting pension benefits to spouses or dependent children. Capping pension payments for a fixed period after an employee's demise. (d) Public Sector Development Program (PSDP) – Guidelines for Sustainable Development The court issued guidelines for streamlining the PSDP: Inclusion of projects in PSDP must follow Planning Commission guidelines. Focus on collective projects with measurable social and economic benefits. Priority to ongoing schemes to prevent cost overruns. Emphasis on income-generating schemes for economic growth. Sectoral balance and regional parity must be ensured in resource allocation. Monitoring and evaluation mechanisms must be strengthened to ensure transparency and accountability. ----Disposition: The petition was disposed of with directives to the Chief Secretary, Additional Chief Secretary (Development), and all Administrative Secretaries of the Government of Balochistan to ensure compliance with the outlined recommendations. The court emphasized sustainable financial management, fiscal responsibility, and strict adherence to procurement and development guidelines.

Summary: Background: Civil Petitions No. 1007 and 1112-L/2022 were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner, challenged the tribunal's decision to withhold 50% of his pension, contending that it was unjustified. ---Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner's conduct amounted to gross negligence justifying the withholding of pension. 2- Whether the penalty imposed by the Inquiry Committee was proportionate to the offense. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court examined the concept of negligence, emphasizing that gross negligence involves a marked departure from the normal standard of conduct. While the petitioner's absence during the embezzlement was justified due to his supervisory role, his negligence did not meet the threshold of gross negligence.The Court criticized the Inquiry Committee's decision to withhold 100% of the petitioner's pension as disproportionate and unreasonable. It stressed the principle of proportionality, highlighting that penalties should reflect the degree of moral culpability associated with the offense. The Committee's decision failed the tests of proportionality, suitability, and necessity. ---Citations/Precedents: The Postmaster General Sindh Province, Karachi v. Syed Farhan (2022 SCMR 1154)Hunter v. Hanley (1955 &LT 213)Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board, Peshawar (PLD 2019 SC 189)Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza (2023 SCMR 803)

Summary: Facts: The petitioner, Muhammad Yaseen, was employed as an ASI in the Anti Narcotics Force (ANF). On February 3, 2016, he was charged with unlawfully taking an amount of Rs. 103,000 from a civilian, Khalid Mehmood, during an ANF operation. Following an inquiry, Yaseen was dismissed from service based on the recommendations. His departmental appeal was rejected, as was his subsequent appeal to the Federal Service Tribunal in Lahore.---Issue: The primary issue was whether the dismissal of Muhammad Yaseen from service was justified, especially in light of the leniency shown towards his co-accused on similar charges.---Decision: The Supreme Court converted the petition into an appeal, allowed it, and set aside the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal to the extent of the petitioner. It directed that the petitioner be treated similarly to his co-accused by awarding a minor penalty instead of dismissal.---Reasoning: The Court found that the petitioner's case was not distinguishable from his co-accused, who were given minor penalties. Dismissing the petitioner while giving leniency to others was seen as discriminatory. The Court also considered the petitioner's long and unblemished service record and the fact that he had reached retirement age during the proceedings.---Order: The Court ordered that if the petitioner's retirement date had passed, he should be awarded all pensionary benefits he is entitled to within two months.

