Summary: A.199,212,240(a) Constitution of Pakistan-1973,Police Service of Pakistan(Composition,Cadre & Seniority)Rules-1985:Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions--Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal & High Court--Change in vires of Rules

Summary: A.199,212,240(a) Constitution of Pakistan-1973,Police Service of Pakistan(Composition,Cadre & Seniority)Rules- 1985:Interpretation of Constitutional Provisions--Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal & High Court--Change in vires of Rules

Summary: Background:Muhammad Asif Khan, a retired Sub-Inspector Police, challenged his retirement order before the Service Tribunal, alleging wrongful termination. The Tribunal accepted his appeal, reinstating him with back benefits. The appellants, including police authorities, appealed this decision, citing the time-barred nature of Khan's appeal as a primary issue.----Issues:Whether the Service Tribunal erred in accepting Khan's appeal, considering it was time-barred.Whether Khan adequately explained the delay in filing his appeal.Whether the Tribunal properly applied the law regarding jurisdiction and time limitations.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the appellants' appeal, setting aside the Tribunal's decision. The Court reasoned:Khan's appeal was filed after the prescribed limitation period, which was admitted even by Khan himself in his appeal documents.The Tribunal failed to address the time-barred nature of the appeal, a crucial aspect that needed resolution before considering the merits.In service-related matters, the jurisdiction of civil courts is conclusively excluded, and the Service Tribunal holds exclusive authority. Pursuing litigation in civil courts in such matters cannot be deemed in good faith or with due diligence.Khan's failure to promptly appeal the trial court's dismissal and the subsequent delay in appealing the first appellate court's decision further weakened his case for condonation of delay.The Tribunal's oversight in addressing the issue of limitation rendered its decision flawed. Without addressing this fundamental issue, the Tribunal couldn't proceed to consider the merits of the case.----Citations/Precedents:Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, Section 47Limitation Act, 1908, Section 14Legal principle regarding jurisdiction exclusivity of the Service Tribunal in service-related matters.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance (IV of 2001): ----S. 21(2)---Interlocutory orders---Scope of appeal and writ jurisdiction---Petitioner challenged the Rent Controller’s interlocutory order dated 22.02.2016, which closed his right to file a written reply to the eviction petition---Court held that S. 21(2) of the Ordinance expressly bars appeals against interlocutory orders, and such orders cannot be circumvented by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Interim orders merge into the final verdict, which is appealable under S. 21(1)---Petitioner must await the final decision to challenge both the interim and final orders. (b) Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance (IV of 2001): ----S. 17(2)---Reasonable opportunity---Scope---Court observed that Rent Controllers must provide a "reasonable opportunity" for tenants to respond to eviction petitions---In the instant case, nine opportunities were granted to the petitioner to file a written reply, but he failed to comply despite multiple warnings and imposition of costs---Rent Controller acted within the bounds of the law in closing the petitioner’s right to file a reply. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908): ----Application of C.P.C. principles in rent matters---Court reiterated that while the strict application of the C.P.C. is not mandatory in proceedings before Rent Controllers, its principles may be applied at the discretion of the Rent Controller, particularly when procedural gaps exist in the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001. (d) Discretionary writ jurisdiction--- ----High Court’s refusal to interfere with interlocutory orders---Scope---Court emphasized that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge interlocutory orders unless the order is without jurisdiction, void, mala fide, or coram non judice---The impugned order was neither illegal nor irregular and was passed after granting reasonable opportunities to the petitioner. ----Cited Cases: Barkat Ali v. Muhammad Ehsan 2000 SCMR 556 Muhammad Farooq v. Abdul Waheed Siddiqui 2014 SCMR 630 Mian Sher Bahadur v. Civil Judge Takht Bhai 2003 YLR 1722 Jehangir Khan Jadoon v. Gul Nigar Manzoor 2008 CLC 547 ----Disposition: Writ petition dismissed. Court directed the Rent Controller to expedite proceedings and dispose of the eviction petition in accordance with S. 25(3) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.