Summary: Constitution of Pakistan- -Arts. 25 & 27-Employment-Recruitment policy-Employment opportunity for sons / daughters of in-service (Regular) deceased and retired / GHS / VHS Optants in clerical and non-clerical cadre-Good management-Principles-Appellants applied to National Bank of Pakistan for their appointments on the basis of deceased employees' quota-Validity-Good management exemplifies and represents a set of distinctive and standards including wisdom, uprightness, empathy, fairness, non-discriminatory employment policies, equal opportunity employer, congenial working environment which enables to carry on and manage the affairs of institutions / establishment effectively-Despite prevailing policy, applications of petitioners were ignored and no consideration was made for their appointment in view of the policy-If management circulated any beneficial employment / recruitment policy then such policy should have been implemented equitably and even handedly across the board and not through cherry-picking to deprive its benefits to deserving contenders-Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and remanded the matter to the authorities to consider applications of both the appellants moved in years 2019 and 2022 and decide fate of their applications in accordance with the policy of the Bank prevailing at that time-Appeal was allowed. General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 and Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Tahir Mushtaq 2025 PLC (C.S) 34 rel.

Summary: (Against the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in C.P. No. D-6249 of 2022). Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 25 & 27---Employment---Recruitment policy---Employment opportunity for sons / daughters of in-service (Regular) deceased and retired / GHS / VHS Optants in clerical and non-clerical cadre---Good management---Principles---Appellants applied to National Bank of Pakistan for their appointments on the basis of deceased employees’ quota---Validity---Good management exemplifies and represents a set of distinctive and standards including wisdom, uprightness, empathy, fairness, non-discriminatory employment policies, equal opportunity employer, congenial working environment which enables to carry on and manage the affairs of institutions / establishment effectively---Despite prevailing policy, applications of petitioners were ignored and no consideration was made for their appointment in view of the policy---If management circulated any beneficial employment / recruitment policy then such policy should have been implemented equitably and even handedly across the board and not through cherry-picking to deprive its benefits to deserving contenders---Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and remanded the matter to the authorities to consider applications of both the appellants moved in years 2019 and 2022 and decide fate of their applications in accordance with the policy of the Bank prevailing at that time---Appeal was allowed. General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 and Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Tahir Mushtaq 2025 PLC (C.S) 34 rel. Rafiq Ahmad Kalwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Khaleeq Ahmad, DAG and Shah Hussain, A.AG for Respondent No. 1. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Date of hearing: 17th July, 2025. MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.--- This Civil Petition is brought to challenge the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in C.P. No. D-6249/2022.

Summary: (Against the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in C.P. No. D-6249 of 2022). Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Arts. 25 & 27---Employment---Recruitment policy---Employment opportunity for sons / daughters of in-service (Regular) deceased and retired / GHS / VHS Optants in clerical and non-clerical cadre---Good management---Principles---Appellants applied to National Bank of Pakistan for their appointments on the basis of deceased employees’ quota---Validity---Good management exemplifies and represents a set of distinctive and standards including wisdom, uprightness, empathy, fairness, non-discriminatory employment policies, equal opportunity employer, congenial working environment which enables to carry on and manage the affairs of institutions / establishment effectively---Despite prevailing policy, applications of petitioners were ignored and no consideration was made for their appointment in view of the policy---If management circulated any beneficial employment / recruitment policy then such policy should have been implemented equitably and even handedly across the board and not through cherry-picking to deprive its benefits to deserving contenders---Supreme Court set aside order passed by High Court and remanded the matter to the authorities to consider applications of both the appellants moved in years 2019 and 2022 and decide fate of their applications in accordance with the policy of the Bank prevailing at that time---Appeal was allowed. General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 and Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Tahir Mushtaq 2025 PLC (C.S) 34 rel. Rafiq Ahmad Kalwar, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners. Khaleeq Ahmad, DAG and Shah Hussain, A.AG for Respondent No. 1. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, Advocate Supreme Court and K.A. Wahab, Advocate-on-Record for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3. Date of hearing: 17th July, 2025.

