Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Service matters (Regularisation of Employee), Service matters (Reinstatement into Service) --- This summary addresses a judgment from the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, where the petitioner, Mehar Iqbal Siddiqui, sought relief against the Federation of Pakistan and others, challenging the legality of an order issued by Respondent No.2 regarding his service regularization, seniority, and promotion within the Karachi Port Trust (KPT). The judgment, delivered by Justices Adnan-ul-Karim Memon and Irfan Saadat Khan, primarily hinged on the principles of ad-hoc appointments, regularization, seniority, and promotion within the framework of statutory service rules.The petitioner's main grievances included the request for regularization of his service from the date of his initial induction as a Trainee Officer on an ad-hoc basis on November 28, 1989, assignment of seniority and promotion to BS-18 from the date he assumed the charge of a vacancy, and consideration for further promotion in line with KPT's rules and the superior courts' directives. The case also involved the contention of seniority between the petitioner and Respondent No.3, where the latter was allegedly promoted despite being junior and lacking the requisite qualifications.The court examined the maintainability of the petition under Article 199 of the Constitution and the applicability of Karachi Port Trust Officers Recruitment, Appointment, Seniority, and Promotion Regulations-2011. It was determined that the petition was maintainable and that the matters of regularization and promotion needed to be assessed on merit.In its judgment, the court underscored established legal principles regarding ad-hoc appointments, stating that such appointments do not confer vested rights for regularization from the date of induction or for counting towards seniority. It was further clarified that promotions are contingent upon eligibility, fitness, and vacancy, and do not constitute a fundamental right.The court found that the petitioner's service was regularized effectively from June 1, 1991, and his promotion to BS-18 on August 16, 2008, was in line with the applicable rules. It held that the petitioner was not entitled to seniority or promotion from the dates of his ad-hoc appointment or the assumption of acting charge, dismissing the petition and all related applications.This judgment reiterates the legal stance on ad-hoc appointments, regularization, and promotion within public service, emphasizing the importance of following due process and statutory regulations in matters of employment and career progression within public institutions.

Summary: Service matters (Reinstatement into service)

Summary: The appellant committed misconduct because in his position as Secretary to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting he recommended himself to be appointed as Chairman PEMRA without specifically disclosing his personal interest and while being in Government service did not obtain the prior written permission before applying for the post----The case involves the removal of the appellant from the position of Chairman of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) due to allegations of misconduct. The appellant challenged his removal through various legal channels, including filing writ petitions. Initially, the Islamabad High Court ruled in favor of the appellant, but a Divisional Bench later accepted an intra-court appeal from the government, resulting in the dismissal of the appellant's petition. The appellant argued that his removal was illegal because he was appointed for a fixed term and could only be removed for specific reasons, such as misconduct. He claimed that the government's actions violated principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions. The government defended its actions, stating that the appellant was provided with multiple opportunities to defend himself during the inquiry process. It argued that the appellant's appointment itself was irregular and violated established procedures. The court upheld the dismissal of the appellant's petition, finding that the government had followed due process and that the appellant's appointment was irregular. The court also highlighted the wasteful use of public resources in the appellant's engagement of private counsel rather than relying on government-appointed legal officers. Badshah Gul Wazir v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2015 SCMR 43): This case pertained to the removal of an Ombudsman without valid reasons. The court held that the individual's tenure could not be curtailed arbitrarily, highlighting the importance of respecting fixed terms of office. Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana v. Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1159): This case involved the removal of a civil servant and addressed the principles of natural justice and due process in administrative proceedings. Muhammad Yasin v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 132): The court in this case emphasized the importance of protecting public resources from waste and malversation, highlighting the duty of the state to use resources efficiently.The court issued directives to various government departments to ensure that engagement of private counsel is justified by compelling reasons and complies with established procedures, warning against financial impropriety in paying private counsel fees on behalf of the government.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.