Summary: Punjab Police Rules, 1934—R. 12.16 & Appendix 12.16—Punjab Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2022—Constitution of Pakistan, 1973—Arts. 4, 9 & 25—Recruitment in Punjab Police—Medical fitness—Visual acuity—Appointment as Constable—Disabled quota—Candidate suffering from impaired vision—The petitioner applied on open merit for appointment as a Constable in the Punjab Police but was declared medically unfit by the competent medical authorities because his visual acuity in one eye did not meet the prescribed standard under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The Federal Constitutional Court held that medical fitness is an essential and mandatory qualification for enrolment in the police force and assumes greater significance in a disciplined law-enforcement agency, where the nature of duties requires strict physical and medical standards. Rule 12.16 expressly mandates that every recruit must, before enrolment, be medically examined and certified physically fit for service, and Appendix 12.16 specifically requires that each eye independently meet the prescribed visual standard. Since the petitioner’s vision in one eye was recorded as “CF @ 1M,” which fell below the set criterion, he failed to satisfy the mandatory threshold of medical fitness and was, therefore, ineligible for appointment as Constable. The Court held that these provisions admit of no discretion and a candidate who does not meet the prescribed visual standard cannot claim appointment to the post. Service law—Comparison with serving officials on desk duties—No parity with candidate lacking threshold eligibility—The petitioner argued that similarly placed serving police officials with physical limitations were performing office duties and, therefore, he too should be appointed either as Constable or adjusted against some suitable post. The Court rejected the contention and held that such serving officials were not comparable to the petitioner because they had entered service after being declared medically fit and were later assigned administrative or office work due to service exigencies or subsequent limitations. The petitioner, on the other hand, never crossed the initial threshold of eligibility for recruitment, namely compliance with the prescribed medical standards for the post of Constable. Therefore, no case of discrimination or arbitrariness was made out merely because certain already-serving officials were performing desk assignments. Persons with disabilities—Protective legislation—Job quota—Beneficial interpretation—The Court nevertheless examined whether the petitioner’s case attracted protection under the Punjab Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2022, observing that society and law must move with the times to protect persons with disabilities from discrimination, particularly in employment. The Court noted that the 2022 Act, in line with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, reflected principles of dignity, non-discrimination, equality of opportunity, accessibility and inclusion, and that courts must play their role in implementing such beneficial legislation. The Court further observed that the absence of an express disabled quota in the advertisement was immaterial, as the statutory regime governing disabled persons formed an inbuilt part of all job advertisements to which the Act applied. Relying approvingly on Peerzada Waqar Alam v. National Accountability Bureau (2023 SCMR 742), the Court reiterated that disability quota is not confined to lower-grade posts and applies across an organization. It also cited, with approval, the Supreme Court’s order in the matter of Yousaf Saleem, a blind candidate for appointment as Civil Judge, and persuasive Lahore High Court precedent recognizing that disability cannot, by itself, justify exclusion from public employment where the candidate can perform the functions of the office. Persons with disabilities—Disability certificate—Conflict between disability assessment and recruitment standards—The Court found that the petitioner had fallen into an anomalous position. On the one hand, the police medical authorities declared him unfit for recruitment as Constable because of defective vision; on the other hand, the Assessment Board for Persons with Disabilities, District Attock, had not certified him as disabled for purposes of the 2022 Act, notwithstanding that low vision is recognized in the statutory schedule. The Court also noted an earlier certificate issued by Holy Family Hospital, Rawalpindi, opining that with his present visual status the petitioner was fit for office/light work as Constable only in the Punjab Police Department. In these circumstances, the Court held that the petitioner appeared to have been caught between two inconsistent administrative positions: not medically fit under police standards, yet not recognized as disabled for purposes of claiming employment under the disability quota. Administrative directions—Reconsideration of medical standards—Fresh medical examination—Reassessment by disability board—While declining to interfere with the recruitment policy or direct appointment of the petitioner as Constable, the Court observed that the Police Rules, 1934, were framed nearly ninety years earlier and that considerable advances in medical science and technology may necessitate re-examination of the police medical rules, especially those concerning vision. The Court, therefore, requested the Punjab Home Minister and the Inspector General of Police to re-examine the issue and to consider, if permissible under law, relaxation or accommodation in the petitioner’s case for appointment against a post ordinarily reserved for the disabled quota, such as desk or office work, provided he fulfilled all other requirements. The Court further directed the IGP Punjab to arrange a fresh medical examination from another independent hospital for an additional opinion regarding the petitioner’s eyesight and his suitability for employment as police Constable or any other position within Punjab Police, and also directed the Social Welfare and Bait-ul-Maal Department, Assessment Board for Persons with Disabilities, District Attock, to reassess whether the petitioner suffered from a disability in terms of low vision under the 2022 Act. Petition dismissed—Leave refused—The Federal Constitutional Court held that, at the present stage, the petitioner could not be appointed as Constable in Punjab Police because he had failed the mandatory medical test under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, and had not been issued a disability certificate enabling consideration under the disability quota. Finding no legal infirmity in the impugned order of the Lahore High Court, the Court refused leave and dismissed the petition, subject to the observations and directions issued for fresh medical examination, reassessment of disability status, and possible policy reconsideration by the competent authorities.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973— ----Arts. 25, 27 & 189—Public employment—Appointment on deceased employee quota—Applicability of policy—Prospective and retrospective effect of judgments— Petitioners applied for employment in National Bank of Pakistan on deceased employee quota immediately after death of their fathers under policy of 2011 (amended up to 2016)—Applications remained pending and no decision was communicated—High Court dismissed petition relying upon subsequent judgment of Supreme Court in General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276), wherein policy relating to deceased quota was struck down—Validity—Supreme Court held that applications of petitioners were required to be considered in accordance with policy prevailing at the time when applications were submitted—Subsequent judgment declaring such quota unconstitutional could not be applied retrospectively to nullify accrued rights or pending claims—Law declared by Supreme Court ordinarily operates prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise—High Court erred in applying later judgment retrospectively and in non-suiting petitioners without directing consideration of their pending applications—Impugned order was set aside and matter remanded for decision in accordance with policy in force at relevant time. Cited Cases: General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal (PLD 2024 SC 1276) Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Tahir Mushtaq (2025 PLC (C.S.) 34) Registrar, High Court of Sindh v. Rehana (Civil Petitions No.804-K to 807-K of 2025) Sakhi Muhammad v. Capital Development Authority (PLD 1991 SC 777) Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Muhammad Fahad Malik (2018 SCMR 1956) Pir Bakhsh v. Chairman, Allotment Committee (PLD 1987 SC 145) (b) Civil service—Employment policy—Legitimate expectation—Duty of authority to decide pending applications— Where employment policy confers right of consideration and applications are submitted under such policy, authority is obligated to decide same fairly and communicate decision—Beneficial recruitment policies must be implemented equitably and cannot be denied arbitrarily or ignored—Failure of National Bank of Pakistan to decide applications despite lapse of considerable time was unjustified—Matter remanded to competent authority for fresh decision in accordance with applicable policy. (c) Constitutional jurisdiction—Prospective overruling—Effect— Judgment declaring law unconstitutional or invalid ordinarily applies prospectively and does not reopen past and closed transactions or nullify rights accrued under earlier law or policy—Doctrine of prospective overruling prevents multiplicity of litigation and protects finality and fairness—Pending applications filed under valid policy must be examined under that policy and cannot be rejected solely on basis of subsequent judicial pronouncement. Disposition: Civil Petition was converted into appeal and allowed; impugned judgment of High Court was set aside; matter remanded to President, National Bank of Pakistan to consider and decide petitioners’ applications in accordance with policy prevailing at time of submission and communicate decision within three months.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)- -S. 13(1) [as amended by Civil Servants (Amendment) Ordinance (XXIV of 2001)]-Civil Service Regulations (CSR), Regln. 418-Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4-Pensionary benefits-Length of service-Delay in claiming pensionary benefits-Effect-Civil servant was aggrieved of denial of pensionary benefits to him due to belated application-Validity-Pensionary benefits after retirement devolve upon a civil servant soon after his/her resignation followed by its acceptance-Formal application is only required to keep the record streamlined-Delay of any kind to claim pensionary benefits should not be counted as to one of the disentitlements, especially for pensionary claims-Neither the principle of laches applied (as indeed no one else had any claim over the money) nor any provision of Limitation Act, 1908 would come as an obstacle to decline claim of pensionary benefits-If a government servant resigns from an appointment to take up another appointment in which there is a provision for counting of past service, then period served can be taken into account subject to reservation identified in Regulation 418(a) of Civil Service Regulations (CSR)-Supreme Court set aside the judgment of Service Tribunal and order passed by authorities who failed to understand the spirit of Regulation 418 of Civil Service Regulation (CSR) and also that the belated application to claim pensionary benefits was not a disentitlement-Appeal was allowed. Secretary, Government of Punjab, Finance Department v. Ismail Tayer 2015 PLC (C.S.) 296; I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Punjab 1991 SCMR 1041; Chief Engineer, Hydel (North) and Project Director, WAPDA v. Zafarullah Shah 2003 SCMR 684 and Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Mubarak PLD 1990 SC 346 rel.

Summary: (Against order dated 03.07.2024 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No.61(P) CS of 2023). Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)--- ----S. 13(1) [as amended by Civil Servants (Amendment) Ordinance (XXIV of 2001)]---Civil Service Regulations (CSR), Regln. 418---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4---Pensionary benefits---Length of service---Delay in claiming pensionary benefits---Effect---Civil servant was aggrieved of denial of pensionary benefits to him due to belated application---Validity---Pensionary benefits after retirement devolve upon a civil servant soon after his/her resignation followed by its acceptance---Formal application is only required to keep the record streamlined---Delay of any kind to claim pensionary benefits should not be counted as to one of the disentitlements, especially for pensionary claims---Neither the principle of laches applied (as indeed no one else had any claim over the money) nor any provision of Limitation Act, 1908 would come as an obstacle to decline claim of pensionary benefits---If a government servant resigns from an appointment to take up another appointment in which there is a provision for counting of past service, then period served can be taken into account subject to reservation identified in Regulation 418(a) of Civil Service Regulations (CSR)---Supreme Court set aside the judgment of Service Tribunal and order passed by authorities who failed to understand the spirit of Regulation 418 of Civil Service Regulation (CSR) and also that the belated application to claim pensionary benefits was not a disentitlement---Appeal was allowed. Secretary, