Summary: Case false owing to mistake of law, it behooves to quash.

Summary: Allowances--medical allowance was to be calculated based on the pension drawn----The case involved a pension issue concerning a retired individual who had worked for Pakistan Railways. The appellant, Divisional Accounts Officer, Pakistan Railways, challenged the Tribunal's decision to grant a 25% increase in pension to the respondent (deceased individual) based on their substantive Grade-15 at the time of retirement, as per an Office Memorandum dated 23.07.1999. The appellant argued that the respondent had retired from a Grade-16 position and was only entitled to a 20% increase in medical allowance as per a 2010 Office Memorandum. The Tribunal's decision was based on interpreting the 2010 Office Memorandum and considering the respondent's substantive grade.The Supreme Court reviewed the case and disagreed with the Tribunal's interpretation of the law. The Court ruled that the medical allowance was to be calculated based on the pension drawn, and since the respondent had retired at a Grade-16 position and received a pension based on that grade, the correct rate of medical allowance was 20% according to the 2010 Office Memorandum. The Court found that the Tribunal had misconstrued the Office Memorandum and had allowed the respondent to claim two benefits simultaneously. The Court also criticized the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay in filing the appeal, stating that the reasons provided for doing so were not applicable to the case. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and allowed the appeal. A related civil review petition was also disposed of based on the same reasoning.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) --- ----S. 497(2)---Emigration Ordinance (XVIII of 1979), Ss. 22(b) & 17(2)(b)---Human trafficking---Post-arrest bail, grant of---Further inquiry---It was an admitted position that the business was run by co-accused person and that the petitioner was an employee at that business---The Investigating Officer (I.O) had confirmed that the money taken by the business from the complainant went into the account of the business---Investigating Officer further confirmed that the petitioner was not an authorized signatory of the bank account of the business---Investigating Officer also confirmed that during investigation no evidence was found to establish tha t any of the money taken from the complainant by the business found its way to the petitioner in any manner, whatsoever---In view of the foregoing findings during investigation, further inquiry was required to establish the nexus of the applicant with the crime complained of---Petitioner was admitted to bail, in circumstances. Muhammad Bilal Rashid for Applicant. Muhammad Ahmed, Assistant Attorney General along with Gahzala Naureen I.O for the State. Order Omar Sial, J .--- Shafqat Hussain has sought post arrest bail in crime number 156 of 2021 registered under sections 22(b) and 17(2)(b) of the Emigration Ordinance 1979 at the Anti-Human Trafficking Wing of the F.I.A. police station. Earlier, his application seeking bail was dismissed by the learned Special Judge (Central) - II at Karachi on 29-11-2021. 2. A background to the case is that the aforementioned FIR was registered on 12-11-2021 on the complaint of Muhammad Hassan Rasool. Although the FIR is lengthy, the complainant Rasool had in essence is as follows: 3. Co-accused Zuhair was the owner of an entity called Canadian Immigration Expert, whereas the applicant is an employee in that business. Rasool approached the business to explore immigration to Canada and after reviewing his paper-work, he was informed that his qualifications make him eligible for employment under a certain immigration program of the Canadian government. Rasool was supposed to pay USD 8000 in four installments for the services of the business. He paid two installments subsequently. Not much progress was made in the matter and after remaining in touch with the complainant, sometime in November 2018 both the accused i.e. Zuhair Ahmed and Shafqat Hussain became incommunicado. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Assistant Attorney General. The complainant did not effect an appearance. The arguments of the learned counsel is not being reproduced for the sake of brevity but are reflected in the observations below. 5. It is an admitted position that the business was run by co-accused Zuhair Ahmed and that the applicant was an employee at that business. The investigating officer has confirmed that the money taken by the business from Rasool went into the account of the business. She further confirmed that the applicant is not an authorized signatory of the bank account of the business. She also confirmed that during investigation no evidence was found to establish that any of the money taken from Rasool by the business found its way to the applicant in any manner whatsoever. In view of the foregoing findings during investigation, further inquiry is required to establish the nexus of the applicant with the crime complained of. The applicant is therefore admitted to bail subject to his furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000 and a P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court. MQ/S-51/Sindh Bail grante

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Who can be complainant in case under section 121, 121-A, 124-A 131 and 153 PPC. Principle laid down -----------Issues: 1)Whether the FIR against Captain (Rtd) Muhammad Safdar was legally valid given the requirements of ---Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. ----2)Whether the allegations in the FIR constituted an offence under the PPC. ----3)Whether there was evidence of mala fide intent in registering the FIR without forensic verification of the video evidence. ---4)Whether the petitioner’s actions constituted waging war against the state or instigating mutiny. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that per Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the complainant was not competent to lodge the FIR without the authorization of the Federal or Provincial Government. No such authorization was produced, rendering the FIR legally invalid. The court found no material evidence that the petitioner’s actions met the legal criteria for the alleged offences. Criticism of government policies by a politician does not equate to waging war against the country. The court noted the lack of forensic verification of the video evidence as indicative of mala fide intent, further invalidating the FIR. The allegations did not constitute waging war against the state or instigating mutiny, as no concrete evidence, such as pamphlets, literature, or arms, was presented. Consequently, W.P. No. 2843-P of 2021 was allowed, and the FIR was quashed. Cr.M.(B.B.A.) No. 809-A of 2021 became infructuous and was dismissed. W.P. No. 1297-P of 2021 was disposed of with directions to the respondents to provide case details to the petitioner upon request. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Sections 121, 121-A, 124-A, 131, 153, 505, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC).

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Service/Seniority---those appointed by transfer would be senior---The case revolved around seniority issues in the Ministry of Housing and Works. The appellant had been promoted to the position of Assistant on August 6, 2003, while the private respondents had been appointed as Assistants through transfers in the same year. The issue of seniority was raised, and the appellant filed a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal, which was subsequently dismissed.The Supreme Court considered the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel, which focused on the seniority of direct recruits in comparison to transferred employees. The court examined Rule 6 of the Civil Servants (Seniority) Rules, 1993, which stated that those appointed by transfer in a particular calendar year shall be senior to those appointed by promotion or initial appointment in that year. Since both the appellant and the private respondents were appointed or promoted in the same calendar year (2003), the rule dictated that those appointed by transfer would be senior. The court referred to relevant judgments and legal principles and upheld the dismissal of the service appeal.