Summary: (1) Employment opportunity for sons/daughters of in-service deceased and retired employees in NBP (2) The beneficial employment / recruitment policy should have been implemented equitably across the board and not through cherry-picking (3) Judgment of this Court in the case of “Muhammad Jalal” will apply prospectively

Summary: (a) Service Law — Deceased/Son Quota; Implementation of Court Orders ----CPC, S. 151; Constitution Petitions—District Judiciary (Larkana) appointments under High Court policy—Maintainability of post-judgment implementation orders—Held: Where the High Court’s original judgment (17.04.2024) directing reconsideration/issuance of appointment letters attained finality (no challenge), the learned Division Bench rightly exercised S.151 CPC to secure implementation; applicants could even have resorted to contempt—Registrar, High Court and District & Sessions Judge had no lawful justification to resist or bypass compliance. (b) Prospective Effect of Supreme Court Judgments; Finality of Litigation ----Art. 189, Constitution—Prospective overruling; past and closed transactions—Held: The later decision General Post Office, Islamabad v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276)—striking down kinship/deceased-quota provisions—operates prospectively unless declared otherwise; it cannot unsettle the High Court’s earlier judgment that had already attained finality on 17.04.2024—Past and concluded matters remain protected to avoid multiplicity and to uphold the doctrine of finality. (c) Public Employment; Equality & Open Competition ----Arts. 25 & 27, Constitution; kinship/deceased-quota policies—Argument that no vested right exists to appointment, and that open competition is the norm—Held: Even if GPO (PLD 2024 SC 1276) declares such policies unconstitutional prospectively, it does not retrospectively extinguish rights crystallized under an unappealed, final High Court judgment; implementation could not be refused on that post-facto basis. (d) Supreme Court (Practice & Procedure) Act, 2023—Bench Composition (Observation) ----S. 4 (as it stood prior to the 26th Constitutional Amendment); constitutional interpretation—Observation: GPO involved framed constitutional questions (Arts. 25 & 27); under the then-operative S.4, matters involving constitutional interpretation ought to be placed before a bench of not less than five judges; this aspect appears to have escaped attention. (Observation did not control the ratio herein, which rests on finality/prospectivity.) (e) Institutional Propriety; Compliance with Own Orders ----Judicial discipline—It was improper for the Registrar of the same High Court to challenge a post-judgment implementation order rather than comply with the High Court’s subsisting, unchallenged judgment of 17.04.2024. Cited Cases: • General Post Office, Islamabad v. Muhammad Jalal PLD 2024 SC 1276 • Sakhi Muhammad v. CDA PLD 1991 SC 777 (prospectivity; effect on past orders) • PMDC v. Muhammad Fahad Malik 2018 SCMR 1956 (SC judgments operate prospectively unless stated) • Pir Bakhsh v. Chairman, Allotment Committee PLD 1987 SC 145 (concluded rights not reopened) (g) Disposition — Civil Petitions dismissed; leave refused. The High Court’s implementation order dated 30.04.2025 is sustained; original judgment dated 17.04.2024 remains operative and must be implemented.

Summary: (a) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S. 2(1)(b)---Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974---Initial appointments, non-statutory nature of---Civil Servant later regularized---Appeal filed by such civil servant before Provincial Service Tribunal---Maintainability---Undisputedly, the appellants were initially inducted into government on work-charge basis, however, their services were regularized by the competent authority through a formal order issued pursuant to decisions rendered by the Labour Judicial Forums, which attained finality and were binding upon the department---Following such regularization, the appellants had been serving against duly sanctioned posts within the regular establishment of the Department and they were governed by the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974---Said factors collectively affirmed their integration into the statutory framework governing civil servants---Regularization of service by a competent authority, whether pursuant to judicial direction or lawful administrative discretion, alters the legal character of employment, conferring upon the employee the status of a civil servant---Once an employee is regularized, he or she ceases to be a contractual, contingent, or ad hoc worker, and becomes entitled to the full breadth of statutory protections available under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974---Appellants satisfied each of the relevant conditions---Significantly, there was no material on record indicating that the regularization of the appellants was ever annulled, withdrawn, or declared void by any competent authority---In the absence of such a determination, a presumption of legality attached to their regularized status---Moreover, the impugned departmental orders were issued by the authorities exercising powers under the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, further affirming that the appellants were treated as civil servants in administrative practice---Thus, the appellants, having been lawfully regularized and absorbed against sanctioned posts, had acquired the status of civil servants within the meaning of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and the preliminary objection was accordingly overruled---Appeals were held to be maintainable. (b) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)--- ----S.2---Individual---Qualification