Summary: (Against order dated 2.06.2022 passed by Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi in Appeals Nos. 736, 737 and 738 of 2019). (a) Police Rules, 1934--- ----Rr. 12.2(3) & 12.24---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-A---Police service---Withdrawal of initial appointment---Reinstatement/re-appointment---Dispute qua fixation of inter-se seniority of Assistant Sub-Inspectors---Order of reckoning of seniority from the date of initial appointment subsequently withdrawn by the authority without issuing show cause notice---Principle of natural justice---Fair trial, violation of---Service appeals of the ASIs qua claim of reckoning of seniority from the date of initial appointment were allowed by the Sindh Service Tribunal (SST)---Validity---As per R.12.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934 (Rules) the seniority in the case of upper subordinates is reckoned in the first instance from the date of first appointment; officers promoted from a lower rank are considered senior to persons appointed direct on the same date and the seniority of officers appointed direct on the same date is reckoned according to age, however, the seniority is finally settled by dates of confirmation, whereas the inter se seniority of several officers confirmed on the same date being that allotted to them on first appointment---While the seniority of lower subordinates is reckoned from dates of appointment, subject to the conditions of R.12.24 of the Rules and provided that a promoted officer shall rank senior to an officer appointed direct to the same rank on the same date---While determining the issue of seniority, predominance should have been given to the statutory provisionsthat are in vogue including the provisions set out for the alleviation of grievances vis-à-vis the determination of seniority---Expression "seniority", in the labour and service laws, exemplifies the precedence or preference in the standing of an employee over other similarly placed employees with the philosophy that if service of an employee is lengthier or on top of one another employee, then he is designated senior to the other---Since seniority bequeaths a valuable right and the whole future career and prospects of an employee time and again hinge on such seniority, therefore, its determination must be in accordance with relevant laws and rules---If the seniority list is to be revised, revisited or upset come what may, it is an onerous obligation of the competent authority/concerned department to confront the issue to all persons who are likely to be affected and deprived of their seniority but without following due process, it is sheer contravention of Article 10-A of the Constitution---Principles of natural justice requires that the delinquent should be afforded a fair opportunity to converge, explain, and contest the allegation against him before he is found guilty, condemned or any adversarial action is taken---All judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities should carry out their powers with a judicious and evenhanded approach to ensure justice according to the tenor of law and without any violation of the principles of natural justice---Predominant purpose of a show cause notice is to seek out a response explicating why a disciplinary or departmental action should not be taken---If any action is taken without due process of law or in violation of natural justice/fair trial, then the whole/entire infrastructure built thereupon deserves demolition and desolation---Issue before Supreme Court was not in a straight line correlated to the mere seniority and probation at the time of appointment or direct appointment of Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and Asst. Sub-Inspectors but the case squarely was germane to the fixation of the seniority on the occasion of reinstatement and not on the basis of fresh appointment---Notification/Order was issued by the I.G.P. Sindh with the concurrence of the Chief Minister Sindh, factum of which was neither denied nor was any logical or sound justification placed before Supreme Court as to why in the case of reinstatement, the original seniority should not be reckoned and restored---No justification was found to interfere in the judgment of SST, thus, the Civil Appeals filed by the Government were dismissed, in circumstances. Faisal Ali v. District Police Officer, Gujrat and another 2025 SCMR 92= 2025 PLC (C.S) 337; Government of Balochistan, through Secretary Energy Department, Quetta and another v. Muhammad Yasir 2025 SCMR 367= PLJ 2025 SC 113; Junaid Wazir v. Superintendent of Police 2024 SCMR 181; Federation of Pakistan v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603; Usman Ghani v. Chief Post Master, GPO Karachi 2022 SCMR 745; Capital Development Authority v. Shabir Hussain 2022 SCMR 627; Raja Muhammad Shahid v. Inspector General of Police 2023 SCMR 1135; Muhammad Yaseen v. Province of Sindh 2024 PLC(C.S.) 111; Government of Balochistan v. Ghulam Rasool 2024 SCMR 1155 and Inspector General of Police, Quetta v. Fida Muhammad 2022 SCMR 1583 rel. (b) Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975--- ----R. 11---Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S.26---Fixation of inter-se seniority---Total length of service as a determining factor---Validity---Seniority or inter-se seniority is in fact determined on the basis of total length of service and for judicious resolution of such question, the actual period of service must be kept in mind---Sindh Civil Servants Seniority Rules, 1975 give precedence to initial appointment determined on the date of regular appointment and if recruited in the same batch, then seniority is classified according to the date of regular appointment. (c) Words and phrases--- ----Expression “reinstatement”---Meaning and scope stated. Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi, Additional Advocate General and Mushtaq Abbasi, AIG (Legal) for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 53-K to 55-K of 2024). Imtiaz Solangi, Advocate High Court for Appellants (with permission of Court) (in C.As. Nos. 56-K of 2024 to 58-K of 2024). Syed Ghulam Shabbir Shah, Advocate Supreme Court, for Respondents (in all cases). Date of hearing: 3rd September, 2025.

