Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: It is manifested from chapter XXII of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1898, with restrictive limb as provided under section 260(c)(a) that summary trial could not be ordered for an offence entailing punishment exceeding six months only those offences could be tried by the special Magistrate summarily the sentence of which is less than six months,

Summary: When preliminary decree was not challenged, provisions of Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 would come into play, which precludes the challenging of final decree.

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution.(a) Prefixes, headings or sub-headings of provisions of laws may be considered in aid of interpretation, where there exists ambiguity in the express words of the provision of law.(b) Temporary service followed by regular service should be counted for determining eligibility for the grant of pension.

Summary: Repatriation, from the appointment as Assistant Commissioner (BPS-17) in Ex-PCS Cadre by way of nomination, to his parent department i.e. Board of Revenue, Sindh---we are not impressed with the grounds urged by the petitioner in his petition for the simple reason that the appointment of the petitioner in Ex-PCS cadre (BS-17) had already been declared as illegal by the Honorable Supreme Court and ordered his repatriation to his parent department i.e. Board of Revenue--In our view, since the directions of the Honorable Supreme Court in the aforesaid matters are still in the field, we are bound to follow it under the Constitution. Besides the respondents have issued the impugned notification in pursuance of the orders passed by the Honorable Supreme Court in the aforesaid proceedings, therefore, no indulgence of this Court is required in the present matter--Dismissed.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction---Scope---Establishment of High Court is not a"person" under Art.199(5) of the Constitution--- No writ or a order can be issued to the HighCourt or Supreme Court under Art.199 of the Constitution, as it amounts to issuance of writagainst the Supreme Court and High Court itself---Administrative or executive orders passedby the Chief Justice of the High Court or the Registrar while acting under the order of ChiefJustice also enjoy the protection falling within the ambit of said Article.Muhammad Imran v. Hon'ble Peshawar High Court, Peshawar through Registrar and2 others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1465; Shahab Mazhar Bhalli v. Pakistan Railways throughDivisional Superintendent and another 2014 PLC (C.S.) 356; Muhammad Imran v. Hon'blePeshawar High Court, Peshawar through Registrar and 2 others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1465 andMiss Gulnaz Baloch v. Registrar, Balochistan High Court, Quetta and others 2015 PLC(C.S.) 393 ref.

Summary: The dispute arose from the government's recruitment process for various vacancies in Primary and Secondary Healthcare Centres, Layyah. Muhammad Kamran Bashir applied for the position of Health Technician, but the recruitment process was halted due to legal injunctions. The Assistant Advocate General argued that Kamran Bashir did not possess a vested right, as he had not received an appointment letter, and the government's new mechanism served the public interest. The judgment refers to legal precedent, such as Secretary Finance and others v. Ghulam Safdar (2005 SCMR 534), emphasizing that selection in exams and interviews alone does not confer a fundamental right enforceable through a constitutional writ. The court ultimately held that Kamran Bashir had no enforceable right, and the government's decision to scrap the initial recruitment process was justified under the new mechanism. The judgment is consistent with legal principles surrounding vested rights and legitimate expectations, as established in various cases, including Lt. CDR. M. Ramesh v. Union of India (AIR 2018 SC 1965).

Summary: Bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is also applied to the retired "Civil Servant" and constitutional petition to this effect is not maintainable before the High Court----This petition concerned the release of outstanding pensionary benefits for Javed Iqbal, a retired Range Forest Officer (BS-16), while Writ Petition No. 7535 of 2020, connected to the same issue, was filed by Sarfraz Ahmed Khan seeking the disbursement of group insurance benefits after his retirement from service.The court observed that both petitioners were civil servants who retired after serving in their respective departments for a considerable period. The central issue raised in the petitions revolves around whether the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution applies to retired civil servants.Article 212 of the Constitution empowers the legislature to establish Administrative Courts or Tribunals with exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons who are or have been in the service of Pakistan. The court noted that the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, established Service Tribunals with jurisdiction over matters concerning the terms and conditions of civil servants, including disciplinary matters.The court considered the definitions of "civil servant" provided in the Punjab Civil Servants Act and the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. While the former restricts the definition to current civil servants, the latter extends it to include those who have retired from civil service.The court emphasized that the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution applies to retired civil servants as well, given the broader definition of "civil servant" under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act. Previous judgments, such as "EHSAN-UL-HAQUE versus EXECUTVE ENGINEER, AHMADPUR CANAL DIVISION AHMADPUR EAST and 2 others" (2011 PLC (C.S.) 1523) and "Jamshaid Khan versus Divisional Forest Officer and others" (K.L.R. 2013 Civil Cases 68), were deemed inapplicable due to the misinterpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petitions, stating that the petitioners cannot claim immunity from the bar under Article 212 merely because they have retired from service. As a result, the petitions were dismissed in limine.