Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Seeks direction to respondents not to collect property tax falls within the domain of petitioner further seeks direction for release transfer of funds already collected by respondent since establishment of metropoliten corporation and pay the development funds to petitioner

Summary: Seeking direction to declare the federal ombudance has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaints (rehearing)

Summary: WP: Service Matter: Pension Benifits of EOBI.

Summary: Moreover, Muhammad Saeed Moharrir as PW-6 stated that Tariq Khan SI handed over to him the sealed parcels on 05.02.2018 who further handed over the same to Rifaz constable on 06.02.2018 for onward transmission to the Laboratory while Rifaz No. 5915 (PW-4) stated that the samples were not handed over to him on 06.02.2018. Even application for sending the samples to the laboratory thus, the sate custody of recovered substance or safe transmission is nor established by prosecution, then it cannot be held that prosecution has established the case.

Summary: The Cantonment Board is established as a Body Corporate under Section 11 of the Act, with the power to acquire property, sue or be sued. The constitution of the Cantonment Boards is outlined in Section 13-A, which classifies them into different categories and specifies the number of elected members for each class. Section 15-E discusses the term of members, stating that they continue to function until their successor is elected or nominated. Section 14 grants power to the Federal Government to vary the constitution of the Boards. The petitioners rely on the judgment Cantonment Board, Rawalpindi v. Ghulam Habib Rana and others (1997 SCMR 1) to argue against the invocation of Section 14 after the expiry of the elected members' tenure. They cite other judgments supporting their stance. The Federal Government invoked Section 14 due to the expiry of elected representatives' terms amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The Election Commission expressed readiness to conduct elections upon formal request. The Court scrutinized the reasons for invoking Section 14 and found them insufficient. It emphasized that elected members cannot be removed without valid legal grounds. The Court also highlighted the importance of elected representatives in Cantonment Boards, aligning with constitutional principles promoting local governance. Additionally, the judgment emphasized the constitutional duty to establish local government systems and devolve power to elected representatives. It underscores the significance of adhering to constitutional provisions and holding elections promptly. In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the notifications issued under Section 14 without lawful authority. It directed the Federal Government to ensure timely elections for Cantonment Boards nationwide by formally requesting the Election Commission to conduct them.

Summary: [Survivability of right to sue under service laws] The case involves a civil servant who had filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal regarding a penalty imposed on him. However, the civil servant passed away during the pendency of the appeal. The issue before the court is whether the appeal abates on the civil servant's death or if his legal heirs can pursue the case. The petitioner argues that an employment grievance does not survive the death of a civil servant and that no remedy is provided to the legal heirs under the Service Tribunals Act. They rely on previous judgments to support their argument. However, the court examines the question of the survivability of the claim and the rights of the legal heirs. The court refers to previous cases where it was held that the appeals filed by civil servants would abate upon their death. However, these judgments were subsequently distinguished by another case, which recognized that the legal heirs would be entitled to certain benefits and that the claim should not abate. The court emphasizes that service disputes are often connected to benefits that can be inherited by the civil servant's successors. The court examines various cases from foreign jurisdictions and concludes that employment claims can survive the death of an employee. It is noted that the nature of the cause of action and the relief claimed are important factors in determining whether a claim survives. The court further highlights that the Service Tribunals, although not bound by the Civil Procedure Code, are required to follow the basic norms of justice and equity. The court asserts that while the provisions of the Code may not strictly apply, its equitable principles should be followed to ensure justice between the parties. Based on these considerations, the court concludes that the claim of the civil servant should not abate upon his death. The legal heirs are entitled to pursue the case and seek adjudication on the merits. The court emphasizes that denying the heirs the right to seek justice would prejudice their legitimate expectations of receiving substantial benefits.

Summary: [Survivability of right to sue under service laws] The case involves a civil servant who had filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal regarding a penalty imposed on him. However, the civil servant passed away during the pendency of the appeal. The issue before the court is whether the appeal abates on the civil servant's death or if his legal heirs can pursue the case. The petitioner argues that an employment grievance does not survive the death of a civil servant and that no remedy is provided to the legal heirs under the Service Tribunals Act. They rely on previous judgments to support their argument. However, the court examines the question of the survivability of the claim and the rights of the legal heirs. The court refers to previous cases where it was held that the appeals filed by civil servants would abate upon their death. However, these judgments were subsequently distinguished by another case, which recognized that the legal heirs would be entitled to certain benefits and that the claim should not abate. The court emphasizes that service disputes are often connected to benefits that can be inherited by the civil servant's successors. The court examines various cases from foreign jurisdictions and concludes that employment claims can survive the death of an employee. It is noted that the nature of the cause of action and the relief claimed are important factors in determining whether a claim survives. The court further highlights that the Service Tribunals, although not bound by the Civil Procedure Code, are required to follow the basic norms of justice and equity. The court asserts that while the provisions of the Code may not strictly apply, its equitable principles should be followed to ensure justice between the parties. Based on these considerations, the court concludes that the claim of the civil servant should not abate upon his death. The legal heirs are entitled to pursue the case and seek adjudication on the merits. The court emphasizes that denying the heirs the right to seek justice would prejudice their legitimate expectations of receiving substantial benefits.

Summary: Summary pending