Summary: (Against order dated 2.06.2022 passed by Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi in Appeals Nos. 736, 737 and 738 of 2019). (a) Police Rules, 1934--- ----Rr. 12.2(3) & 12.24---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.10-A---Police service---Withdrawal of initial appointment---Reinstatement/re-appointment---Dispute qua fixation of inter-se seniority of Assistant Sub-Inspectors---Order of reckoning of seniority from the date of initial appointment subsequently withdrawn by the authority without issuing show cause notice---Principle of natural justice---Fair trial, violation of---Service appeals of the ASIs qua claim of reckoning of seniority from the date of initial appointment were allowed by the Sindh Service Tribunal (SST)---Validity---As per R.12.2(3) of the Police Rules, 1934 (Rules) the seniority in the case of upper subordinates is reckoned in the first instance from the date of first appointment; officers promoted from a lower rank are considered senior to persons appointed direct on the same date and the seniority of officers appointed direct on the same date is reckoned according to age, however, the seniority is finally settled by dates of confirmation, whereas the inter se seniority of several officers confirmed on the same date being that allotted to them on first appointment---While the seniority of lower subordinates is reckoned from dates of appointment, subject to the conditions of R.12.24 of the Rules and provided that a promoted officer shall rank senior to an officer appointed direct to the same rank on the same date---While determining the issue of seniority, predominance should have been given to the statutory provisions that are in vogue including the provisions set out for the alleviation of grievances vis-à-vis the determination of seniority---Expression "seniority", in the labour and service laws, exemplifies the precedence or preference in the standing of an employee over other similarly placed employees with the philosophy that if service of an employee is lengthier or on top of one another employee, then he is designated senior to the other---Since seniority bequeaths a valuable right and the whole future career and prospects of an employee time and again hinge on such seniority, therefore, its determination must be in accordance with relevant laws and rules---If the seniority list is to be revised, revisited or upset come what may, it is an onerous obligation of the competent authority / concerned department to confront the issue to all persons who are likely to be affected and deprived of their seniority but without following due process, it is sheer contravention of Article 10-A of the Constitution---Principles of natural justice requires that the delinquent should be afforded a fair opportunity to converge, explain, and contest the allegation against him before he is found guilty, condemned or any adversarial action is taken---All judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative authorities should carry out their powers with a judicious and evenhanded approach to ensure justice according to the tenor of law and without any violation of the principles of natural justice---Predominant purpose of a show cause notice is to seek out a response explicating why a disciplinary or departmental action should not be taken---If any action is taken without due process of law or in violation of natural justice/fair trial, then the whole/entire infrastructure built thereupon deserves demolition and desolation---Issue before Supreme Court was not in a straight line correlated to the mere seniority and probation at the time of appointment or direct appointment of Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors and Asst. Sub-Inspectors but the case squarely was germane to the fixation of the seniority on the occasion of reinstatement and not on the basis of fresh appointment---Notification/Order was issued by the I.G.P. Sindh with the concurrence of the Chief Minister Sindh, factum of which was neither denied nor was any logical or sound justification placed before Supreme Court as to why in the case of reinstatement, the original seniority should not be reckoned and restored---No justification was found to interfere in the judgment of SST, thus, the Civil Appeals filed by the Government were dismissed, in circumstances. Faisal Ali v. District Police Officer, Gujrat and another 2025 SCMR 92= 2025 PLC (C.S) 337; Government of Balochistan, through Secretary Energy Department, Quetta and another v. Muhammad Yasir 2025 SCMR 367= PLJ 2025 SC 113; Junaid Wazir v. Superintendent of Police 2024 SCMR 181; Federation of Pakistan v. Zahid Malik 2023 SCMR 603; Usman Ghani v. Chief Post Master, GPO Karachi 2022 SCMR 745; Capital Development Authority v. Shabir Hussain 2022 SCMR 627; Raja Muhammad Shahid v. Inspector General of Police 2023 SCMR 1135; Muhammad Yaseen v. Province of Sindh 2024 PLC(C.S.) 111; Government of Balochistan v. Ghulam Rasool 2024 SCMR 1155 and Inspector General of Police, Quetta v. Fida Muhammad 2022 SCMR 1583 rel. (b) Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975--- ----R. 11---Sindh Civil Servants Act (XIV of 1973), S.26---Fixation of inter-se seniority---Total length of service as a determining factor---Validity---Seniority or inter-se seniority is in fact determined on the basis of total length of service and for judicious resolution of such question, the actual period of service must be kept in mind---Sindh Civil Servants Seniority Rules, 1975 give precedence to initial appointment determined on the date of regular appointment and if recruited in the same batch, then seniority is classified according to the date of regular appointment. (c) Words and phrases--- ----Expression “reinstatement”---Meaning and scope stated. Kafeel Ahmed Abbasi, Additional Advocate General and Mushtaq Abbasi, AIG (Legal) for Appellants (in C.As. Nos. 53-K to 55-K of 2024). Imtiaz Solangi, Advocate High Court for Appellants (with permission of Court) (in C.As. Nos. 56-K of 2024 to 58-K of 2024). Syed Ghulam Shabbir Shah, Advocate Supreme Court, for Respondents (in all cases). Date of hearing: 3rd September, 2025.

Summary: (a) University of Balochistan (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978--- ----Rr.8 & 9---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.9 & 10A---Disciplinary proceedings---Termination from service, challenge to---Prime challenge was to the sanctity of the inquiry proceedings---Due process---Right of fair hearing and cross-examining the witnesses, importance of---Non-holding of regular inquiry---Consequences---Disciplinary proceedings would vitiate in circumstances---Petitioners were employees of a university who were proceeded against in relation to alleged irregularities concerning examination forms and bank fee challans and were terminated from service---The Senate subsequently decided to convert the penalty of termination into compulsory retirement---Pivotal question before the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction was as to “whether the termination/compulsory retirement of the petitioners was in accordance with law; and whether the principles of natural justice were adhered to?”---Held: No statement of allegations was served upon the petitioners, nor were they provided any final show cause notice prior to the issuance of the impugned termination orders---Right to a fair hearing, which included notice of allegations, access to evidence and the right to cross-examine witnesses was a fundamental component of due process which lacked in the present case---The alleged misconduct even if assumed to be under investigation, could not have justified such a hard penalty without first affording the petitioners an opportunity to rebut the allegations in a properly conducted inquiry---University’s failure to follow its own rules vitiated the entire disciplinary proceedings---Petitioners were reinstated into service, however, were to remain suspended till finalization of fresh inquiry proceedings---Constitutional petitions were partly allowed, in circumstances. (b) Civil service--- ----Disciplinary proceedings---Termination from service, penalty of---Regular inquiry, holding of---Significance---When a civil/public servant in response to a show-cause notice has specifically denied the charges and considering the nature of the charges, all those allegations require evidence, then it becomes incumbent upon the authority to order regular inquiry and in the given situation departure from a normal course does not reflect bona fide on the part of the authority. Basharat Ali v. Director, Excise and Taxation, Lahore and another 1997 PLC (C.S.) 817 ref. Dr. Pervaiz Khan for Petitioner (in Constitution Petition No.141 of 2023). Changaiz Dashti, Assistant Advocate-General for Respondents Nos.1 and 2 (in Constitution Petition No.141 of 2023). Adnan Ejaz Sheikh and Ehsan Khan Dotani for Respondents Nos.3 and 6 (in Constitution Petition No.141 of 2023). Sher Muhammad Lehri, Rehmatullah Barech and Asad Khan Achakzai for Respondents Nos.7 and 8 (in Constitution Petition No.141 of 2023). Rehmatullah Barech, Asad Khan Achakzai and Sher Muhammad Lehri for Petitioners (in Constitution Petition No.162 of 2023). Changaiz Dashti, Assistant Advocate-General for Respondents Nos.1 and 2 (in Constitution Petition No.162 of 2023). Adnan Ejaz Sheikh and Ehsan Khan Dotani for Respondents Nos.1 and 2(in Constitution Petition No.162 of 2023). Date of hearing: 28th July, 2025. MUHAMMAD AAMIR NAWAZ RANA, J.--- Through this common judgment we intend disposing of above captioned petitions as identical questions of facts and law are involved.

Summary: (1) The Tribunal is obligated to examine whether the promotion was out of turn or not? (2) Whether the promotion is out of turn or not can only be decided on the basis of service record (3) Factual controversy was required to be resolved by the Tribunal being an ultimate judicial fact-finding forum with exclusive jurisdiction

Summary: (a) Employment- -Employees of Pakistan Steel Mill (PSM)-Vires of amendment in Gratuity Rules-Withholding of financial benefits/gratuity-Doctrine of sub silentio-Scope-Decision of High Court on the basis of financial constraints of PSM instead of legal/constitutional grounds-Legality-Every employee is entitled to the payment of his full and final settlement on his superannuation-Non-payment of gratuity has nothing to do with losses or financial crunch, quite the reverse, the amount of gratuity, provident fund and pension is an inherent/vested right of every retired employee which is deep-seated in the Industrial Relations and Civil Service Laws-Every employer without any pretext or deferment is bound to pay off this liability immediately on the eve of retirement rather than delaying or shelving this vested right for an indefinite period or putting this obligation in a state of uncertainty-Many crucial questions of law were raised by the petitioners which were not considered by the High Court but the substrata of decision paid attention only to the alleged financial crunch rather than adverting to the spectrum of plea of vires of amendment in the Gratuity Rules including the other claims/benefits on the touchstone of applicable laws, thus, the judgment of High Court was also hit by the doctrine of "sub silentio"-Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed. Inspector General of Police, Quetta and another v. Fida Muhammad and others 2022 SCMR 1583; Annoor Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1994 SC 568; Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1652; Sheikh Fazal Ahmed v. Raja Ziaullah Khan PLD 1964 SC 494; Works Cooperative Housing Society and another v. Karachi Development Authority PLD 1969 SC 430; Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Azizuddin Industries PLD 1970 SC 439; Commissioner of Sales Tax (West) Karachi v. Kauddsons Ltd. PLD 1974 SC 180 and Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1979 SC 190 rel. (b) Words and phrases- -Expression-Gratuity-Meaning and scope-Expression-gratuity-delineates a lump-sum/consolidated amount of money remunerated by an employer to an employee leading up to formal retirement, which is always regarded as significant milestone that marks the end of employee's career and starting of a new chapter in his life-Gratuity is a financial benefit provided as a token of gratitude for an employee's loyalty, efficient service and completion of certain years of service and depending upon the terms and conditions of employment, it becomes a legal obligation rather than a voluntary benefit-Sometimes it may be classified as bounty but if its payment obligation is structured and regulated by legal provisions/rules or regulations, then its payment turns into indispensable and mandatory rather than considering it a mere bounty. (c) Precedent- -Sub silentio-Meaning and scope-Sub silentio-, a Latin term, literally translates to"under silence"or"in silence"-In legal milieus, it points towards an incidence where the Court decides a lis without appreciating or deliberating the particular point of law raised before it, which disturbs the precedential value of the judgment-Such doctrine often denotes that if the court, in its judgment, overlooked or dispensed with a crucial point of law raised before it, then the precedential value of such decision is seriously disturbed-Decision is not binding if it was reached at without argument, without reference to the critical terms of the law and without citation of authority and such a decision, taken as sub silentio, lacks authoritative weight. Syed Saad Ali and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry and others 2025 SCP 318 and Lancaster Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., (1941) 1 KB 675 rel. (d) Administration of justice- -Each case has to be decided on its own facts-Each litigant ought to be provided a fair chance of hearing to present and plead his case and the decision of the court must be founded and structured on the merits of the case. (e) Interpretation of statutes- -Vires of law, rules or regulations can be challenged if its provisions are ex facie discriminatory, in which case actual proof of discriminatory treatment is not required to be shown, but there is also a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the enactments, unless it is ex facie violative of a constitutional provision. Lahore Development Authority v. Ms. Imrana Tiwana and others 2015 SCMR 1739 rel.

Summary: (Against the impugned consolidated judgment dated 16.01.2023 in C.P. No. D-3105 of 2017, C.P. No. D-8295 of 2018 and C.P. No. D-4321 of 2020, rendered by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi). (a) Employment--- ----Employees of Pakistan Steel Mill (PSM)---Vires of amendment in Gratuity Rules---Withholding of financial benefits/gratuity---Doctrine of sub silentio---Scope---Decision of High Court on the basis of financial constraints of PSM instead of legal/constitutional grounds---Legality---Every employee is entitled to the payment of his full and final settlement on his superannuation---Non-payment of gratuity has nothing to do with losses or financial crunch, quite the reverse, the amount of gratuity, provident fund and pension is an inherent/vested right of every retired employee which is deep-seated in the Industrial Relations and Civil Service Laws---Every employer without any pretext or deferment is bound to pay off this liability immediately on the eve of retirement rather than delaying or shelving this vested right for an indefinite period or putting this obligation in a state of uncertainty---Many crucial questions of law were raised by the petitioners which were not considered by the High Court but the substrata of decision paid attention only to the alleged financial crunch rather than adverting to the spectrum of plea of vires of amendment in the Gratuity Rules including the other claims/benefits on the touchstone of applicable laws, thus, the judgment of High Court was also hit by the doctrine of "sub silentio"---Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed. Inspector General of Police, Quetta and another v. Fida Muhammad and others 2022 SCMR 1583; Annoor Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1994 SC 568; Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1652; Sheikh Fazal Ahmed v. Raja Ziaullah Khan PLD 1964 SC 494; Works Cooperative Housing Society and another v. Karachi Development Authority PLD 1969 SC 430; Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Azizuddin Industries PLD 1970 SC 439; Commissioner of Sales Tax (West) Karachi v. Kauddsons Ltd. PLD 1974 SC 180 and Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1979 SC 190 rel. (b) Words and phrases--- ----Expression “Gratuity”---Meaning and scope---Expression “gratuity” delineates a lump-sum/consolidated amount of money remunerated by an employer to an employee leading up to formal retirement, which is always regarded as significant milestone that marks the end of employee's career and starting of a new chapter in his life---Gratuity is a financial benefit provided as a token of gratitude for an employee's loyalty, efficient service and completion of certain years of service and depending upon the terms and conditions of employment, it becomes a legal obligation rather than a voluntary benefit---Sometimes it may be classified as bounty but if its payment obligation is structured and regulated by legal provisions/rules or regulations, then its payment turns into indispensable and mandatory rather than considering it a mere bounty. (c) Precedent--- ----“Sub silentio”---Meaning and scope---“Sub silentio”, a Latin term, literally translates to "under silence" or "in silence"---In legal milieus, it points towards an incidence where the Court decides a lis without appreciating or deliberating the particular point of law raised before it, which disturbs the precedential value of the judgment---Such doctrine often denotes that if the court, in its judgment, overlooked or dispensed with a crucial point of law raised before it, then the precedential value of such decision is seriously disturbed---Decision is not binding if it was reached at without argument, without reference to the critical terms of the law and without citation of authority and such a decision, taken as sub silentio, lacks authoritative weight. Syed Saad Ali and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry and others 2025 SCP 318 and Lancaster Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., (1941) 1 KB 675 rel. (d) Administration of justice--- ----Each case has to be decided on its own facts---Each litigant ought to be provided a fair chance of hearing to present and plead his case and the decision of the court must be founded and structured on the merits of the case. (e) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Vires of law, rules or regulations can be challenged if its provisions are ex facie discriminatory, in which case actual proof of discriminatory treatment is not required to be shown, but there is also a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the enactments, unless it is ex facie violative of a constitutional provision. Lahore Development Authority v. Ms. Imrana Tiwana and others 2015 SCMR 1739 rel. Muhammad Haseeb Jamali, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Mohsin Qadir Shahwani, Additional Attorney General Pakistan and Agha Zafar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2025.

Summary: (Against the impugned consolidated judgment dated 16.01.2023 in C.P. No. D-3105 of 2017, C.P. No. D-8295 of 2018 and C.P. No. D-4321 of 2020, rendered by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi). (a) Employment--- ----Employees of Pakistan Steel Mill (PSM)---Vires of amendment in Gratuity Rules---Withholding of financial benefits/gratuity---Doctrine of sub silentio---Scope---Decision of High Court on the basis of financial constraints of PSM instead of legal/constitutional grounds---Legality---Every employee is entitled to the payment of his full and final settlement on his superannuation---Non-payment of gratuity has nothing to do with losses or financial crunch, quite the reverse, the amount of gratuity, provident fund and pension is an inherent/vested right of every retired employee which is deep-seated in the Industrial Relations and Civil Service Laws---Every employer without any pretext or deferment is bound to pay off this liability immediately on the eve of retirement rather than delaying or shelving this vested right for an indefinite period or putting this obligation in a state of uncertainty---Many crucial questions of law were raised by the petitioners which were not considered by the High Court but the substrata of decision paid attention only to the alleged financial crunch rather than adverting to the spectrum of plea of vires of amendment in the Gratuity Rules including the other claims/benefits on the touchstone of applicable laws, thus, the judgment of High Court was also hit by the doctrine of "sub silentio"---Civil petitions were converted into appeals and were allowed. Inspector General of Police, Quetta and another v. Fida Muhammad and others 2022 SCMR 1583; Annoor Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1994 SC 568; Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1992 SCMR 1652; Sheikh Fazal Ahmed v. Raja Ziaullah Khan PLD 1964 SC 494; Works Cooperative Housing Society and another v. Karachi Development Authority PLD 1969 SC 430; Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Azizuddin Industries PLD 1970 SC 439; Commissioner of Sales Tax (West) Karachi v. Kauddsons Ltd. PLD 1974 SC 180 and Muhammad Suleman and others v. Abdul Ghani PLD 1979 SC 190 rel. (b) Words and phrases--- ----Expression “Gratuity”---Meaning and scope---Expression “gratuity” delineates a lump-sum/consolidated amount of money remunerated by an employer to an employee leading up to formal retirement, which is always regarded as significant milestone that marks the end of employee's career and starting of a new chapter in his life---Gratuity is a financial benefit provided as a token of gratitude for an employee's loyalty, efficient service and completion of certain years of service and depending upon the terms and conditions of employment, it becomes a legal obligation rather than a voluntary benefit---Sometimes it may be classified as bounty but if its payment obligation is structured and regulated by legal provisions/rules or regulations, then its payment turns into indispensable and mandatory rather than considering it a mere bounty. (c) Precedent--- ----“Sub silentio”---Meaning and scope---“Sub silentio”, a Latin term, literally translates to "under silence" or "in silence"---In legal milieus, it points towards an incidence where the Court decides a lis without appreciating or deliberating the particular point of law raised before it, which disturbs the precedential value of the judgment---Such doctrine often denotes that if the court, in its judgment, overlooked or dispensed with a crucial point of law raised before it, then the precedential value of such decision is seriously disturbed---Decision is not binding if it was reached at without argument, without reference to the critical terms of the law and without citation of authority and such a decision, taken as sub silentio, lacks authoritative weight. Syed Saad Ali and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry and others 2025 SCP 318 and Lancaster Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith Ltd., (1941) 1 KB 675 rel. (d) Administration of justice--- ----Each case has to be decided on its own facts---Each litigant ought to be provided a fair chance of hearing to present and plead his case and the decision of the court must be founded and structured on the merits of the case. (e) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Vires of law, rules or regulations can be challenged if its provisions are ex facie discriminatory, in which case actual proof of discriminatory treatment is not required to be shown, but there is also a presumption in favour of the constitutionality of the enactments, unless it is ex facie violative of a constitutional provision. Lahore Development Authority v. Ms. Imrana Tiwana and others 2015 SCMR 1739 rel. Muhammad Haseeb Jamali, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Mohsin Qadir Shahwani, Additional Attorney General Pakistan and Agha Zafar Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 2025.

