Summary: Background: The appellant, involved in a dispute with the respondent regarding a civil matter, filed an appeal against a judgment passed by the High Court on 26.02.2019 in Civil Appeal No.187/2014. The appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The subject of the dispute was not explicitly mentioned, but the matter pertained to issues likely concerning property or civil claims. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant had legal grounds to challenge the decision of the High Court. -----2- What legal implications arise from the voluntary withdrawal of an appeal during appellate proceedings. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: During the proceedings, the appellant’s counsel stated that, in the client’s best interest, he no longer intended to pursue the appeal. Based on the counsel’s submission, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court did not provide a ruling on the substantive merits of the case, as the matter was not argued. -----Citations/Precedents: Withdrawal of Appeal: The appellant exercised the right to withdraw the appeal without seeking adjudication on the merits. No Order as to Costs: The judgment reflects standard judicial practice of dismissing withdrawn appeals without awarding costs.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a criminal appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction). This appeal challenged the judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court, dated 29.01.2019, issued in Criminal Revision No.122/2018. The case involved multiple private respondents along with the State as a proforma respondent. However, during the hearing on 22.01.2020, the appellant decided not to pursue the matter further. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant had sufficient grounds to overturn the decision of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court. -----2- What legal consequence follows from a voluntary withdrawal of a criminal appeal. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: During the proceedings, the appellant’s counsel informed the Court that the appellant no longer wished to press the appeal. The Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, without any further proceedings or decisions on the substantive merits. -----Citations/Precedents: Withdrawal of Appeal: Appellants have the discretion to withdraw an appeal at any stage before a final judgment is rendered. Criminal Proceedings: Withdrawal of a criminal appeal typically results in dismissal without adjudicating the merits unless the appeal involves public interest matters that the Court must address.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Appeal against order dated 08.11.2010

Summary: We deem it appropriate to mention that the amendments in the K.P. Civil Servants (A.P.T.) Rules, 1989, vide notification No.SO(R-VI)E&AD/1-3/2015 dated 19.04.2016 can be treated prospectively only because all the class-IV employees throughout the province Khyber Pakhtunkhwa were awarded upgradation to higher grades up-to BPS-5 by the Finance Department vide Notification dated 30.06.2015 w.e.f. 01.07.2015. Before that up-gradation, the pay-scales of Class-IV employees were ranging from BPS 1 to 4 only, and the ibid amendment was made to encompass the up-graded scales of Class-IV employees to protect their rights; and no other class or group of employees having BPS-5, except Class-IV employees.

Summary: Father of the petitioner namely Daud Khan was appointed by the respondents on 31/01/1988 as constable in BPS-05, who got retired on 31/01/2017 by qualifying 28-years, 01 month and 27 days service. It has been mentioned in the petition in hand that petitioner s father got retired on the basis of superannuation but perusal of the record unfolds that father of the petitioner was retired from service at the age of 50 years and not at the age of superannuation i-e 60 years. Moreover, the stance of the petitioner that his father has been retired from service on medical ground but there is nothing on the record to suggest that father of the petitioner had got retired on medical grounds because no report of medical board is placed on file by the petitioner.

Summary: In this case, the petitioner and other private respondents have established wagon stands without any valid permit or authorization from the Regional Transport Authority. The court emphasized that Article 5 of the Constitution imposes an inviolable obligation on every citizen and person within Pakistan to obey the Constitution and law. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the complaint under Section 133 Cr.P.C. was filed with malice due to business rivalry. It finds that the establishment of wagon stands on privately owned properties without proper permits violates constitutional obligations and contributes to public nuisance, causing traffic congestion, environmental pollution, and health hazards. The court cited a case to highlight the importance of Article 9 in protecting citizens from factors that endanger the quality of life. The court also considered Article 18, which guarantees the freedom of trade, business, or profession, subject to reasonable restrictions prescribed by law. Ultimately, the court concluded that the actions of the petitioner and other private respondents in establishing wagon stands without proper permits violate constitutional obligations. The petition was dismissed.

Summary: Background:The Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal arises from a judgment dated 22.12.2014 by the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, dismissing a Civil Revision filed by the Petitioners. The dispute involves mutations pertaining to a property claimed by the Plaintiffs/Petitioners, challenging mutations dating back to 1922 and 1927.---Issues:Whether the Plaintiffs/Petitioners proved the lineage necessary for inheritance rights.Whether the suit was barred by limitation.Whether the evidence presented by the Petitioners was sufficient to warrant leave to appeal.---Holding/Reasoning:The courts below found that the Plaintiffs/Petitioners failed to prove the lineage necessary for inheritance rights. Despite the Petitioners' reference to a birth register entry, the evidence presented did not meet the requirements under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The courts upheld the concurrent findings rejecting the claim of lineage.In cases of inheritance, the burden of proving ouster from the property rests on the party claiming the bar of limitation. As the Petitioners failed to prove inheritance rights, the bar of limitation applied, rendering the suit filed in 1993 barred by time.The learned counsel for the Petitioners failed to establish a case for grant of leave to appeal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and leave was refused.---Outcome:The Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal was dismissed, and leave was refused by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.

Summary: Background: The appellant, an Assistant Accounts Officer in the Local Government Board of Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK), challenged his regular promotion to Accounts Officer (B-17). A vacancy arose in February 2015 due to the retirement of an officer, after which another individual was appointed to the position on an ad-hoc basis. Following an appeal by the appellant, he was promoted on an officiating basis in February 2016 and later on a regular basis in August 2017. The appellant sought to have his regular promotion backdated to February 2015, when the initial vacancy arose, but his departmental appeal for this retrospective adjustment was dismissed for being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant is entitled to have his regular promotion date backdated to February 2015. -----2- Whether the dismissal of the appellant’s departmental appeal on grounds of limitation was valid. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Limitation Issue: The appellant filed his appeal for retrospective promotion in November 2018, which was beyond the allowed 60-day period per the Appeals Rules of 1991. As the appeal was time-barred, the Service Tribunal rejected it. --Final Departmental Orders: The court emphasized that once a final departmental order is communicated, the limitation period begins. The appellant was promoted regularly on August 22, 2017, but delayed in filing his appeal until November 21, 2018, making his claim ineligible for consideration. Ruling: The Service Tribunal did not find any legal infirmity in dismissing the appeal due to the limitation. The court confirmed the Service Tribunal’s decision, affirming that promotions cannot be backdated arbitrarily when the statutory period has lapsed. The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs. -----Citations/Precedents Javaid Ejaz vs. Authority under AJK and others (2015 SCR 744): The right to appeal is vested once a final order is communicated. Filing an appeal within the prescribed period is mandatory, and domestic appeals do not extend or suspend this limitation. Muhammad Rafi Abbasi vs. Inspector General Police and others (Civil Appeal No. 27 of 2018): If a departmental order aggrieving a civil servant is not challenged within the statutory period, the Service Tribunal cannot entertain the appeal. In this case, even a delay spanning years was not excused without valid reasons. 2015 SCR 123: