Summary: No violation of statutory law/Rules. Allegations of misappropriation disputed question of facts.

Summary: Right of workman for regularization after 90 days, against a post of permanent nature.

Summary: Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)-------S. 6---Suspension of employee---Scope---Employee against whom action was proposed tobe initiated could be placed under suspension if in the opinion of competent authority it wasnecessary or expedient---Impugned order for suspension of employee, in the present case,was passed after constituting a committee and thorough investigation was made---Constitutional petition was not maintainable against suspension order due to bar containedunder Art.212 of the Constitution---Order of suspension being not a penalty would not violateany legal right vested in the suspension order---Employee had other remedies under PunjabEmployees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006---Constitutional petitionbeing premature was dismissed in limine.Muhammad Amin Mughal v. Secretary Local Government and Rural DevelopmentDepartment/Chairman Punjab Local Government Board, Government of the Punjab, CivilSecreariat, Lahore and 4 others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 816; Pakistan and others v. Public at Largeand others PLD 1987 SC 304; Tahir Ashraf Durrani v. The Chairman, Central Board ofRevenue, Islamabad and 3 others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 1550; The Divisional Superintendent,Pakistan Railways, Lahore v. Muhammad Halim through Legal Representatives and othersPLD 2000 SC 55 rel.

Summary: Respondent No. 3 originally filed a suit seeking dissolution of marriage, return of dowry articles, and maintenance. The Family Court initially granted her claims, dissolving the marriage, ordering the return of Rs. 60,000 by respondent No. 3 to the petitioner, and awarding maintenance and dowry compensation. Both parties appealed these decisions, and the appeals were consolidated. The appellate court modified the judgments, resulting in the dissolution of marriage and an increase in the dowry compensation from Rs. 1,25,000 to Rs. 1,50,000.Subsequently, respondent No. 3 filed another suit for the recovery of gold ornaments and a third suit for the recovery of personal belongings, both of which were contested by the petitioner. These suits were filed after the earlier judgment and decree. The petitioner claimed that these suits were not maintainable because the earlier suit had already been decided, and according to the principles of res judicata, respondent No. 3 should have raised these claims in the initial suit.In response, respondent No. 3 argued that the principles of res judicata did not apply in family suits and that her claims in the subsequent suits were distinct from those in the original suit. The court examined these arguments and found that res judicata did apply to family suits. The court also noted that respondent No. 3's claims in the subsequent suits overlapped with those in the original suit.Furthermore, the court found inconsistencies and errors in the judgments and decrees of the lower courts, particularly with respect to the nature of the claims and the amounts involved. The judges' decisions seemed inconsistent and lacking in legal acumen. As a result, the court set aside the lower courts' judgments and decrees, dismissing the suit filed by respondent No. 3.

Summary: An ad hoc employee in government service is also to be treated as civil servant-----The case involves respondent No. 1, who was initially employed by respondent No. 2 on an ad hoc basis as Director Physical Education (BPS-16) and later promoted to a post in BPS-17. Subsequently, he was served a termination letter stating that his ad hoc service would end, and he was offered a position in BPS-14, which he accepted and served in for about 12 years. Later, he applied for and was appointed as a Lecturer in BPS-17. The dispute arose when the Controller of Military Accounts initially granted pay protection to respondent No. 1 but later revoked it, claiming it was granted inadvertently. Respondent No. 1 filed a departmental representation and then a Service Appeal in the Federal Service Tribunal, which ruled in his favor based on the principle in Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The petitioner, the department, contested the decision, arguing that respondent No. 1, being an ad hoc employee, was not entitled to pay protection under Section 11-A. However, the court held that ad hoc employees are considered civil servants under Section 11 of the Act, and therefore, respondent No. 1 was entitled to pay protection. The court emphasized that respondent No. 1's appointment to a lower post was not due to any fault on his part but was a result of the government's decision rendering him surplus. As he had already served for a substantial period and later obtained a regular appointment, he was entitled to pay protection based on the principle in Section 11-A of the Civil Servants Act. The court dismissed the petition and refused leave, upholding the decision of the Service Tribunal. It concluded that there was no legal basis to interfere with the Tribunal's judgment.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.