Summary: Facts: Dr. Habib-ur-Rehman, the respondent, filed a suit against Allied Bank Limited (ABL), the petitioner, for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of benevolent fund and other retirement benefits. The respondent argued that his pensionary dues were incorrectly calculated based on a circular dated September 4, 2002, and not on his last drawn pay at retirement, which deprived him of rightful benefits accrued from salary increases between June 30, 2002, and his retirement on July 13, 2007. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed this decision, decreeing the suit in the respondent's favor. ABL's subsequent appeal to the Peshawar High Court was dismissed, leading to the present petition.----Issue: Whether the Peshawar High Court erred in upholding the first appellate court's decision that the respondent was entitled to retirement benefits calculated on his last drawn pay rather than the pay as of June 30, 2002, per the contested circular.----Holding: The Supreme Court allowed the petition, set aside the order of the Peshawar High Court, and restored the trial court's judgment dismissing the respondent's suit.----Reasoning: The Supreme Court found that the circular in question was clear in its intent to revise the pension scheme from July 1, 2002, offering employees the option to remain on the old pension scheme with pension based on the "frozen Basic Pay as on June 30, 2002." The respondent, not having opted in writing to remain on the old scheme, was automatically subject to the new scheme, which the Court found to be generally more beneficial. The Court noted that the respondent, as a high-ranking officer, was expected to be fully aware of the policy changes and, having accepted benefits under the new scheme, could not contest its legality. Moreover, the Court found the Peshawar High Court's interpretation of the circular and the application to the respondent's case as flawed, stating that non-submission of a written option for the old scheme meant the respondent was to be governed by the new scheme. The Court also addressed the principle of stare decisis, indicating that an earlier decision by an equal bench does not bind them in this case due to the specific interpretation of the circular and its application.---Judgment: The petition is allowed, and the trial court's dismissal of the respondent's suit is reinstated.

Summary: Background: The petitioners sought to receive a share from the pensionary funds of the late Dr. Azmat Hayat Khan, who was a civil servant and died during his tenure. They argued that these funds should be considered as "Tarka" (inheritance) and distributed accordingly. The petitioners also requested the court to ensure that parents of deceased civil servants automatically receive their due share of pension and other emoluments. ----Issues: 1- Whether pensionary benefits of a deceased person fall within the definition of "Tarka" (inheritance) under Islamic law. 2- Whether the Federal Shariat Court has jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the petitioners. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Definition of "Tarka": The court reiterated that pensionary benefits do not fall within the definition of "Tarka" and are governed by the departmental Pensionary Rules. The court noted that for the purpose of pensionary benefits, the employer is at liberty to define the family. Pensionary benefits are not subject to inheritance laws but are governed by specific rules laid out by the employer. --Jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court: The court emphasized that a Shariat Petition under Article 203-D of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, requires the petitioner to identify a specific law or rule that is against the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The petitioners failed to identify any such law or rule. The relief sought by the petitioners was in personam (individual relief), which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court. The court's jurisdiction is limited to examining whether laws or rules are in accordance with Islamic injunctions, not to grant specific individual relief. The Shariat Petition was dismissed in limine due to lack of maintainability. The court found that pensionary benefits do not constitute "Tarka" and are not subject to inheritance laws. Additionally, the petitioners failed to meet the constitutional requirement of identifying any law or rule against the injunctions of Islam. The court does not have jurisdiction to grant the relief sought by the petitioners. ----Citations/Precedents: "Federation of Pakistan v. Public at Large" (PLD 1991 SC 731) "Zartashi Nadia and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others" (Shariat Petition No. 09/I of 2021) "Ameeran Khatoon vs. Mst. Shamim Akhtar" (2005 SCMR 512) "Farhat Nigar v. The Auditor General of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, etc." (2018 CLC 392 Islamabad) "Mst. Riffat Yasmeen v. Hassan Din & another" (2014 CLC 126 Peshawar) "Mst. Mehmooda Begum v. Zubair Ahmad, etc." (2013 CLC 1834 Peshawar)

Summary: (Honorific such as ?honourable? should not be used for courts. Litigants, Counsel, and Judges should endeavour to practice clarity and brevity, and avoid the perception of being obsequious) During the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner repeatedly referred to the Supreme Court as the 'Honourable Supreme Court' and used similar honorifics. The Court addressed this matter and observed that while the practice of using honorifics like 'honourable' or 'learned' has developed among lawyers and judges, it is linguistically inappropriate to use such honorifics with inanimate institutions like courts. The Court emphasized the need to adhere to the language used in the Constitution and to strive for accuracy in the use of language. The Court provided references from dictionaries to support its position that the honorific 'honourable' or 'honorable' is not to be used as a prefix with inanimate objects and institutions. It noted that in the birthplace of the English language, the Supreme Court and High Courts are not referred to as 'honourable' or 'learned.' The Court concluded that the honorifics and prefixes should not be used profusely, as they often serve as a substitute for meaningful arguments.The petitioner, had retired from service with the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (respondent No.1) under the 'Voluntary Retirement/Separation Scheme for Officers.' The petitioner claimed that he was entitled to an enhanced pension similar to the serving officers of respondent No. 1 whose salary and pension had been increased. The petitioner's miscellaneous application challenging the dismissal of his review petition by the Tribunal was also rejected on the basis of belated filing. The respondents contended that the issues of limitation and the payment of the pension had already been decided in previous judgments of the Supreme Court. They relied on previous court judgments, including the case of Ch. Azhar Ali Safeer v the State Life Insurance Corporation. After considering the arguments and reviewing the relevant judgments, the Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the petition.

