Summary: (a) Service laws—Pay fixation—Point-to-point formula—Rounding off under international accounting standards—No illegality found ----Federal Government Civil Servants—Basic Pay Scales, 2007—President’s order sanctioning 15% pay increase—Employee challenged fixation on grounds that increase was less than 15%—Tribunal allowed service appeal based on its earlier decision in Appeal No.1815(R)CS/2017—Held, fixation based on point-to-point formula with rounding off to nearest 5th or 10th value was in line with accepted international accounting standards and IFRS/GAAP—No illegality found in such administrative practice—Tribunal erred in disregarding this Court’s earlier reversal of its precedent—Impugned judgment set aside. (b) Judicial precedent—Binding nature—Tribunal acting per incuriam—Effect ----Art. 189, Constitution of Pakistan—Tribunal passed judgment on basis of earlier precedent that had already been set aside by Supreme Court—Held, Tribunal’s failure to acknowledge binding judgment amounted to per incuriam decision—Once Supreme Court settles a question of law, it becomes binding on all subordinate courts and tribunals—Tribunal's continued reliance on a voided precedent was legally untenable. Justice Khurshid Anwar Bhinder v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2010 SC 483 Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd. (1944 KB 718) Morelle Ltd. v. Wakeling (1955) 2 QB 379 (c) Administrative law—Employee undertaking to refund disputed amount—Effect of estoppel ----Respondent acknowledged via written undertaking that he would return the excess amount if the Tribunal’s precedent was set aside—Held, respondent estopped from resisting recovery—He had expressly referred to the very judgment subsequently reversed by this Court, and cannot now claim distinct treatment. (d) Tribunal jurisdiction—Policy matters—Limitation on interference—Standard of review ----Held, unless a government policy is shown to be arbitrary, patently illegal, or unreasonable, the Tribunal or courts cannot interfere—Pay fixation methodologies involving rounding conventions and stage correspondence fall within domain of executive policy unless demonstrated to be discriminatory or ultra vires. (e) Service laws—Revised pay scales—Understanding of “point-to-point fixation”—Clarified ----Clarified that “point-to-point fixation” requires placing employee at corresponding stage above minimum in new scale, matching the stage held in previous scale—Small variances due to rounding to nearest increment do not vitiate the process—Such practice consistent with global accounting norms and not violative of law. (f) Disposition—Civil petition converted into appeal and allowed—Tribunal’s order set aside—Service appeal dismissed ----Held, impugned judgment passed by Tribunal on 27.07.2023 was without legal basis as it relied on a precedent already reversed—Civil petition converted into appeal and allowed—Service Appeal No.134(K)CS/2021 dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, employed as a Junior Clerk at a Cadet College, was compulsorily retired from service on 5th March 2021, following allegations of misconduct and inefficiency. This decision, challenged via departmental appeal and review, was upheld. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, claiming procedural irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings, lack of a formal inquiry, and violation of his right to a fair trial. -----Issues: 1- Was the compulsory retirement of the petitioner imposed following the procedural requirements under the applicable regulations? -----2- Did the failure to hold a formal inquiry violate the petitioner’s constitutional right to due process and a fair trial? -----3- Was the show cause notice sufficiently specific to allow the petitioner to defend himself adequately? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The writ petition was allowed. The disciplinary proceedings leading to the petitioner’s compulsory retirement were declared void, and he was reinstated in service subject to the return of dues. The college was directed to hold de novo proceedings, including a regular inquiry. --Non-compliance with Regulations: Under the “Efficiency & Discipline Regulations,” a regular inquiry is mandatory for imposing major penalties like compulsory retirement unless dispensed with for valid, documented reasons. No such reasons were recorded in the petitioner’s case. --Deficient Show Cause Notice: The show cause notice failed to specify clear, actionable allegations against the petitioner. The charges were vague and relied on past conduct without directly addressing the allegations prompting the disciplinary action. The notice did not meet the criteria outlined in judicial precedents, which require clarity, specificity, and adherence to procedural safeguards. --Violation of Fair Trial Rights: The petitioner was deprived of his fundamental right to a fair trial under Articles 4 and 10A of the Constitution. The absence of a regular inquiry denied him the opportunity to present evidence, cross-examine witnesses, and defend himself adequately. --Improper Dispensation of Inquiry: While the department can dispense with a formal inquiry in exceptional circumstances, this requires compelling reasons recorded in writing. Such reasons were absent, rendering the proceedings legally flawed. The compulsory retirement order, appellate decision, and review dismissal were set aside. The petitioner was reinstated but required to refund pensionary dues. The college was directed to conduct fresh disciplinary proceedings, including a regular inquiry, within three months. -----Citations/Precedents: 2024 SCMR 80 – Sanaullah Sani vs. Secretary Education Schools and Others 2023 SCMR 603 – Federation of Pakistan vs. Zahid Malik 2017 SCMR 356 – Muhammad Naeem Akhtar vs. Managing Director Water and Sanitation Agency LDA 2022 SCMR 327 – Senior Superintendent of Police (Operations) vs. Shahid Nazir

Summary: Background: The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in a cadet college on September 1, 2004, following the death of his father, who was an employee of the college. After completing his probation period, the petitioner was regularized as a permanent employee. Due to enhanced qualifications, he was promoted to the position of Junior Accountant on October 18, 2007. However, on February 27, 2021, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice, leading to his compulsory retirement from service on March 13, 2021. The petitioner’s departmental appeal and review petition were subsequently dismissed, prompting him to file a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. -----Issues: 1- Whether the show cause notice and disciplinary action taken against the petitioner were legally valid. -----2- Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing (audi alteram partem) and Article 10A of the Constitution of Pakistan. -----3- Whether the petitioner’s previous service record could be used as grounds for his compulsory retirement, amounting to double jeopardy. -----4- Whether the petitioner, having received pensionary benefits, was estopped from challenging the compulsory retirement. -----Holding, Reasoning, and Outcome: The court reviewed the case in light of the petitioner’s arguments regarding the legality of the show cause notice, the alleged violation of due process rights, and the principle of double jeopardy. The petitioner claimed that no regular inquiry was held, and the major penalty imposed on him was unlawful. On the other hand, the respondents defended their actions, arguing that a detailed inquiry had been conducted, and the petitioner had a history of misconduct, which justified the disciplinary measures. The court, after hearing both sides, evaluated the case under the applicable regulations, including the Cadet College Employees’ Efficiency & Discipline Regulations. The court’s final ruling upheld the disciplinary actions, confirming that the procedures followed by the respondents, including the issuance of the show cause notice and inquiry, were in accordance with the governing regulations. The petitioner’s challenge to his compulsory retirement was dismissed. -----Citations and Precedents: SANAULLAH SANI vs. Secretary Education Schools & Others (2024 SCMR 80) Federation of Pakistan through Chairman Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) vs. Zahid Malik (2023 SCMR 603) Raja Muhammad Shahid vs. The Inspector General of Police & Others (2023 SCMR 1135)

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 22.09.2020 passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in W.P. No.2572 of 2018). Punjab Regularization of Service Act (XV of 2018)--- ----S. 3---Regularization of service---Matter referred to Scrutiny Committee---Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by High Court referring matter of respondents/contract employees to Scrutiny Committee---Validity---To accommodate and regularize services of contractual employees who gave their blood, toil, tears and sweat for many years, Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 was promulgated with fair intention---It was responsibility of Government to apply and allow benefit to all employees placed in equal and similar circumstances without any discrimination and not to pick and choose employees for conferring benefit or advantage of law---Implementation of Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 has to be unbiased and non-discriminatory, rather it should be evenhanded, fair and square---When law giver enacts any beneficial law, it must be implemented across the board with assiduousness and meticulousness without any conservative or rigid approach---Implementation of beneficial statutes meant for civil servants and labourers are unnecessarily being delayed which forces deprived persons to knock the doors of Courts---If implementation is made in its letter and spirit within a reasonable period of time, then such course would decrease unnecessary burden on Court's docket---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter as High Court only held that respondents/contract employees were liable to be considered for regularization under Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 and appointing authority was directed to send their cases for consideration to competent authority and till determination of eligibility, services of respondent/contract employees would not be terminated---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Barrister Muhammad Mumtaz Ali, Addl. A.G., Punjab for Petitioners. Muhammad Shoaib Shaheen, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6-8. Date of hearing: 9th October, 2024.