as a civil servant, determination of---Criteria---In determining whether an individual qualifies as a servant under breadth of statutory protections available under the S. 2 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the courts are to look beyond the initial form of appointment to the substance of the service relationship---The criteria includes (i) holding a post in connection with the affairs of the Province, (ii) serving under an organization governed by provincial law; (iii) receiving remuneration from the public exchequer through a sanctioned budget; and (iv) being subject to the hierarchical control and service rules of a government department. (c) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)--- ----S. 4---Civil servant---Termination---Disciplinary proceedings, initiation of---Show-Cause Notice, non-issuance of---Inquiry, non-holding of---Effect---Appellants, after regularization, continued to discharge their duties without adverse service entries or disciplinary blemishes, but they were summarily terminated through cyclostyled orders, which referred to the departmental directive alleging large-scale irregularities in appointments---Said termination orders were issued without the issuance of Show-Cause Notices, without the framing of precise charges and without initiation of any formal inquiry under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006---The disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained on the basis of generalized administrative conclusions or institutional suspicion in the absence of individualized inquiry and concrete evidence---Thus, the impugned disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by serious violations of statutory provisions, due process and principles of natural justice---Punjab Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned orders and reinstated appellants into service while the matter was remanded to the competent authority to conduct de novo inquiry proceedings, strictly in accordance with law---Appeals were allowed accordingly. (d) Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006)--- ----S.4---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 10-A---Civil servant---Termination---Disciplinary proceedings, initiation of---Show-Cause Notice, non-issuance of---Inquiry, non-holding of---Effect---Right of fair trial---Scope---Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006, provides a mandatory procedural framework for imposing disciplinary penalties on civil servants, which mandates the issuance of a charge sheet, appointment of an impartial inquiry officer, the right to defend against allegations, and issuance of a speaking order grounded in evidence, however in the present case, none of said statutory safeguards were observed---Appellants were not served with any charge sheet, no inquiry officer was appointed and no formal inquiry was conducted---The omission to comply with said mandatory procedural requirements constituted a fatal illegality and rendered the entire proceedings null and void---Article 10-A of the Constitution enshrines the right process as an inviolable fundamental right---Thus , the impugned disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by serious violations of statutory provisions, constitutional guarantees, due process and principles of natural justice---Punjab Service Tribunal set-aside the impugned orders and reinstated appellants into service while the matter was remanded to the competent authority to conduct denovo inquiry proceedings, strictly in accordance with law---Appeals were allowed accordingly. Abdul Rehman Khan Lashkani and Mian Jafeer Hussain for the Appellants. Malik Muhammad Qasim, Deputy District Attorney; Mohsin ul Hassan, XEN, DR; Muhammad Dilshad Hussain, SO, DR and Mst. Sehar Chaudhry, Law Officer, DR for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th July, 2025.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan – Arts. 9, 14, 25 & 27 – Right to Life, Dignity, Equality and Non-Discrimination Marital status as bar to family pension entitlement—Scope—Held, a daughter’s right to family pension of a deceased civil servant cannot be extinguished merely due to change in marital status after the pensioner’s death—Family pension is not a discretionary grant but a legal and constitutional entitlement grounded in Articles 9 and 14, encompassing both the right to life and to live with dignity—Denial of pension based solely on a woman’s change in marital status, without regard to actual financial need, constitutes systemic gender bias and violates Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution—Presumption that married women are financially secure and unmarried/divorced women are dependent, held, to be a flawed and patriarchal assumption—Eligibility for pension must be based on need, not formal status—Court observed that such restrictive interpretations fail to recognize women as autonomous right-holders and reinforce unconstitutional and discriminatory stereotypes. (b) West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 – Rr. 4.7(1), 4.10(2)(B), 4.10(3) Interpretation of “unmarried” and “divorced” daughter—Scope—Held, Rules entitle both unmarried and divorced daughters to family pension without conditioning eligibility on the timing of marital status—Circular dated 05.12.2022 issued by Government of Sindh interpreted Rule 4.10(2)(B) restrictively by linking pension entitlement to status at time of death of the pensioner—Such restriction, held, had no support in the Act or the Rules and unlawfully curtailed an otherwise vested right—Rules confer pensionary entitlement based on category of beneficiary, not time-based marital conditions—Circular