Summary: (a) Labour laws –– Gratuity, provident fund and pension –– Vested / inherent right of employee –– Financial crunch of employer or public sector entity –– Effect. Petitioners, officers/employees of Pakistan Steel Mills (PSM), assailed non-payment of gratuity and other terminal benefits and discriminatory amendments in Gratuity Fund Rules; High Court declined relief primarily on ground of PSM’s persistent financial losses –– Held, gratuity, provident fund and pension, where structured through trust deeds, rules or statutory provisions, constitute vested and inherent rights of employees, deeply rooted in industrial relations and civil service law, and are not dependent on the profit or loss of the employer –– Non-payment of such terminal dues “has nothing to do with losses or financial crunch”; an employer is bound to discharge these liabilities promptly upon superannuation and cannot indefinitely delay, shelve or render them uncertain on plea of financial constraints –– Such benefits, though sometimes described as “bounty”, when regulated by legal provisions or rules, assume the character of a legal obligation, not a mere act of grace –– Reference made to Inspector General of Police, Quetta v. Fida Muhammad (2022 SCMR 1583) and Annoor Textile Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1994 SC 568) on vested rights and legal character of “bounties”. (b) Service / labour benefits –– Gratuity Fund Rules –– Amendment reducing scope of benefit (gross pay vs basic pay) –– Vested rights, retrospectivity and promissory estoppel. Petitioners contended that amendments to PSM Gratuity Rules converted gratuity from gross-pay basis to basic-pay basis for them, while CBA-represented workers continued to receive gratuity on gross pay; vires of amendments and their discriminatory effect were specifically challenged –– High Court, however, gave no findings on validity, effective date or retrospective operation of such amendments and non-suited petitioners solely on ground of PSM’s financial crisis –– Supreme Court held that questions whether amendments were lawfully made, whether they prejudiced or impaired vested rights of employees, and whether they operate prospectively or retrospectively, were crucial and had to be determined with clear findings –– Citing Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (1992 SCMR 1652) and earlier authorities (Sheikh Fazal Ahmed v. Raja Ziaullah Khan, PLD 1964 SC 494; Works Cooperative Housing Society v. KDA, PLD 1969 SC 430; etc.), Court reiterated that a notification or rule which impairs existing or vested rights or imposes new liabilities cannot operate retrospectively without clear legal sanction, whereas beneficial notifications may operate retrospectively; doctrine of promissory estoppel may also preclude exercise of legal rights where unconscionable. (c) Constitutional jurisdiction –– Duty to decide all material issues –– Doctrine of sub silentio –– Precedential value of a judgment rendered without addressing crucial questions. Constitution petitions before High Court involved multifarious claims: non-payment of gratuity, challenge to amendments in gratuity rules, non-payment of special allowance and ad-hoc allowance, and alleged discriminatory treatment vis-à-vis CBA employees –– High Court confined itself essentially to issue of ad-hoc allowance and financial constraints, leaving other pleas and legal challenges unaddressed –– Supreme Court held that many crucial questions of law raised by petitioners were not considered; judgment, therefore, attracted doctrine of “sub silentio” in that the Court decided the matter without addressing specific points of law squarely raised for determination, thereby disturbing the precedential weight of such decision –– Reiterating earlier exposition in Syed Saad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (2025 SCP 318) and referring to Lancaster Motor Co. v. Bremith Ltd. (1941 1 KB 675), it was held that a decision reached without argument, without reference to critical statutory language and without citation of authority is not binding as precedent and cannot be followed. (d) Constitutional law –– Challenge to vires of rules –– Presumption of constitutionality –– Need for reasoned determination. Court reaffirmed that vires of laws, rules or regulations can be challenged if ex facie discriminatory, in which case actual proof of discriminatory treatment is not always necessary; however, there is a presumption in favour of constitutionality unless provisions are plainly violative of constitutional guarantees –– Where petitioners specifically assail amendments in service/gratuity rules as discriminatory or violative of vested rights, High Court is obliged to examine such challenge on the touchstone of applicable constitutional and statutory provisions and record definite findings, rather than dispose of the matter merely on administrative or financial grounds –– Reference made to Lahore Development Authority v. Ms. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739). (e) Industrial relations –– Public sector corporation in financial distress –– Retrenchment, VSS and residual claims. PSM’s plea that financial crunch had led to closure permission, retrenchment of a segment of employees through Labour Court and introduction of Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) was noted –– However, no record was before Supreme Court regarding which petitioners were retrenched or had opted for VSS, and whether, under the VSS scheme, any further claims survived –– Court directed that upon remand, High Court would examine, on record, which employees (if any) accepted VSS, and then determine, in accordance with law and the terms of the scheme, whether any residual claims or rights survive despite acceptance of VSS. (f) Result –– Petitions converted into appeals and allowed –– Remand. Civil Petitions were converted into appeals and allowed; impugned consolidated judgment of High Court dated 16.01.2023 was set aside –– Matter remanded to High Court of Sindh to decide all issues raised by the parties, including vires and operation of amendments to Gratuity Rules and claims regarding gratuity and allowances, strictly in accordance with law after affording ample opportunity of hearing, preferably within three months of receipt of Supreme Court judgment.

