Summary: Background:The case involves Civil Appeals No. 323-325 of 2018, originating from an order dated 16.12.2016 by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST). The respondents were initially appointed on contract as Marketing Officers in a project under the Ministry of Food, Agricultural and Livestock Products Marketing and Grading Department. Subsequently, they were transferred to the Central Directorate of National Savings, Government of Pakistan. The respondents sought upgradation and re-designation of their posts, which was declined by the departmental authority, leading to an appeal before the FST.---Issues:Whether the respondents, appointed on contract, could be considered civil servants.Whether the directions given by the FST regarding upgradation and re-designation of the respondents' posts were valid.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the respondents, despite being initially appointed on contract, were considered civil servants upon their permanent absorption into government service, as per the recommendations of the Cabinet sub-Committee. The Court refused to entertain arguments challenging the respondents' absorption into regular service, as it was a decision made by the highest executive authority and affected numerous government employees. Therefore, the Court upheld the FST's directions for upgradation and re-designation of the respondents' posts.---Citations/Precedents:Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others vs. Province of Sindh and others (2015 SCMR 456): Cited regarding the qualifications required for being considered a civil servant.Section 11-B of the Civil Servants Act, 1973: Referenced in relation to the assessment of qualifications required for a civil servant.Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010: Referred to in the context of the reorganization of ministries and the absorption of employees affected by the amendment.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -S. 151-Inherent powers of the Court to make such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of Court, exercise of-Nature and scope of jurisdiction of civil courts under S.151, C.P.C.-Appropriate or specific provision if available for a relief being claimed under C.P.C.; then said relief could as a matter of right had to be granted and entertained necessarily under S.151, C.P.C.-Civil Procedure Code, 1908, was not exhaustive; and did not lay down rules for guidance in respect of all situations nor did it seek to provide rules for decision for conceivable cases-Civil Courts were authorized to pass such orders as may be necessary for ends of justice, or to prevent abuse of the process, but where an express provision was made to meet a particular situation such express provision of C.P.C. must be observed, and departure therefrom was not permissible-Inherent jurisdiction of court to make order ex debito justitiae was undoubtedly affirmed by S.151, C.P.C., but such jurisdiction could not be exercised so as to nullify other provisions of C.P.C.-Where provision of C.P.C. dealt with expressly with a particular matter, then such provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive-Inherent powers of the Court were in addition to the powers specifically conferred by C.P.C. and were complementary to such powers and therefore it must be held that the Civil Courts were free to exercise same for purposes mentioned in S. 151 when exercise of such powers was not in any way in conflict with what had been expressly provided in C.P.C.-Civil Courts could not make use of special provisions of S.151, C.P.C. where a party had remedy provided elsewhere in C.P.C. and neglected to avail himself of the same and furthermore power under S.151, C.P.C. could not be exercised as appellate power. Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal MANU/SC/0056/1961; Subho Ram Kalita v. Dharmeswar Das Koch AIR 1987 Gau. 73 and Nain Singh v. Koonwarjee and others AIR 1970 SC 997 rel. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. XXXVII, R. 5-Attachment of property/funds before judgment-Scope-Application for attachment of property/funds of a defendant was rarely to be granted-For grant of such application averments, at a bare minimum, were required to be so convincing that Court could consider same to be prima facie in nature-Relief of attachment before judgment was a very harsh order to be made against a particular defendant and in granting such relief Court had to be satisfied that plaintiff's case was of prima facie nature and based on an unimpeachable claim (s) in plaint-Furthermore Court must have reasons to believe on basis of material before it, that unless jurisdiction was exercised and orders as solicited were not passed, then there existed a real danger that defendant may remove itself from territorial jurisdiction of Court and an intent to avoid passing of a decree must be clearly shown with reasonable clarity. (c) Company- -Principles of corporate governance-Adjudication by courts on matters of shareholder grievance/corporate governance-Judicial oversight on conduct of company's affairs-Scope-For a court dealing with company matters, if the thing complained of before it by minority shareholder(s), was a thing which in substance majority of company was entitled to do, or if something had been done irregularly which majority of the company was entitled to do regularly, or if something had been done illegally which majority of company was entitled to do legally, then there existed no use for litigation with regards to such matter as ultimate end of such matter was only that a meeting had to be called, and then ultimately majority got its wishes-Individual shareholder could not bring an action before courts to complain of an irregularity (as distinct from an illegality) in the conduct of the company's internal affairs provided that such irregularity was one which could be cured by a vote of company in general meeting. Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189; Mosley v. Alston (1847) 41 E.R. 833; KASB Corporation Limited v. Bank Islami Pakistan Limited 2019 YLR 345; Macdougall v. Gardiner [1875] 1 Ch.D.13 (L. J. Mellish) and Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Newman Industries Ltd. and others [1982] 1 All ER 354 rel. Syed Amir Hussain Shah v. Progressive Papers Ltd. and others PLD 1969 Lah. 615; Naveed Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi and 3 others v. Central Cotton Mills Limited, S.I.T.E. Kotri District Dadu and 2 others PLD 1997 Kar. 432; Nizam Hashwani v. Hashwani Hotels Limited and 14 others 1999 CLC 1989; Kohinoor Raiwind Mills Limited through Chief Executive v. Kohinoor Gujar Khan Mills and others 2002 CLD 1314; Muhammad Suleman Kanjiani and 3 others v. Dadex Eternit Ltd. through Chief Executive and 4 others 2009 CLD 1687; Babri Cotton Mills Ltd.'s case 2009 CLD 541; Mst. Sakina Khatoon and 6 others v. S.S. Nazir Ahsan and 17 others 2010 CLD 963; Golden Arrow Selected Stock Funds Ltd. and another v. Clariant Pakistan Ltd. and 9 others PLD 2016 Sindh 50; Foss v. Harbottle (1843) 67 ER 189, Re Lee, Behrens & Co, Ltd. 1932] All ER Rep 889; Edwards and another v. Halliwell and others [1950] 2 All ER 1064 and Re Halt Garage (1964) Ltd. [1982] 3 All ER 1016 rel. Jaffer Raza and Rabia Khan for Plaintiffs. Khalid Jawed Khan along with Umer Akhund and Hanif Kamal Alam for Defendants Nos. 1 to 9. Imran Shamsi for SECP. Dates of hearing: 16th April, 18th September, 2019, 13th January and 3rd February, 2020.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Rent Matter, Eviction.

Summary: Against impugned office Memorandum No.A-II/2(14)/2018 dated 06.06.2018 whereby petitioner has been refused medical allowance