Summary: When the defendants were alleging to have purchased the property from some of the plaintiffs as Sadbar Khan who was the son Musafar Khan alleged executant, entered in the witness box but he was not confronted with the signature of his father in terms of documentary evidence produced and relied upon by the petitioners. It is important to note that the document Ex.DW7/1, which was later on referred to Forensic Science Laboratory for its verification, and the report was placed on record but evidentiary value of such repot even if it is positive could not help the petitioners because of infirmities in the statement of PWs as discussed in the preceding Para. There is no cavil with the proposition that sole opinion of expert on its own cannot be made basis for determining the admissibility of document when direct evidence is available, and goes against the party expert opinion, which otherwise is nothing but confirmatory and explanatory to direct evidence.

Summary: By now the law is settled that it is the requirement of natural justice that in any inquiry proceedings against a civil servant or an employee of public sector organization when there are serious allegations of corruption misconduct, not only the prosecution has to bring home all the charges but the accused officer should be given a fair opportunity to defend himself. He should specifically know what are the allegations against him. The court or tribunal seized of a matter where the employee has lodged his grievance against major penalty empowered by employer is required to satisfy itself that the allegation against the employee are not only established through confidence inspiring evidence but the employee has been given fair opportunity to defend himself. Mere guesswork, surmise and conjunction of the employer regarding the alleged misconduct of an employee should not be upheld in absence of cogent evidence. G. Asghar Malik vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (2002 SCMR 433), Muhammad Ikram vs. District Education Officer (Female),Peshawar and others (1988 PLC CS 50), Shakeel Ahmad vs.Commandant 502 Central Workshop E.M.E., Rawalpindi and another (1998 SCMR 1970), Fasahat Ali Khan vs. Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 2 others (1989 PLC CS 318)

Summary: Background: The respondent, while serving as a Junior Clerk in the office of the District Manager, Technical Education & Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA), Okara, was removed from service after being found guilty of being absent from duty. After his appeal and revision petition were dismissed by the departmental authorities, the respondent filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court, which was accepted by the learned Judge-in-Chamber. TEVTA, the appellant, filed this Intra Court Appeal (ICA) challenging that decision. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Intra Court Appeal (ICA) is maintainable in light of the proviso to Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. -----2- Whether the TEVTA, being the authority that issued the original orders, can challenge its own decision via an ICA. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Intra Court Appeal (ICA) was not maintainable under Section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The proviso explicitly bars the filing of an ICA if the proceedings under Article 199 of the Constitution arise from a case where the law provides for at least one appeal, revision, or review. Since the respondent had already availed the remedies of appeal and revision through the departmental processes, the bar against maintaining an ICA was triggered. The appellant's argument—that TEVTA could not challenge an order passed by itself or its functionaries—was rejected. The court emphasized that Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance does not distinguish between the parties eligible to file an appeal and applies uniformly when prior remedies (appeal, review, or revision) have been exhausted. The court also referred to precedents where the Supreme Court of Pakistan has consistently ruled that an ICA is not maintainable if the original order is appealable or reviewable by law. -----Citations/Precedents: National Electric Power Regulatory Authority v. Faisalabad Electric Supply Company Limited (PLD 2015 Lahore 661) (distinguished on facts). JS Bank Limited, Karachi and others v. Province of Punjab through Secretary Food, Lahore and others (2021 SCMR 1617). SME Bank Limited through President Islamabad and others v. Izhar ul Haq (2019 SCMR 939). Messrs Punjab Sugar Mills v. Government of Punjab and others (2011 SCMR 1950). ECHO West International (Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore v. Government of Punjab through Secretary and 4 others (PLD 2009 S.C. 406).

Summary: [The law of limitation reduces an effect of extinguishment of a right of a party when significant lapses occur without sufficient cause for condonation. Even if the order is considered void, the aggrieved person should approach more cautiously rather than waiting for lapse of limitation] The background of the case is that disciplinary action was initiated against Khalid Mehmood in 1997, leading to his compulsory retirement from service in 1999. He filed appeals against the retirement order, but they were dismissed by the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) as time-barred. Subsequently, he approached the Punjab Labour Court and eventually got reinstated. The appellant filed appeals before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which were also dismissed as time-barred. Finally, the appellant filed writ petitions in the Lahore High Court, which were dismissed. The appellant argued that the High Court failed to consider the effect of the withdrawal of the civil petition filed by Khalid Mehmood in the Supreme Court, leading to the abatement of the petition. The appellant also claimed that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the grievance petitions as an appellate forum. After hearing the arguments, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and examined the issue of the abatement of the proceedings before the FST. The Court referred to a previous judgment in the Muhammad Mubeen-Us-Salam case, which held that employees not covered under the civil service definition have no remedy before the Service Tribunal and can seek alternative remedies. The Court noted that Khalid Mehmood's civil petition had abated in the Supreme Court, and it was fair for him to seek remedy through the Labour Court. The Court found that the Labour Court had rightly set aside the order of compulsory retirement due to the lack of a regular inquiry and the denial of a reasonable opportunity to defend the allegations. The appeals filed by the appellant before the Labour Appellate Tribunal were dismissed as time-barred, and the High Court found no illegality warranting interference. In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Labour Court and the Lahore High Court, dismissing the appeals filed by the appellant.

Summary: Background The case involves the acquisition of land by the government in Tariqabad, Muzaffarabad, for the extension of the Tariqabad Bypass road. The landowners felt that the compensation awarded for their land was inadequate and did not reflect the true market value. They filed references before the Reference Judge in Muzaffarabad, seeking an increase in the compensation amount. The primary contention was that the compensation was not determined in accordance with the land's potential value. The Reference Judge partially honored the claims, leading to appeals by the landowners for further enhancement. ----Issues: 1- Whether the compensation awarded for the acquired land was determined in accordance with its true market and potential value. 2- Whether the compensation for the built-up structures on the acquired land was appropriately evaluated. Whether the Reference Judge correctly assessed and enhanced the compensation based on the evidence presented. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the compensation determined by the Collector based on the recommendations of the District Price Assessment Advisory Committee was not in accordance with the law, as the law mandates the Collector to independently determine the market price of the land. The court noted that the procedure followed by the Collector was flawed, as it relied on the recommendations of a committee rather than the statutory provisions outlined in the Land Acquisition Act. The court decided against remanding the case back to the Collector for re-determination, considering the prolonged litigation of over 14 years. Instead, the court decided to resolve the issue based on the available evidence. The Reference Judge's decision to enhance the compensation to Rs.399,276 per marla was upheld, with the court acknowledging that the market price of the land was substantiated by a sale deed presented by the landowners, even though the sale deed was executed after the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. However, the court found that the landowner's claim regarding the existence of built-up structures (shops and a house) on the acquired land was not adequately proven. The evidence provided by the landowners was inconsistent and insufficient to substantiate their claims. Therefore, the court upheld the Reference Judge's dismissal of the claim for additional compensation for built-up structures. ----Citations/Precedents: 2016 SCR 1009: Established that determination of compensation based on the recommendations of a committee is void. 2020 SCMR 365: Allowed consideration of a sale deed executed after the issuance of notification under Section 4 for determining compensation. 2014 SCMR 75: Emphasized the importance of considering the future utility of the land in compensation determination. 2015 SCMR 28: Reiterated the need to evaluate the future potential and utility of the acquired land in determining compensation. PLD 1984 AJK 41: Allowed courts to consider documents not tendered in evidence if they are reliable, trustworthy, and necessary for just decision. 2015 YLR 1213: Stressed the liberal interpretation of procedural laws in civil matters. 2017 CLC 495: Discussed the admissibility and consideration of evidence in civil litigation regarding land compensation.

Summary: Detailed judgement in Urdu

Summary: Background: The case involves petitioners who were employees of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) Council and later transferred to the AJK Government following the 13th Amendment in the AJK Interim Constitution, 1974. The petitioners sought the extension of the time scale policy benefits, as per the office memorandum dated 03.06.2016, which was applicable to employees in BPS-5 to BPS-16 who had completed 10 years of continuous service. However, the notification extending these benefits to the petitioners was issued on 02.08.2019, making it effective from 04.06.2018, leading to claims of discriminatory treatment. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners were subjected to discriminatory treatment by being granted the benefits of the time scale policy from 04.06.2018 instead of 01.07.2016. 2- Whether the notification dated 02.08.2019 violated the petitioners' fundamental rights under the constitution. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the petitioners were indeed subjected to discriminatory treatment, as they were not granted the benefits of the time scale policy from 01.07.2016, like other civil servants in similar positions. The court reasoned that the right against discrimination is a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution, and similarly situated persons should be treated alike. The court found no legitimate basis for the different treatment of the petitioners, as they had served more than 10 years in their respective pay scales and were only transferred to the AJK Government due to the 13th Amendment. The court further emphasized that any classification of persons must be reasonable, non-arbitrary, and founded on a rational basis. Since the respondents failed to provide any valid justification for the discriminatory application of the time scale policy, the court declared the notification dated 02.08.2019 as modified. Consequently, the office memorandum dated 03.06.2016 was made applicable to the petitioners from 01.07.2016, thereby rectifying the discrimination. ----Citations/Precedents: 1991 SCMR 1041: Established principles regarding reasonable classification and equal protection under the law. PLD 2003 SC 955: Affirmed the importance of treating similarly situated persons alike. 2012 PLC (CS) 1052: Addressed issues related to the discriminatory application of laws. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution (13th Amendment), 2018: Relevant constitutional amendment that influenced the transfer of employees. Notification No.LD/Legis./134-155/2018 dated 04.06.2018: Pertains to the transfer of AJK Council employees to the AJK Government.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Service matter, regarding pay and allowances