Summary: ''Article 25 of the Constitution is only attracted where there is an apple-to-apple comparison. In the present case, this is not the position because both sets of individuals i.e. Sr. Auditors of the Federal Government (BPS-16) and Dy. Accountants of the Provincial Government (BPS-14) are not equally placed. They are employed by different employers with different financial resources.'' --- ssue:The primary issue was whether employees of the Provincial Government should be given the same pay and benefits as comparable Federal Government employees, considering the principles of reasonable classification under Article 25 of the Constitution and the autonomy of provincial governments.Holding:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, overturning the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal.Reasoning:The Court found several flaws in the Tribunal's reasoning:Lack of Comparative Analysis: There was no evidence to conclusively show that the duties of the Provincial Government's Deputy Accountants and the Federal Government's Senior Auditors were identical.Misapplication of Article 3: The Tribunal incorrectly applied Article 3 of the Constitution, regarding exploitation, as the respondents voluntarily entered their service agreements without competing with Federal Government employees for their positions.Budgetary Constraints: The Tribunal failed to consider the Provincial Government's budgetary limitations, which is a crucial factor in determining employee compensation.Federalism and Autonomy: The Tribunal's reasoning overlooked fundamental principles of federalism, wherein each province and the federal government have the autonomy to determine employee compensation based on their respective financial capabilities and policies.Rule of Law:The autonomy of provincial governments allows them to determine employee compensation within their budgetary constraints, and comparisons between provincial and federal employees must consider the distinct employers, resources, and constitutional roles.Citations and Precedents Relied Upon:The judgment referenced Muzaffar Khan and others v. Government of Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 304) to highlight the autonomy of provinces under the Constitution to make their own laws and rules, including those governing civil servants.The case also touched upon constitutional articles, specifically Article 25 (equality of citizens) and Article 3 (elimination of exploitation), to discuss the principles of equal treatment and reasonable classification.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.42,39,12,54 SRA,S.49 Registration Act,Art.113 Limitation Act:Suit for specific performance on basis of unregistered Sale deed--maintainability--limitation

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Maintainability of Writ Petition in the case of amendment of statute.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 25---Equality of citizens---Intelligible differentia, principle of---Scope---Protection ofArt.25 of the Constitution can be denied in peculiar circumstances of the case on the basis ofreasonable classification founded on intelligible differentia, which distinguishes person or thingsthat are grouped together from those who have been left out--- Differentia must have rationalnexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification.I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division, Islamabad1991 SCMR 1041 rel.(b) Prospectus of Bolan Medical College for Session 2014-2015-------Chap. 1, para 1(B)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.25 & 199--- Constitutional petition---Admission to medical colleges---Gender discrimination---Petitioners were aggrieved of reserving50% seats for female candidates for admissions in medical colleges in Balochistan province---Validity---State was mandated under the Constitution to eliminate gender discrimination butauthorities had attempted to perpetrate the act of gender discrimination in fixing percentage ofseats for girls in medical colleges---No plausible and justifiable reasons were offered on the partof authorities to arrive at the conclusion that female students did not enter field of medical aftercompleting their studies and, therefore, to hold 50% reservation provided for girls needed to beimplemented---Women were working in all spheres of life including law enforcing agencies,education and civil administration---Restraining admission of females in medical colleges on theground that they did not enter into medical field, could not be appreciated, as the same work wasalready being performed by them---Such action of authorities amounted to gender discriminationand could not be called as a reasonable restriction---High Court declared policy of fixation ofquota to be unconstitutional, against Art.25 of the Constitution and principles laid down by theSupreme Court---High Court directed to exclude para. 1(B) of Chap. I of the Prospectus of BolanMedical College for session 2014-15---High Court further directed that old policy in respect ofadmissions in first year M.B.,B.S. Bolan Medical College should be continued while grantingadmissions to students in session 2014-15---High Court also directed that for 2014-15 session,admission to Bolan Medical College must be finalized on the basis of old policy as early aspossible---Petition was allowed accordingly.Asma Javaid and others' case Writ Petition No.28142 of 2014 and Shrin Munir v.Government of Punjab PLD 1990 SC 295 ref.Shrin Munir v. Government of Punjab PLD 1990 SC 295 rel

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.