found to exceed its administrative scope and struck down as void. (c) Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 – S. 20 Right to pension—Nature and succession—Held, pension is not an ex gratia or charitable benefit but a legally accrued right of a government servant for past service—In case of death, this right devolves onto legal heirs under the Act and must be administered in accordance with law—Delay in disbursement or imposition of arbitrary restrictions amounts to negligence and breach of statutory and constitutional duty—Government departments bound to uphold fair, timely, and lawful distribution of pensionary benefits. (d) Executive Instructions and Circulars – Legal Status Administrative clarifications—Scope—Held, executive instructions or departmental circulars cannot override, amend, or narrow the operation of parent statutes or delegated legislation—Circular dated 05.12.2022 imposed an unauthorised condition that conflicted with the statutory pension framework—Court reaffirmed that executive authorities cannot issue clarifications that create new legal obligations or exclusions absent legislative backing. (e) Gender Equality – International Obligations – CEDAW, ICCPR, ICESCR, ILO Convention No. 111 Discriminatory pension frameworks based on marital status—Effect—Held, Pakistan’s international treaty obligations prohibit laws or practices that deny women access to economic benefits due to sex or marital status—Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), ICCPR, ICESCR, and ILO Convention No.111 obligate the State to eliminate gender-based legal inequalities and stereotypes—Circular impugned was found to contravene Pakistan’s treaty commitments and reinforced unjust assumptions about women’s dependency and financial security—Court emphasized the need for a needs-based and dignity-affirming pension framework in line with global standards. (f) Comparative Jurisprudence – Pension Entitlement of Daughters Reference to Indian, Bangladeshi, and European legal frameworks—Held, India and Bangladesh have adopted progressive pension frameworks that assess entitlement based on financial need rather than marital status—Indian courts have interpreted “unmarried daughter” to include widowed and divorced daughters, and recognized pension as a constitutional right—European Court of Human Rights has held that denial of social security based on arbitrary classifications violates proportionality and equality principles—Pakistan’s rigid framework found to lag behind global standards and in need of reform. Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave to appeal refused. Circular declared void ab initio for being unconstitutional and contrary to statutory law and international obligations.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Writ jurisdiction—Contractual disputes—Scope of interference by High Court—Limitation of writ remedy in purely private contractual matters The Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court, in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199, ordinarily refrains from interfering in matters arising purely out of contractual obligations between private parties, particularly where disputed questions of fact require evidence. The impugned judgment of the High Court had ventured into adjudication of a contractually governed employment termination without assessing available alternate remedies or following due evidentiary processes. Cited Case: Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707) (b) Service Law—Private contractual employment—Termination simpliciter—Distinction between regular government service and private/contractual appointment—Employee not governed by statutory rules—Remedy lies in civil suit, not writ The appellant's employment was governed exclusively by the terms of a contract, and no statutory rules were shown to apply. The Supreme Court held that the respondent, not being a civil servant or a statutory employee, could not invoke the writ jurisdiction to challenge the termination. Where the relationship is that of master and servant without statutory backing, the remedy lies in ordinary civil proceedings for damages or reinstatement subject to contract terms. Cited Case: Pakistan Red Crescent Society v. Syed Nazir Gillani (PLD 2005 SC 806) (c) High Court Judgment—Error of jurisdiction—Substitution of contractual terms by judicial reasoning—Improper assumption of fact-finding role—High Court exceeded constitutional jurisdiction The Court held that the High Court erred in law by effectively rewriting the employment terms and substituting its own findings over matters contractually agreed upon between the parties. This amounted to judicial overreach and transgression into a domain reserved for trial courts. The writ jurisdiction was exercised in a manner that disrupted the legal sanctity of mutually agreed contracts. Cited Case: Province of Punjab v. Asif Jamil (PLD 2021 SC 741) (d) Contract Act, 1872—Contractual obligations—Termination clause—Binding nature—Courts not to rewrite terms—Freedom of contract upheld The appeal involved the enforcement of a contractually stipulated termination clause. The Supreme Court reiterated that where a contract allows either party to terminate without cause, courts must respect such autonomy unless vitiated by fraud, coercion, or illegality. The High Court had misapplied equitable considerations in disregard of binding contractual terms. Cited Case: Shafique Ahmed Khan v. NESPAK (PLD 2011 SC 610) Disposition: Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of the High Court set aside. Constitutional petition dismissed. Supreme Court upheld the appellant's right to terminate the respondent in accordance with contract terms.

