Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the removal of alleged illegal constructions and encroachments on a green area and Plot No. 436-A, Sector I/10, Islamabad. The petitioner also sought accountability for the negligence of the concerned officials of the Capital Development Authority (CDA). Respondent No. 4 (the applicant) filed an application alleging that the petitioner himself had erected illegal steel fencing and stairs between the two plots (No. 436 and No. 436-A). The applicant claimed that these illegal constructions were causing loss of amenities to the general public. -----Issues: 1- Whether the application for the removal of alleged illegal constructions and encroachments should be decided before the main petition. -----2- Whether the petitioner, by allegedly engaging in similar encroachments, is disqualified from seeking equitable relief. -----3- Whether the element of irreparable loss was established by the applicant in the present application. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Premature Decision on Main Relief: The court noted that granting the relief sought in the application (removal of illegal constructions and encroachments) would effectively decide the main petition before its proper adjudication. This would be procedurally inappropriate. --Principle of Equity: The court observed that the petitioner’s alleged actions (erecting steel fencing and stairs) could be considered under the principle of “he who seeks equity must do equity.” However, the petitioner should be given an opportunity to contest these allegations during the regular hearing of the main petition. --Irreparable Loss: The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable loss due to the alleged illegal constructions and encroachments. --Admissibility of Evidence: The court acknowledged that an image (annexure ‘A’) submitted by the applicant had already been placed on record in a related application (C.M No. 1965 of 2014) and would be considered during the regular hearing. The application was dismissed on the following grounds: The relief sought in the application was premature as it overlapped with the main relief. The applicant failed to establish irreparable loss.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a former Managing Director of REPCO on deputation from the Establishment Division, was compulsorily retired on 18.02.1977 following allegations of corruption and inefficiency outlined in a show cause notice dated 16.10.1976. The petitioner contended that the charges against him were not proven and claimed that even the Secretary Establishment had observed no evidence against him. He further alleged that his compulsory retirement violated due process under Rule 3 of the Efficiency and Discipline (E&D) Rules, 1973. Additionally, the petitioner claimed entitlement to pension and gratuity under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, having completed the qualifying service of ten years. -----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner’s compulsory retirement in 1977 was conducted without fulfilling legal requirements under the E&D Rules, 1973. -----2- Whether the petitioner was entitled to pension and gratuity under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, despite the retirement order. -----3- Whether the petition was maintainable given the delay of over 45 years and the lack of evidence of prior departmental redressal efforts. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Delay and Laches: The court found that the petition suffered from extraordinary delay, as the grievance pertained to events from 1977. The petitioner failed to provide any explanation for the delay of more than four and a half decades. --Mandatory Redressal Process: The court observed that the petitioner did not provide evidence of seeking redressal through the departmental authority before invoking constitutional jurisdiction. Such an alternate remedy is mandatory, and constitutional jurisdiction is available only when no alternate remedy exists. --Merit of the Claims: Although the petitioner raised arguments about due process violations and entitlement to pension under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, the court did not delve deeply into the merits due to the overwhelming procedural lapse. The petition was dismissed in limine on grounds of delay and procedural lapses. -----Citations/Precedents The judgment did not reference specific case law but relied on: Rule 3 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973 regarding due process in disciplinary actions. Section 19 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 on pension and gratuity entitlements. Principles of laches: Long, unexplained delays bar relief under constitutional jurisdiction.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.