Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background:The case involves appeals regarding the entitlement of respondents, who were appointed as Apprentice Loco Cleaners by the appellants (Pakistan Railways), to annual increments for the two-year training period undergone at the Walton Training Academy, Lahore ("Academy"). After completing the training, the respondents were inducted into regular service and posted at various stations within the Railways service. The respondents claimed payment of annual increments for the training period based on a judgment by the Federal Service Tribunal ("FST") in a previous case. The matter was contested by the appellants, who argued that the respondents, as Apprentices, were not entitled to such benefits.---Issues:Whether the respondents, appointed as Apprentice Loco Cleaners, are entitled to annual increments for the two-year training period undergone at the Academy.Whether the judgment of the FST, allowing similar benefits to other employees, applies to the present case.Whether the administrative directions provided in the letters dated 20.04.1987 and 23.07.1987 support the grant of annual increments to the respondents.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court held that the respondents, as Apprentices, were not entitled to annual increments for the training period based on the administrative regulations outlined in the Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual. The court found that the letters dated 20.04.1987 and 23.07.1987, which were misinterpreted by the FST, did not extend the benefit of annual increments to Apprentices/stipendiary students during their training period. It was concluded that the impugned judgment of the FST suffered from a serious error in interpreting the relevant service regulations, and therefore, the appeals were allowed.---Citations/Precedents:Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Challenging the declaration of Institution as private limited company

Summary: Alibi or plea of alibi is a claim of innocence brought forth by the accused in which he alleges that at the time when the offence with which he is charged was committed, he was elsewhere. Plea of alibi is the weakest type of plea and cannot be given any weightage unless same is proved through very cogent, convincing and plausible evidence therefore, setting up a false plea of alibi does not lead to an inference of guilt but at the same time it can be a confirmatory circumstance to prove the guilt.It is for the trial Court to determine the veracity of confession of the co- accused, ocular account of the eyewitnesses coupled with medical and circumstantial evidence as well as defence evidence and draw its conclusion in light thereof. This Court at this stage on tentative assessment of the material placed on record is not inclined to grant bail to the accused/petitioner. The offence squarely falls within the prohibitory limb of Section 497 Cr.P.C. Bail refused.

Summary: It is pertinent to observethat the Investigating Officer in the present case has failed to jointhe co-signatories, namely Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi and NazeerAhmed Abro, who signed the cheques in question, which resultedinto embezzlement of the aforesaid huge amount by the appellants.Their such conduct undermines the public confidence in a fair andaccountable system with fair and effective administration of justice.Therefore, the Chairman N.A.B, Islamabad is directed to look intorole played by accused namely Syed Muhammad Ali Zaidi andNazeer Ahmed Abro, who are co-signatory of the cheques inquestion, proceed in accordance with law and file reference againstthem. Office is directed to send a copy of this judgment to theChairman N.A.B at Islamabad for compliance.

Summary: Khursheed Bibi has filed a petition under section 497 Cr.P.C., seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The allegation is that she was apprehended by the police, and 2420 grams of "Charas" were allegedly recovered from her possession. The court, after hearing the arguments and examining the record, notes that there is sufficient incriminating evidence, including a prompt F.I.R., statements under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a substantial quantity of the recovered contraband. The court observed that there is no material to presume that the police substituted the petitioner with the real accused. The petitioner claimed malafide involvement due to enmity with the police, but the court points out that a private complaint filed by the petitioner's son against police officials was dismissed. The court finds that the petitioner's previous litigation, related to arrests and narcotics recovery, is not relevant to the present case. Although the case involved a female, falling within the proviso to section 497(1) of Cr.P.C., the court asserts that the grant of bail is still within the discretion of the competent court. The court concluded that no case for the exercise of discretion in favor of the petitioner is made out, and the petition was dismissed.