Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Service Law – Pension Eligibility – Requisite Service Period: The petitioner sought pension from Oil & Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL) following his retirement, claiming to meet the requisite service period of ten years. The petitioner had been employed as a Management Trainee in 1996 and subsequently reinstated and regularized in 2011. However, OGDCL denied the pension, stating that the time spent as a Management Trainee was not considered part of the regular service for pension calculation. Under OGDCL's regulations, a ten-year qualifying service was required, which the petitioner did not fulfill, as his service after regularization in 2010 amounted to only eight years and one month. The Court upheld that pension eligibility is subject to meeting the specific requirements outlined by the employer, and time as a Management Trainee is not counted for pension purposes as per the employer's policies and prior clarifications. -----Cited Cases: Muhammad Rafiullah vs. ZTBL (2018 SCMR 598) Syeda Sakina Riaz vs. Federation of Pakistan (Civil Appeal No.1189-2017) National Bank of Pakistan vs. Iftikhar Rasool Anjum (2017 PLC (CS) 453) (b) Employer’s Policy – Effect of Reinstatement and Surety Bond: The petitioner had executed a surety bond upon reinstatement, undertaking not to claim seniority, arrears, or pension for the period he served as a Management Trainee. The Court noted that the petitioner had voluntarily accepted the terms and cannot later claim benefits for the period when he was not in regular service. Citing prior Supreme Court rulings, the Court emphasized that an employee who accepts benefits under an arrangement with the employer cannot later seek additional benefits outside the terms agreed upon. -----Cited Cases: Khalid Mehmood vs. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (2018 PLC 182) (c) Pension – Right and Conditions for Claim: The right to claim pension is tied to fulfilling the conditions set forth in the employer’s regulations. The Court referred to the case of National Bank of Pakistan vs. Iftikhar Rasool Anjum, which affirmed that pension is regulated by the applicable rules at the time of retirement and is contingent upon meeting the required tenure. Since the petitioner did not fulfill the required service tenure, his claim for pension was deemed unmeritorious. ----Cited Cases: National Bank of Pakistan vs. Iftikhar Rasool Anjum (2017 PLC (CS) 453) ----Disposition: The petition was dismissed, as the petitioner did not meet the requisite service period for pension eligibility under OGDCL's regulations, and his period of service as a Management Trainee was not counted toward pension benefits.

Summary: Petitioner seeks direction to discharge the petitioner unconditionally and set at liberty in terms of section 12 of Extradition Act, 1972.

Summary: -

Summary: Held: (1) Delay in cases of zina-bil-jabr is natural as the honour of both the victim and the family was involved and the family takes high care to avoid a stigma.(2) Accused cannot claim bail on the basis of compromise effected with co-accused.(4) Medico legal report of the victim supported the prosecution version.(Bail was dismissed in the circumstances).

Summary: Background:The petitioner, Tanveer Ahmed Qureshi, Secretary of the Ministry of National Health Services, Regulations & Coordination, Government of Pakistan, challenged an order of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) regarding the appointment of Brig. (R) Dr. Hafizuddin Ahmed Siddiqui as the registrar of the Pakistan Medical & Dental Council (PM&DC).---Issues:Whether the Islamabad High Court's order directing the Federation to allow Dr. Hafizuddin Ahmed Siddiqui to assume control of PM&DC was legally valid.Whether the appointments made under a repealed ordinance could be sustained.Whether the ad-hoc Council constituted by the Supreme Court needed to be reconstituted in light of subsequent events.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court allowed the application, overruled the office objection, and converted the Criminal Petition into an appeal.The Attorney General argued that the Islamabad High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by restoring Dr. Hafizuddin Ahmed Siddiqui to the position of registrar, as his appointment was under a repealed ordinance. The respondent's counsel conceded that there was no legal basis for Dr. Siddiqui's claim. The Court set aside the High Court's order and dismissed the contempt petition.The Court noted that the ad-hoc Council constituted by the Supreme Court ceased to exist after the promulgation of the PM&DC Ordinance, 2019. The Attorney General proposed reconstituting the Council, including appointing a new President and a whole-time Chairman. The Court accepted the proposal and reconstituted the Council accordingly.---Citations/Precedents:"Zahid Waheed Khan v. Crystal Chemical Limited" (2006-YLR-2577)"Pakistan Medical & Dental Council through President & 3 others v. Muhammad Fahad Malik & 10 others" (2018 SCMR 1956)"Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Health Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari" (PLD 1997 SC 351)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Legality of Withdrawal of Appointment Letters: The petitioners challenged the withdrawal of their appointment letters, which were issued on 02.04.2019 but later withdrawn by the National Commission on the Status of Women (N.C.S.W.) on 02.09.2019. The petitioners argued that their appointment letters, issued after a competitive process, could not be revoked without a hearing, violating principles of natural justice. (b) Age Relaxation for Contingent Paid Employees: The petitioners contended they were entitled to age relaxation due to their prior service as contingent paid employees in N.C.S.W. They cited the Establishment Division's office memorandum (dated 03.04.2017) and its provisions on age relaxation for contingent employees, asserting their eligibility for consideration despite being overage under the normal recruitment criteria. (c) Application of Recruitment Rules: The petitioners argued that the N.C.S.W. had not followed the prescribed age limit and recruitment rules under the National Commission on the Status of Women Act, 2012 ("2012 Act"), and the National Commission on the Status of Women Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2018 ("2018 Rules"). They contended that they should have been regularized under these rules, which included provisions for age relaxation based on prior service. ----Court’s Analysis: Withdrawal of Appointment Orders: The Court held that the petitioners had a vested right in the appointment letters once issued, which could not be arbitrarily revoked. The principle of locus poenitentiae prohibited the withdrawal of appointment letters without a hearing, particularly given that the petitioners had already joined their posts. ----Entitlement to Age Relaxation: The Court analyzed the applicable age limit and relaxation provisions, including the general age relaxation (5 years) in the advertisement, and the specific relaxation provisions in the Establishment Division's office memorandum (03.04.2017). While some petitioners qualified for age relaxation under the relevant rules (e.g., those who had served for at least two years on a contingent basis), others (particularly petitioner No.2, Younas Masih, and petitioner No.4, Yasir Khan) did not meet the age criteria even with the relaxation. The Court emphasized that the Establishment Division's notification dated 04.11.1993 was applicable to the recruitment process and entitled government servants (including contingent workers) to age relaxation, provided they met specific conditions (e.g., continuous government service). Non-Compliance with Recruitment Rules: The Court found that N.C.S.W. had failed to apply the proper age relaxation rules and had erred in withdrawing the petitioners’ appointments, particularly without proper consideration of their prior service and the relevant rules. ----Disposition: The Court partly allowed the writ petition. The impugned orders dated 02.09.2019 were set aside.

Summary: CR, Against accepting of appeal by learned ADJ by set aside of learned Judge regarding dismissal of stay application