Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Notarized Oral Gift Deed could not be proved. Representative of Society filed a vague Written Statement and did not step into the witness box. The subsequent chain of registered sale deeds, including the Appellant-Defendant proving the registration of the sale deed, could not rescue them once the entire superstructure of sale deeds collapsed. Appeal dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The petitioner was appointed as Director General of Planning, Policy, Innovation, Program, and Research (PPIP&R) in December 2021 by the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (NEECA). He was placed on a one-year probation, and after the probation period ended in December 2022, the petitioner was terminated by NEECA through a letter issued in January 2023. The petitioner challenged this termination, arguing that once the probation period ended, he automatically became a regular employee and could not be terminated summarily without due process. The petitioner also sought to set aside the decision to abolish the post of Director General made in the 9th Board Meeting of NEECA. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the petitioner became a regular employee after the expiration of the probation period. ----- 2) Whether the termination of the petitioner’s employment was in accordance with NEECA Service Regulations. ----- 3) Whether the abolition of the Director General post was legally valid and whether the petitioner should be adjusted to another position. ----- Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ----- Regular Employee Status: The court held that the petitioner became a regular employee on 28-12-2022 since NEECA failed to inform him of unsatisfactory performance before the expiration of the probation period. Under NEECA Service Regulations, probation does not extend automatically, and the failure to confirm or terminate employment by the end of the probation period results in automatic confirmation. Therefore, the petitioner was deemed a regular employee as of 28-12-2022. ----- Termination Invalid: The court found that the termination letter issued on 20-01-2023 was unlawful because it violated the NEECA Service Regulations. The petitioner, being a regular employee, could not be removed summarily without following proper procedures for disciplinary action, such as conducting an inquiry. Thus, the termination letter was set aside. ----- Abolishment of the Post: The court upheld the decision of the NEECA Board to abolish the Director General post. The court held that policy decisions regarding the creation or abolition of posts, especially due to financial constraints, fall within the prerogative of the statutory body and are not subject to judicial review. Since the post was legally abolished through a gazette notification in March 2024, the petitioner could not be reinstated to that position. The court also ruled that the petitioner could not be adjusted to another post, as this decision rests with NEECA based on its requirements and available vacancies. ----- Outcome: The petition was partially allowed. The termination letter dated 20-01-2023 was set aside, and the petitioner was entitled to receive salary and benefits from the date of termination until the abolition of the post on 05-03-2024. The court dismissed the petition concerning the abolition of the post. ----- Citations/Precedents: Pakistan Defence Officers’ Housing Authority Vs. Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707) Muhammad Rafique Vs. Director-General, Pakistan Rangers, Sindh (2004 SCMR 23) Punjab Workers' Welfare Board Vs. Mehr Din (2007 SCMR 13) Secretary, Ministry of Education Vs. M. Azam Ch. (2009 SCMR 194) Gul Hassan Jatoi Vs. Faqir Muhammad Jatoi (2016 SCMR 1254) Ch. Muhammad Hussain Naqshbandi Vs. Government of Punjab (2004 SCMR 44) Qazi Tehmid Ahmed Vs. Secretary Ministry of Petroleum (2015 PLC (C.S.) 449) Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Vs. Saeed-ul-Hassan (2022 PLC (C.S) 164) Abdul Hameed Vs. Water and Power Development Authority (2021 SCMR 1230)

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: (a) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S.15---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Ejectment proceedings---Scope---High Court does not typically operate as an Appellate Court in matters pertaining to rent---Jurisdiction of High Court is primarily confined to addressing those decisions which, prima facie, appear to have engendered significant legal errors, culminating in a miscarriage of justice---Appellate Court retains the ultimate authority in the hierarchy of rent-related matters, and when both rent authorities have concurrent findings, the scope for intervention is considerably circumscribed. Muhammad Lehrasab Khan v. Mst. Aqeel-un-Nisa and 5 others 2001 SCMR 338 rel. (b) Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S.15---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.115---Ejectment of tenant---Estoppel upon tenant, principle of---Applicability---Default in payment of rent---Landlord and tenant, relationship of---Proof---Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below---Petitioners / tenants were aggrieved of eviction orders passed by Rent Controller, which was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Held: To circumvent repercussions of default, a tenant cannot refute landlord’s ownership---Petitioners/tenants acknowledged their induction as tenants in demised shops, thus, under Art.115 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, they were estopped from denying title of respondent / landlord---Tenant is only permitted to dispute title/relationship of landlord of the individual who inducted him as tenant by first relinquishing possession of the premises to the landlord---Petitioners/tenants were obligated to return possession of the premises to respondent / landlord---Petitioners/tenants during cross-examination, conceded in their respective testimonies that they had not paid monthly rent to respondent / landlord post year 2004, nor had they deposited rent in Court since year 2007---Conclusions reached by both the lower Courts were predicated on petitioners’/tenants’ admission of willful default in payment of rent---High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declined to interfere in concurrent findings which had been thoroughly examined by two Courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. 1992 SCMR 1170 and 1997 SCMR 567 rel. Sarfraz A. Akhund, Qadeer Ahmed and Mujeeb Rehman Malano for Petitioner (in C.P. No. S-46 of 2024). Muhammad Zubair Malik and Co. for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 (in all petitions). Ghulam Abbas Kuber, A.A.G. for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5. Date of hearing: 17th May, 2024.

Summary: After cancellation of FIR, police can reinvestigate the case but with the permission of concerned Magistrate.