Summary: (a) Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018 – Section 3 & 4 Regularization of Contract Employees – Eligibility and Scrutiny Committee The Supreme Court held that the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, aims to regularize contract employees who have completed three years of continuous service. Eligibility must be determined through a Scrutiny Committee, which evaluates the academic records and credentials of contractual employees and forwards recommendations to the appointing authority. Cited Case: Mst. Nabila Niaz v. Secretary Health (2020 PLC (C.S.) 675) (b) Public Servants – Discrimination in Regularization – Equal Treatment Principle The Court emphasized that laws enacted for the benefit of contract employees must be applied uniformly without discrimination. Selective application or favoritism undermines the legislative intent and constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination. Relevant Constitutional Provisions: Article 4, Article 3, Article 38 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 (c) Jurisdiction – Writ Petitions and Article 212 of the Constitution The Supreme Court clarified that if employees are alleged to already hold regular civil servant status, their cases must still be referred to the Scrutiny Committee for verification of their employment status. The matter cannot be summarily decided without proper scrutiny and recommendations by the Committee. (d) Scrutiny Committee – Role and Mandate The Scrutiny Committee holds a critical role under the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, tasked with impartially examining the status, eligibility, and antecedents of contractual employees. The appointing authority must base its decision on the Committee's recommendations, ensuring adherence to statutory mandates. (e) Beneficial Legislation – Implementation Across the Board The Court observed that beneficial statutes like the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018, must be implemented uniformly and without unnecessary delays. Ineffective implementation forces affected individuals to resort to prolonged litigation, burdening the judiciary unnecessarily. -------- Disposition: The Supreme Court dismissed the civil petition, upholding the Lahore High Court's order. The cases of the respondents must be referred to the Scrutiny Committee for impartial review and recommendations, ensuring compliance with the Punjab Regularization of Service Act, 2018.

Summary: (a) Supreme Court—Leave to appeal vs. review—Scope and limits ----AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974—Arts. 42(11), 42(12) & 42-D; AJ&K Supreme Court (Power of Review) Act, 1980—S. 2; AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978—O. XLVI r.1; Civil Procedure Code, 1908—O. XLVII r.1. Grant of leave under Art. 42(12) is a discretionary filter, not a matter of right. In leave proceedings the Court is not obliged to undertake full appraisal of facts/law as in an appeal under Art. 42(11). A review under Art. 42-D against an order refusing leave is available only on the narrow grounds akin to O. XLVII r.1 C.P.C. (e.g., error apparent, overlooking an obvious/important aspect, discovery of new and important matter). Mere re-agitation of the same submissions or claiming that an alternative view is possible is insufficient. Where refusal of leave was by a Division Bench after conscious consideration, the threshold for review is even higher; absent demonstration that the Court overlooked a material point, review does not lie. (b) Service/Recruitment—Waiting list; transfer; accrued entitlement ----Primary Teacher (Female)—Union Council Hattian Bala—Merit/waiting list validity. Petitioner stood at serial No. 7 on the waiting list which, by notification, expired on 15-11-2019. Her writ filed on 16-11-2019 thus could not found any right to appointment. The impugned transfer order was dated 07-09-2018, prior to compilation of the waiting list (15-11-2018); petitioner had no locus to challenge that transfer via waiting-list rights. Assertions that departmental authorities later “scrutinized” the transfer or contemplated cancellation did not supply a review ground, nor did they revive an expired waiting list. (c) Review—Foundational principles restated ----Standards for interference. Review will not be used to rehear a concluded matter, to create false hope of an appeal, or to disturb conscious findings unless an obvious error floating on the record or an overlooked decisive point is shown. Petitioner failed to point to any such omission; the earlier refusal of leave explicitly addressed (i) expiry of the waiting list and (ii) anterior date of the transfer order. Disposition: Review petition dismissed. Order refusing leave to appeal maintained. Cited Provisions: AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974—Arts. 42(11), 42(12), 42-D; AJ&K Supreme Court (Power of Review) Act, 1980—S. 2; AJ&K Supreme Court Rules, 1978—O. XLVI r.1; C.P.C.—O. XLVII r.1. Cited Cases: • Abdul Ghaffar-Abdul Rehman v. Asghar Ali, PLD 1998 SC 363 (review principles). • Kamran Ali v. Abdul Qudoos, 2021 SCR 501 (AJK) (review scope under Art. 42-D; O. XLVI/O. XLVII). • Walayat v. Feroze, PLD 1977 SC AJK 11; Muhammad Kabir Khan v. Mst. Anees Begum, 2005 SCR 23; Mirpur Development Authority v. Ch. Aarif Najeeb, 2007 SCR 545; M. Mehrban v. M. Siddique, 2005 SCR 418; Muhammad Din v. Abdul Hameed, 2008 SCR 292; Azmat Bi v. Muhammad Laal, 2008 SCR 300; Ch. Muhammad Sadiq v. Mujahid Hussain Naqvi, 2008 SCR 313; Sardar Muhammad Hussain v. Dr. Najeeb Naqi, 2014 SCR 140; WAPDA v. Taj Begum, 2014 SCR 588; Rafaqat Hussain v. AJK Govt., 2016 SCR 1302; Fazal Elahi v. Abdul Latif, PLD 1981 SC AJK 75; Registrar Cooperative Societies v. Muhammad Ishaque, PLD 1985 SC AJK 56; Raja Abdul Qayyum v. Ch. Latif Akbar, 1994 CLC 2041.