Summary: (Discussion on the definition of employee under Section 2 (b) and Section 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009. Doctrine of estoppel, finality and res judicata) In the present case, the appellant claimed that he had opted for a pension scheme offered by the KPK Small Industries Development Board during his employment. However, he alleged that he was being discriminated against because other employees who had chosen the pension scheme were receiving their pensions, but he was not. The appellant argued that the denial of pensionary benefits violated various articles of the Constitution of Pakistan, including Articles 4, 11, 25, and 27. He contended that he had served the respondents for a long period, and the refusal to grant him a pension while allowing it for other regular employees amounted to discrimination. The respondents, represented by the Additional Advocate General, argued that the appellant was a project employee and not entitled to pensionary benefits. They relied on a previous judgment of the Supreme Court, which held that the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Employees (Regularization of Services) Act, 2009, did not apply to project employees. The Supreme Court heard the arguments and examined the provisions of the 2009 Act, which defined the eligibility for regularization of services. It found that project employees were excluded from the definition of "employee" under the Act and, therefore, could not claim regularization. The Court also considered the doctrine of estoppel and other related doctrines, noting that the appellant himself had sought regularization in the previous litigation. Based on these considerations, the Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's appeal, stating that there was no cause of action for him to re-litigate the issue of his employment status and claim pensionary benefits.

Summary: Background: The petitioners, retired employees and widows of retired employees of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Logging and Sawmill Corporation (AKLASC), challenged the stoppage of their pension payments following the dissolution of AKLASC on 31st March 2018. They were receiving regular pension until August 2018, but pension payments were halted in September 2018. The petitioners sought the continuation of their pension payments, arguing that the Board of Directors had decided to offer a lump sum payment or a pension package, which had not been implemented. ----Issues: 1- Whether the dissolution of AKLASC by the Board of Directors was lawful, or whether it required the approval of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly. 2- Whether the petitioners were entitled to continued pension payments until a suitable pension package was introduced. 3- Whether the notifications issued on 14th April 2020 and 21st September 2020, which included a discriminatory clause, were valid. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the dissolution of AKLASC by the Board of Directors was lawful as it was later validated by the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Legislative Assembly through the enactment of the Azad Kashmir Logging & Sawmill Corporation (Repeal) Act, 2021. The court further ruled that until a suitable pension package is introduced, the petitioners are entitled to continue receiving their regular pension payments along with all increases and benefits as provided under the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Civil Service Pension Rules, 1977, and the Azad Kashmir Logging & Sawmill Corporation Employees Pension Rules, 1985. The court invalidated the notifications dated 14th April 2020 and 21st September 2020, finding the classification made therein to be unreasonable and without sufficient justification, thus violating the principles of equality under the law. ----Citations/Precedents: 1994 SCR 341 2014 SCMR 1336 2010 SCR 201 2015 SCMR 1472 2017 SCR 282 PLJ 2016 Lahore 907 2002 SCMR 312 2008 SCR 417 PLD 1975 SC 506 PLD 1990 SC 295

