Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: This case involved a petitioner, a government officer working on deputation at the Livestock and Dairy Development Department in Islamabad, who challenged his repatriation to his parent department in Balochistan. Initially deputed for three years, his tenure was later extended by one year. Seeking further extension under the "wedlock policy," the petitioner cited his spouse’s employment in Islamabad. However, the parent department denied issuing the necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC), leading to his repatriation. The petitioner filed a suit to declare the repatriation order illegal, but both the trial court and appellate court dismissed his claims. -----Issues: 1- Does a deputationist have the right to remain in the borrowing department beyond the deputation period based on the wedlock policy? -----2- Can a deputationist claim absorption in the borrowing department without the concurrence of the parent department? -----3- Does the wedlock policy override the discretion of the parent or borrowing department regarding deputation? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court dismissed the petitioner’s civil revision petition with the following reasoning: --Nature of Deputation: Deputation is an administrative arrangement that does not confer any vested rights on the deputationist to remain in the borrowing department indefinitely. Both borrowing and parent departments retain discretion over its terms. --Wedlock Policy: The wedlock policy does not mandate indefinite extension of deputation or absorption. It is discretionary and does not override the autonomy of the parent and borrowing departments. Absorption: Absorption requires a formal process involving the concurrence of the parent department, which was absent in this case. Superior courts have consistently held that deputation is not a matter of right, and deputationists can be repatriated at any time without assigning reasons. -----Citations/Precedents: Pakistan Vs. Fazal Rehman Khundkar & another, PLD 1959 Supreme Court (Pak.) 82: Officers on deputation can be recalled by the parent department at any time without objection from the deputationist. Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi Vs. CDA, Islamabad, 2010 SCMR 378: Deputation periods can be curtailed or extended at the discretion of the competent authority. Mst. Robia Ayub Vs. Federation of Pakistan, 2013 PLC (CS) 915: Deputationists have no vested right to complete the deputation period or remain on deputation indefinitely. Abdul Majeed Vs. Chief Secretary, Punjab, 2015 PLC (CS) 1381: Borrowing departments can repatriate deputationists without providing reasons. Lal Khan Vs. Employees Old Age Benefit Institution, 2010 PLC (CS) 1377 (Karachi): Deputationists can be repatriated at any time and have no vested right to challenge such decisions. Asma Shaheen Vs. Federation of Pakistan, 2013 PLC (C.S.) 391: The wedlock policy does not guarantee absorption or indefinite retention of deputationists.

Summary: Ss. 489-F 420 PPCMere pendency of another criminal case or registration of another FIR against accused could not be held as ground for refusal of bail.

Summary: By relying on Article 25A of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 providing for right to education, it was held that decision of Board to impose age restriction on education by restricting admission to Class-IX did not have support or backing of any law.

Summary: Due process is mandatory to levy or recovery of Property Tax from the taxpayer under the Punjab Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958 and Rules thereto.