Summary: (a) Civil service—Recruitment through Public Service Commission—Merit vs. district/unit quota ----AJ&K Public Service Commission—Advertisement No. 7/2018—Open merit posts—Scope of judicial review. Petitioner, having obtained required qualification (M.A./LL.B) and secured 485 marks in written examination for the post of Assistant Director (BPS-17), was shortlisted for interview but excluded from final selection on the ground that a candidate from his district had already been recommended. Allegation was that appointments were made on a district basis despite advertisement specifying open merit. High Court dismissed writ in limine. Held, that the matter raised substantial legal questions regarding the applicability of 04-01-2013 policy and validity of PSC’s deviation from open-merit recruitment; issues warranted detailed judicial examination. (b) Maintainability—Summary dismissal of writ petition—Propriety ----Constitutional jurisdiction—AJ&K High Court. Where the pleadings and record disclosed arguable questions of law touching the legality of recruitment policy and interpretation of prior Supreme Court judgments, summary dismissal in limine was not justified. Disposition: Leave to appeal granted; petitioner directed to deposit security of Rs. 1,000 within one month, failing which leave shall stand rescinded automatically. Cited Provisions: Azad Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission policy notification dated 04-01-2013; relevant recruitment rules for BPS-17 posts.

Summary: (a) Equity—“Equity follows the law” — Humanitarian considerations cannot override statute ----Maxim; scope—Courts of equity administer justice within, not against, the law. High Court directed consideration of respondent’s case “under 30% quota” despite expressly noting that the quota had already been exceeded, relying on proximity to retirement. Held, equity cannot be invoked to subvert an operative statutory/quota framework; humanitarian grounds (near retirement) do not create a legal entitlement contrary to rules. (b) Service law—Quota-based appointment/transfer—Exceeding quota—Illegality of further adjustment ----AJ&K Zakat & Ushr (Departmental Service) Rules, 2018 (as amended)—30% transfer quota for Senior Clerks (B-14) from Zakat Fund/Zakat Profit Fund. Where the record shows the 30% transfer quota already stood exhausted, directing further consideration/adjustment within that quota is ultra vires. Courts cannot compel an authority to act in breach of quota limits fixed by rules. (c) Judicial review—Limits—Courts not to step into shoes of selection/administrative authority to grant equity in teeth of rules ----Administrative law—Rule of law vs. equitable relief. While the High Court acknowledged that selection/placement lies with the competent committee, it nonetheless issued a direction grounded in equity. Held, judicial review polices legality; it cannot authorize an outcome that the governing rules forbid. Inherent or equitable powers exist to supplement where the law is silent, not to contradict clear statutory prescriptions. (d) Ancillary contention—Alleged additional vacancies Claim of “10 vacant posts” was outside the controversy determined by the High Court (which proceeded on 7 posts). Any consideration against future or other vacancies lies with the competent authority in accordance with law and extant quotas; no adjudication made on that aspect. Disposition: Appeal accepted. High Court judgment dated 31-10-2023 set aside. Directions issued on equitable grounds to consider respondent under the already-exceeded 30% quota are vacated. No order as to costs. Cited Provisions: AJ&K Zakat & Ushr (Departmental Service) Rules, 2018 (as amended)—30% transfer quota for Senior Clerk (B-14) from Zakat Fund/Zakat Profit Fund. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ilyas Khan v. Sardar M. Hafeez Khan, 2001 PLC (CS) 445 (courts administer justice according to law; equity not to defeat statute). • Director General National Savings v. Bilqees Begum, PLD 2013 SC 174 (equity may fill gaps where law is silent, not contravene statutory commands).

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a Deputy Director at the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), filed a writ petition challenging four show cause notices and four notices for personal hearings issued by NAB, which suggested potential dismissal from service as a penalty. The petitioner argued that there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the charges, as per a prior inquiry report, and that the show cause notices lacked specific legal violations. NAB's counsel countered that the petitioner had previously filed a similar petition (C.P.No.D-1604/2020) in the Sindh High Court challenging the same initial show cause notice, which was still pending. NAB argued that the petitioner’s failure to disclose this previous filing constituted concealment, making him ineligible for relief in this petition. -----Issues: -----1- Jurisdiction of Constitutional Petition: Can a petitioner challenge show cause notices through a writ petition under constitutional jurisdiction? -----2- Material Concealment: Does the petitioner’s failure to disclose a prior, ongoing petition on the same subject matter justify dismissal of the current writ petition? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Jurisdiction of Constitutional Petition: The Court held that show cause notices are preliminary steps and do not represent adverse orders. The petitioner had the opportunity to provide explanations during personal hearings, so challenging the notices through a writ petition was premature. --Material Concealment: The Court found that the petitioner’s failure to disclose the prior petition constituted material concealment. The Court noted that the petitioner falsely certified the current petition as his first on this subject, contravening principles of judicial transparency and clean hands. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the petition with costs of Rs. 100,000. -----Citations/Precedents: Sajjad Ahmad v. Chairman, Capital Development Authority (2016 CLC 896) – Concealment of prior litigation affects writ jurisdiction. Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan (1969 SCMR 141) – Suppression of material facts negates eligibility for writ relief. Ramzan v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner (PLD 1968 Lahore 258) – Equitable relief requires full disclosure. Muhammad Saddiq v. Ruqaya Khanum (PLD 2001 Karachi 60) – Emphasizes duty of transparency before the court. Dilawar Hussain v. District Coordination Officer (2004 CLC 324) – Concealing the use of alternative remedies can lead to writ petition dismissal. Shaukat Medicos v. Government of the Punjab (2005 YLR 171) – Concealment of prior suits affects discretionary jurisdiction. Muhammad Akram v. Mansoor Sarwar Khan (2006 CLC 40) – Dismissal for non-disclosure of previous petitions on the same matter. Bashir Ahmed v. Habib (2006 MLD 148) – Incomplete disclosure of relevant litigation history impacts writ eligibility.

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 26.02.2024 passed by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunal, Peshawar in Service Appeal No.1267 of 2023). Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Service Tribunals Act (I of 1974)-- ----S. 4--- Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 2011, Rr. 5 & 7---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.212(3)---Misconduct---Proof---Death of civil servant---Departmental proceedings---Object, purpose and scope---During pendency of service appeal civil servant passed away, therefore, disciplinary actions initiated by authorities were set aside by Service Tribunal---Validity---Predominant goal of initiating departmental proceedings including inquiry is to decide whether allegations of misconduct in show cause notice are proven and then to confront delinquent regarding why disciplinary action, including imposition of minor or major penalty should not be taken---Before taking such drastic action, a fair opportunity should be provided to employee to defend allegations---In departmental inquiries, standard of proof is based on balance of probabilities or preponderance of evidence---Regular inquiry is commenced only when an even handed and fair opportunity to present a defense is offered---Service Tribunal in determination of facts and law, is the highest appellate forum with exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to terms and conditions of service of civil servants---Supreme Court may grant leave to appeal under Article 212 (3) of the Constitution, against judgment, decree, order or sentence of Administrative Court or Tribunal only if it is satisfied that the case involves a substantial question of law of public importance, which is otherwise sine qua non---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Service Tribunal as no such question was involved---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused. Secretary Revenue Division v. Iftikhar Ahmed Tabbasum PLD 2019 SC 563 rel. Zahid Yousuf Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record along with Sajid Khan, Focal Person, Education Department for Petitioners. Nemo for the Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th October, 2024.