Summary: Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act (XVII of 1996)--- ----Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 (5)---Quo warranto, writ of---Term ‘person’---Non-statutory post---Appellant was appointed as Assistant Director (Human Resource) with Pakistan Telecommunication Authority on contract basis---Judge in Chambers of High Court declared appointment of appellant as illegal---Validity---Pakistan Telecommunication Authority falls within the ambit of ‘person’ as defined in Art.199 (5) of the Constitution, as it exercises a rule over functions of Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited relating to telecommunication pursuant to Ss. 4 and 5 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 which is a subject that pertains to one of the important affairs of Federation, while headed by Chairman who along with its constituting Directors is appointed by Federal Government under S.3 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996---Appellant as Assistant Director (HR) or Deputy Director (HR) was not vested with some portion of sovereign function of government to be exercised by her for the benefit of public---Work undertaken by human resource management officers did not have any nexus with sovereign functions of State nor could it be considered a public duty---Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, under S.9 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 may by general or special order delegate any of its powers, functions or duties as it may think fit from time to time to any of its officers with the exception of specific powers, functions or duties as stipulated in proviso to S.9 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996---No sovereign function, power or duty was delegated to appellant by Pakistan Telecommunication Authority, in exercise of powers conferred under S.9 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996---Post of Assistant Director (HR) to which appellant was initially appointed was not a ‘public office’ created by statute nor could it be described as a substantive one which was vested with some portion of sovereign functions of government to be exercised for the benefit of public and no contravention of statute or a statutory instrument had been pointed out---Division Bench of High Court set aside writ of quo warranto as essential conditions for issuance of such writ were not satisfied---Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in appointment of appellant, as the respondent had failed to establish his bona fide---Intra Court Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Dr. Shamim Tariq v. International Islamic University, Islamabad 2020 PLC (C.S.) 499; Muhammad Muneer Malik v. Allama Iqbal Open University 2016 PLC (C.S.) 896; Salahuddin v. Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. PLD 1975 SC 244; Sajjad Ahmad v. Federation of Pakistan Writ Petition No. 1476 of 2022; Dr. Farzana Bari v. Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights PLD 2018 Islamabad 127; Salman Shahid v. University of Management and Technology 2022 CLC 1328; Anoosha Shaigan v. Lahore University of Management Sciences PLD 2007 Lah. 568; Pakistan International Airline Corporation v. Tanweer-ur-Rehman PLD 2010 SC 676; Muhammad Shahnawaz v. Karachi Electric Supply Company 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1579; Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2022 Lah. 288; Miss. Summara Nayaz v. FOP through Secretary Establishment Division 2015 PLC (C.S.) 671; Abdul Wahab v. HBL 2013 SCMR 1383; Pakistan Olympic Association v. Nadeem Aftab Sindhu 2019 SCMR 221; Aitchison College, Lahore v. Muhammad Zubair PLD 2002 SC 326; Pakistan Defence Officers’ Housing Authority v. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed 2013 SCMR 1707; Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited v. Muhammad Zahid 2010 SCMR 253; Jawad Ahmad Mir v. Prof. Dr. Imtiaz Ali Khan, Vice Chancellor, University of Swabi 2023 SCMR 162; Karachi Development Authority v. Wali Ahmed Khan 1991 SCMR 2434; Abdul Haq Kauser v. Alim Akhtar Shah 1989 CLC 1907;Dr. Bushra Ashiq Siddiqui v. Muhammad Aslam 1989 MLD 1351; Masudul Hassan v. Khadim Hussain PLD 1963 SC 203; Shahid Mehmood v. Benazir Income Support Programme (BISP), 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1103; Serajul Islam v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1956 Sindh 354; Zeaul Huq v. The East Pakistan Co-operative Insurance Society Ltd. PLD 1969 Dacca 105; Muzammal Ahmed