Summary: An employee who remained in service of temporary establishment or whose services were on contract basis and were not later on regularized or confirmed could not be benefited in terms of Article 371-A of C.S.R for pensionary benefit. Admittedly, the petitioner s service has never been regularized nor his writ petition was allowed he cannot be held entitled for any such benefit on the basis of the principle laid down in the case of Mir Ahmad Khan. -----Background: The petitioner, who served in various capacities from 1980 until his retirement on 30.06.2017, filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking the release of his pension and the appointment of his son to a Class-IV position under the reserved 25% quota for children of retired Class-IV employees. The petitioner argued that he had served in various roles, including as a Naib Qasid in the office of the Tehsil Municipal Officer, Dargai, and was entitled to pension and his son's appointment under the specified quota. The respondents contested this, arguing that the petitioner had been a contingent (part-time) employee and, therefore, was not entitled to pensionary benefits. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner is entitled to pensionary benefits after his retirement. -----2- Whether the petitioner’s son qualifies for appointment under the 25% reserved quota for children of retired Class-IV employees. The applicability of Article 371-A of the Civil Service Regulations (CSR) regarding pension benefits for temporary employees. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the petition. It ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits because he was a contingent employee (part-time) and had never been regularized. The court relied on a previous judgment where it was held that contingent staff were not entitled to benefits such as pension and dearness allowance. Additionally, the court found that the petitioner’s reliance on Article 371-A of the CSR was misplaced, as the article only grants pensionary benefits to government servants who have served more than five years in a temporary establishment, which did not apply to the petitioner’s case. Moreover, the petitioner's previous petition regarding regularization had been dismissed on similar grounds. The court also referred to the judgment in "Chairman, Pakistan Railway v. Shah Jehan Shah" and noted that temporary service in a contingent establishment does not entitle an employee to pensionary benefits. As for the petitioner’s request for his son's appointment, the court did not address this, as the claim for pension was dismissed based on the status of the petitioner’s employment. -----Citations/Precedents: Mir Ahmad Khan v. Secretary to Government and others (1997 SCMR 1477) Chairman, Pakistan Railway v. Shah Jehan Shah (PLD 2016 SC 534) WP No.640/2002, Judgment dated 15.12.2003 Civil Service Regulations (CSR) Article 371-A

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a retired military officer, had his pension withheld after being convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder by the Additional Sessions Judge in a case registered under Sections 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). Following his conviction, the petitioner's pension payments were stopped. The petitioner appealed against his conviction and sentence, and during the pendency of the appeal, the Lahore High Court granted him bail by suspending his sentence. After being released on bail, the petitioner requested the restoration of his pension, but the request was denied by the authorities. Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the withholding of his pension. ------Issues: 1- Is the petitioner entitled to the restoration of his pension after being sentenced to life imprisonment for a serious crime? -----2- Does the suspension of the petitioner’s sentence and his release on bail entitle him to the reinstatement of his pensionary benefits during the pendency of his criminal appeal? -----3- Was the respondent's decision to withhold the petitioner's pension in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations? ------Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The writ petition was dismissed, and the respondent's decision to withhold the petitioner’s pension was upheld. According to the Pension Regulations Volume II (Army 1986) and Rule 25 of the Handbook of Instructions for Military Pension Payments, a military pensioner’s pension is suspended if they are convicted and sentenced for a serious crime. In this case, the petitioner’s pension was withheld following his conviction for murder, which qualifies as a serious crime. Although the petitioner was released on bail after the suspension of his sentence by the Lahore High Court, the court found that the suspension of the sentence did not amount to an acquittal. The pension could only be restored if the petitioner were acquitted or if his criminal appeal succeeded. Since the petitioner’s criminal appeal was still pending, and his conviction had not been overturned, the court held that the respondent acted lawfully in withholding the pension. The court emphasized that pension is a right acquired through service but is subject to the condition of good conduct. The conviction for murder violated this condition, and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to pensionary benefits until a final decision was made in his criminal appeal. The petition was dismissed, and the respondent’s action of withholding the petitioner’s pension was deemed legal and justified. ------Citations/Precedents: General Conditions Governing Pension (C.S.R. 351) – Rule 2307: Allows for the withholding or withdrawal of pension for conviction of a serious crime or grave misconduct. Pension Regulations Volume II (Army 1986) – Rule 40: Provides for the suspension or forfeiture of pension if a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime or guilty of grave misconduct. Handbook of Instructions for Military Pension Payments – Rule 25: Specifies that pension can be suspended when a pensioner is sentenced to imprisonment and restored only upon acquittal or release on successful appeal.