Summary: Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)--- ----S.4---Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.2(iii)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 14, 10A & 212 (3)---Misconduct---Acquittal in criminal case---Custodial violence---Enhancing of penalty---Petitioners / civil servants were serving in police who were dismissed from service for physically torturing an accused in custody which resulted in his death---Authorities dismissed petitioners / civil servants from service and their appeals were also dismissed by Service Tribunal---Plea raised by petitioners / civil servants was that after they had been acquitted in criminal trial, the allegation of mis-conduct had become baseless---Validity---Constitution imposes a duty upon State to protect right to life of every citizen and to prevent custodial violence and killings---Such Constitutional guarantees against illegal detention, arrest, brutality, torture and extra judicial killings in any form are bedrock legal and fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution, therefore, illegal detention and torture are neither encouraged nor justified under any circumstances---Principle of fundamental rights is to ensure secure and just society, which has been recognized worldwide and adopted by United Nations in 1948 through Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)---Allegations against petitioners / civil servants in their capacity as police officials of unlawful confinement, maltreatmenot and torture of deceased were established during inquiry through evidence and material described in report of inquiry officer available on record---By detaining deceased accused and subjecting him to torture, petitioners / civil servants acted in violation of their duty to act in accordance with law---Such act of petitioners / civil servants amounted to misuse of authority falling within the definition of grave misconduct defined in Rule 2(iii) of Punjab Police (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975---Penalty imposed by authorized officer did not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct committed by petitioners / civil servants---Competent authority provided opportunity to petitioners / civil servant to defend themselves---After adopting due process, competent authority was justified in enhancing penalty from reduction in pay by one stage for a period of two years recommended by inquiry officer to that of dismissal from their service---Such departmental proceedings were necessary to uphold rule of law and maintain public confidence in state institutions---Supreme Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Service Tribunal as petitioners / civil servants were unable to point out any substantial question of law of public importance---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Mudasar Khalid Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 1041 and 1042 of 2024). Hafiz Noor Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1327 of 2024). Baleegh-uz-Zaman, A.A.G., and Zafar Hayat, DSP, DG Khan for Respondents. Amicus Curie: Kamran Adil, Additional I.G. Punjab. Date of hearing: 21st August, 2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Scholarships, grant of---Petitioners sought enhancement of scholarship limits citing inadequacy of granted limit/allowance for foreign university admissions---Legality---Scope---Respondent No. 2 announced scholarships titled “LLM and PhD Scholarships for the Students of Balochistan” through an advertisement---The petitioners, being eligible candidates, appeared in the test---Subsequently, respondent No. 2 issued provisional offer letters granting the petitioners scholarships for securing admission in foreign universities, allocating USD 15,000 per year for tuition fees and USD 1,250 per month for maintenance---The petitioners challenged the adequacy of this allocation, contending that actual tuition fees at most targeted universities ranged from USD 25,000 - 30,000 per year with living costs exceeding the maintenance allowance---Their request to enhance these amounts to USD 30,000 per annum (tuition) and USD 2,200 per month (maintenance) was not accepted by respondents, leading to the filing of the instant constitutional petition under Art. 199 seeking directions for revision of the scholarship terms and timely release of funds to prevent financial hardship during their studies abroad---Held: Admittedly, the petitioners’ grievance relating to extension of time for securing admission in the foreign universities had been redressed by extending the same, but with no increase in yearly tuition fees and monthly maintenance allowance---Undeniably, the scholarships were announced by the government for the welfare and benefit of aspirants in order to pursue the education abroad and ensure that students from all backgrounds, especially those from low-income families, marginalized communities, or aspirants coming from rural areas got an opportunity to get quality education, contributing to the economy, governance, and innovation, but such initiative obviously was subject to financial constraints, whilst keeping in view the country’s economic woes---When the scholarships were announced certain amount was fixed for tuition fee and monthly allowance as per approved PC-1 for the aspirants of said scholarships, thus the departments were bound to operate within the stipulated financial and policy framework, which could not be arbitrarily modified on a case-by-case basis, henceforth, the petitioners had no vested right to claim more than the amount offered, more particularly, when the scholarships were announced for the aspirants, who agreed to the conditions laid down therein, and for those for whom it might not be suitable, they might avail any other opportunity---None of the vested rights of the petitioners were infringed by the respondents, persuading the High Court to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court---Judicial review---Educational institutions---Policy decision, interference in---Scope---It is not the constitutional mandate of the courts to run and manage the public or private institutions at micro level or to interfere in their internal policy and administrative affairs---Courts should generally refrain from interfering in the policy decisions taken by the statutory bodies and authorities tasked with running the matters of educational institutions, which otherwise require technical and professional expertise that may only be attained as a result of specialization and experience of working with the educational institutions, but the courts can interfere in a case, where grave injustice has done, which we believe is not available in the instant case. Yasir Nawaz v. Higher Education Commission PLD 2021 SC 745 rel. Imtiaz Ali Dashti for Petitioners. Baqir Bakhtiar, Assistant Attorney General for Respondent No. 1. Naimatullah Achakzai, Shamsullah Nasar and Rahim Baz Mandokhail for Respondent No. 2. Date of hearing: 31st July, 2025.