Khan v. Imran Meer 2010 PLC (C.S.) 1023; Shahzado Langah v. Federation of Pakistan 2014 PLC (C.S.) 853; Barrister Sardar Muhammad v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2013 Lah. 343; Muhammad Naeem v. Federation of Pakistan 2023 SCMR 301; Project Director, Karkhana Allat-e-Zari v. The Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court PLD 1989 SC 152; Capt. (Retd.) Muhammad Naseem Hijazi v. Province of Punjab 2000 PLC (C.S) 1310 and Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Faisalabad v. Riaz Hussain 1999 PLC (C.S.) 680 ref. Afnan Karim Kundi, (in I.C.A. No. 227 of 2022 and for the Respondent No.5 (in I.C.A. No. 228/2022 and for the Respondent No. 4 in I.C.A. No.236/2022). Syed Khawar Ameer Bukhari and Muhammad Asif Javed, (in I.C.A. No. 228 of 2022 and for the Respondent No.1 (in I.C.As. Nos. 227 and 236 of 2022). Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Hafiz Hifz Ur Rehman, Muhammad Anwar Mughal and Seikh Rizwan Nawaz (in I.C.A. No. 236 of 2022 and for the Respondent No.3 in I.C.As. Nos. 227 and 228 of 2022). Ms. Kanz-us-Saadat, Deputy Attorney General for Official Respondents. Date of hearing: 13th May, 2025. SAMAN RAFAT IMTIAZ, J.--- This judgment shall decide the captioned I.C.A. No. 227/2022 filed by the Appellant [Rabeeya Pervez]; I.C.A. No. 228/2022 filed by the Respondent No.1 [Usman Zafar]; and I.C.A. No. 236/2022 filed by the Respondent No.3 [Pakistan Telecommunication Authority] under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 against the Judgment dated 16-05-2022 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the learned Judge-in-Chambers in Writ Petition No.3426/2018, which was filed in the nature of quo warranto, by the Respondent No.1 to challenge the appointment of the Appellant as Assistant Director, Human Resources (HR) with the Respondent No. 3 on contract basis vide Memorandum dated 9-8-2005 and her subsequent promotion as Deputy Director on 10-02-2009.

Summary: (a) Service matters—Special Allowance for higher qualification—HEC equivalence—Scope—Held: Higher Education Commission (HEC) is the competent authority for determining academic equivalence; its Notification dated 23-05-2017 declares MS and M.Phil identical in substance (18 years’ education) with only nomenclature difference—Once academic equivalence is formally acknowledged, the State cannot arbitrarily differentiate between MS and M.Phil for an allowance premised on “M.Phil” qualification—HEC’s academic determination binds for purposes of reasonable classification; contrary executive exclusions are liable to be struck down. (b) Executive instructions vs. constitutional guarantees—Finance Department Circular (26-04-2017)—Validity—Circular predates the HEC clarification and restricts the Special Allowance @ 50% of Ph.D. Allowance to M.Phil holders only—To the extent it excludes MS (18-year) degree holders recognized as equivalent by HEC, the restriction is overbroad and lacks rational nexus; violates equality and non-discrimination guarantees under the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974—Executive financial policy must operate within constitutional bounds and respect authoritative academic equivalence where benefit is pegged to academic qualification. (c) Nature of HEC clarification—Academic vs. employment/finance—Where Government chooses to confer a financial benefit by reference to a degree title/level, authoritative academic equivalence determined by HEC is a relevant and weighty criterion; denial to one group (MS) while granting to an identically placed group (M.Phil) is arbitrary—Parity reinforced by consistent practice in other government departments referenced on record. (d) Precedent distinguished—Muhammad Rizwan-ullah Khan & others v. AJK Govt. (2018 SCR 1161)—Inapplicable—That case concerned M.Sc. (Hons.) (typically 16-year pathway) and not MS/M.Phil (18-year)—No HEC parity existed there comparable to the MS/M.Phil categories (i) & (ii) expressly equated in the 23-05-2017 Notification—High Court’s reliance misplaced. (e) Relief/entitlement—Appellants (MS degree holders) and all similarly placed individuals declared entitled to the Special Allowance @ 50% of Ph.D. Allowance under Government Notification dated 12-07-2016—Entitlement effective from 23-05-2017 (date of HEC clarification)—Departments directed to process and disburse within a reasonable timeframe—No order as to costs. Disposition: Appeal accepted—High Court’s consolidated judgment dated 05-03-2024 set aside—Declaration and directions issued as above.