Summary: Summary pending

Summary: In the present case, the petitioner failed to complete requisite qualification of B.Ed. within the cut-off date (even after expiry of period of contract) and mainly relied upon the cases of two individuals namely, Hussain Farabi of District Okara and Syed Atta-ul-Mustafa of District Faisalabad to contend that the said individuals were not only allowed extension in time to complete B.Ed. but their services were also regularized. Prima facie, the relaxation to similarly placed person is in negation of the uniform policy, which the government has put in place that no such extension shall be granted, therefore, this Court held that the principle of similarly placed person alone cannot be taken as ground for seeking the same benefit if same is not backed by any policy. It has been further held that the principle of similarly placed person in light of Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 can be examined from another angle. The requirement to complete B.Ed qualification was fully applicable across the Province of Punjab and hundreds of other employees of the Education Department, who could not obtain the said qualification, were not extended relief (by way of extension to complete B.Ed) and only two instances have been brought before this Court i.e., case of Hussain Farabi and Syed Atta-ul-Mustafa. This fact itself indicates that the Department is consistent across the Province by adhering to the applicable policy, clarified vide letter dated 03.09.2018 issued with approval of the Administrative Secretary, and majority of such employees were not extended any relief. If doctrine of similarly placed person is to be applied, the petitioners should also not be extended any such relief as any contra decision (like in case of Hussain Farabi and Syed Atta-ul-Mustafa), will become a case of reverse discrimination qua those individuals across the Province who have been denied the extension and their constitutional petitions were dismissed by this Court and they remained unsuccessful in appeals. 1067Misc. Writ 30823/24 Rizwan Ali Raa Vs Government of Punjab etc. Mr. Justice Shahid Karim 17- 05- 2024 2024 LHC 2344 2024 CLD 1089 (Lahore)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (Against the judgment dated 19.12.2023 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Crl. Misc. No.74603-B of 2023). Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J.; Musarrat Hilali, J. agreeing; Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. dissenting. (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302, 148 & 149---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-i-amd, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Case of cross-versions---[Per Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J. [Majority view]: Admittedly there was an issue between the parties in respect of land where the incident had occurred---Claim of the complainant was that the petitioners and others attacked upon the father of the complainant with sticks who was injured and subsequently he was thrown in front of the tractor and the tractor ran over their father, which resulted into his death---On the other hand, the petitioners denied the claim of the complainant and narrated that the complainant was the aggressor who attacked upon them---Role of each of the accused had to be established subsequently, in the light of medical report showing cause of death---Case of the prosecution had to be proved through cogent and reliable evidence, which was yet to be produced before the Trial Court---At present stage, on a tentative assessment, prima facie, the petitioners could not be singled out for commission of the offence---Their involvement in the case was one of a further inquiry, on the basis of which, the petitioners were entitled for the grant of bail---Petition was converted into an appeal and was allowed; and the petitioners were granted post-arrest bail]---[Per Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. [Minority view]: Perusal of the record indicated that all the petitioners were expressly nominated in the FIR with specific roles attributed to them---They collectively caused injuries to the deceased and threw him in front of the tractor---Petitioners had not disputed the time, date, and place of occurrence or their presence at the time of occurrence---Medico legal certificate available on record fully supported the prosecution case---There was no contradiction between the medical report and the version put forth by the complainant---Cross-version was registered after a delay of one month and 03 days---Petitioners filed their first post-arrest bail before the Trial Court wherein they never mentioned about the alleged occurrence as mentioned in cross-version---Offence of qatl-i-amd alleged in the present case, being punishable with death or imprisonment for life under Section 302, P.P.C., fell within the prohibitory clause of Section 497(1), Cr.P.C---Present case, on tentative assessment, did not seem to be one of the further inquiry---Petition was dismissed; leave was refused, and consequently petitioners were denied post-arrest bail. Muhammad Atif v. State 2024 SCMR 1071 and Bakhti Rehman v. State 2023 SCMR 1068 ref. Per Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, J. [Minority view] (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Bail---Rule of consistency---Scope---Rule of consistency is applicable only when one person's case is at par with the rest of the accused whose post-arrest bail has been granted. Muhammad Atif v. State 2024 SCMR 1071 ref. Mazhar Iqbal Sidhu, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Mirza Abid Majeed, D.P.G. Punjab and Tariq, SI/IO for the State. Akhtar Hussain Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court for the Complainant. Date of hearing: 17th May, 2024. SYED HASAN AZHAR RIZVI, J.--- I have had the privilege of going through the order ("majority decision") authored by my learned Colleague Mr. Jamal Khan Mandokhail, J. With great respect, I do not find myself in agreement to it for the facts and reasons mentioned herein.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Suit of declaration---Gift-deeds, assailing of---Limitation---Plaintiff/lady instituted the suit against her (four) nephews/defendants and brother/defendants with the averments that she being the daughter of deceased was entitled to inherit 1/6 share from the estate of her late father and gift-deeds/mutations in favour of defendants were illegal--- Claim of the plaintiff /lady was concurrently rejected---Validity---Undeniably, the deceased /predecessor died four years before filing of suit; neither he or petitioner/plaintiff nor his other daughters challenged transactions-in-question before the death of deceased---Even the petitioner /plaintiff had not impleaded rest of the parties to the suit---Admittedly petitioners'/ plaintiffs' nephews (beneficiaries of gift-deed ) were minors at the time of gift- transaction, and the husband of petitioner became part of transaction as Mohtabar donee while impugned mutation was entered /sanctioned and on same day, another mutation was also entered/sanctioned by deceased in favour of petitioner's husband but the same had not been challenged by the petitioner---Courts below had meticulously examined the entire evidence of the parties and thereafter reached at the conclusion regarding the controversy---No misreading / non-reading of evidence nor any infirmity, legal or factual, had been noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts below---Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. 2020 SCMR 214 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VI, R. 4---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877),S. 42---Suit of declaration---Gift-deeds, assailing of---Fraud, allegation of---Details of particulars of the fraud missing---Effect---Plaintiff/lady instituted the suit against her (four) nephews/ defendants and brother/defendants with the averments that she being the daughter of deceased was entitled to inherit 1/6 share from the estate of her late father and gift-deeds/mutations in favour of defendants were illegal and fraudulent---Claim of the lady was concurrently rejected---Validity---Although the petitioner / plaintiff pleaded not only old age and bad health of her father but also alleged fraud committed with him with regard to all these transactions but she neither proved her father's physical or mental incapacity/incapability through strong oral as well documentary evidence nor the allegation of fraud---Petitioner / plaintiff who asserted fraud in the commission of transactions had to prove the same---Provision of O.VI R.4, C.P.C. mandates the mention of detailed particulars of the fraud---Mere vague assertion of the petitioner/plaintiff that a fraud had been practiced upon her and she had been deprived of her share in estate of her deceased father, without narrating full particulars of fraud in the pleadings, the circumstances in which the fraud was committed and without a positive attempt on her part to substantiate the same to the satisfaction of the court, was of no consequence rather would be considered as whimsical attribution---In the present case, no defects had been pointed out by the petitioner (lady/plaintiff) in order to seek interference by the High Court---Courts below had meticulously examined the entire evidence of the parties and thereafter reached at the conclusion regarding the controversy--- No misreading / non-reading of evidence nor any infirmity, legal or factual, had been noticed in the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the both the Courts below---Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. 1988 SCMR 1703; PLD 2002 SC 500; 2009 SCMR 70 and 2013 SCMR 1419 ref. (c) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Suit of declaration---Gift-deeds , assailing of--- Beneficiaries being minor---Effect---Plaintiff / lady instituted the suit against her (four) nephews/defendants and brother/defendants with the averments that she being the daughter of deceased was entitled to inherit 1/6 share from the estate of her late father and gift-deeds/mutations in favour of defendants were illegal--- Claim of the plaintiff /lady was concurrently rejected---Validity---Petitioner / plaintiff appeared as a witness and conceded the minority of her nephews / defendants and their possession on the disputed land---No reason was deposed for delayed start of litigation and petitioner even acknowledged the disputed transactions---Courts below had meticulously examined the entire evidence of the parties and thereafter reached at the conclusion regarding the controversy---No misreading / non-reading of evidence nor any infirmity, legal or factual, had been noticed in the impugned judgments anddecrees passed by the both the Courts below---Revision was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. Administrator, Thal Development through EACO Bhakkar and others v. Ali Muhammad 2012 SCMR 730 ref. Usman Nasir Awan for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 17th May, 2024.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, challenging notifications dated 06.12.2023 issued by the Secretary Local Government & Community Development Department, South Punjab. These notifications transferred the petitioner from the position of Municipal Officer (Infrastructure) at the Municipal Committee, Vehari, and directed the petitioner to report to the LG&CD Department, South Punjab. The petitioner argued that this transfer violated Section 186 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2022, which provides for a two-year tenure for officers of local governments. The petitioner further contended that the transfer was made during a ban imposed by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) through its notification dated 15.08.2023. ------- Issues: ------- 1) Whether the transfer violated the security of tenure guaranteed under Section 186 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2022. ------- 2) Whether the transfer contravened the ban imposed by the Election Commission of Pakistan on postings and transfers. ------- 3) Whether the Secretary Local Government & Community Development Department acted in extraordinary circumstances justifying the transfer. ------- Holding, Reasoning, Outcome: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned transfer notifications were set aside. ------- Security of Tenure: Section 186 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2022, grants a two-year tenure to certain officers of local governments. Although the word "ordinarily" allows for exceptions, such deviations must be supported by valid reasons demonstrating extraordinary circumstances or public interest. The impugned notifications lacked any justification or valid reasons, rendering the transfer contrary to the statutory provision. ------- Election Commission’s Ban: While the ECP notification primarily addresses federal and provincial governments, the Secretary Local Government & Community Development Department, a provincial authority, issued the transfer notification. Therefore, the ban on postings and transfers was applicable, contrary to the respondents' contention. Continuity under Section 205 of the Act: The respondents argued that officers of defunct local governments were continuing services under Section 205(1) of the Act until new local governments were established. However, Section 205(2) clarifies that these officers must operate under the successor local governments, weakening the respondents' stance. The court emphasized that the petitioner did not claim a vested right to remain in a specific post but merely sought enforcement of statutory security of tenure. The transfer was premature and lacked extraordinary circumstances or public interest to justify it. ------- Outcome: The court set aside the notifications dated 06.12.2023. However, it clarified that the competent authority retains the power to transfer the petitioner after the requisite tenure or in extraordinary circumstances, provided the decision complies with the law. ------- Citations/Precedents: Section 186 of the Punjab Local Government Act, 2022: Provides for a two-year tenure for local government officers unless extraordinary circumstances justify deviation. Notification by the Election Commission of Pakistan (15.08.2023): Imposed restrictions on postings and transfers, applicable to provincial authorities. Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: Empowers the High Court to enforce fundamental rights and statutory provisions.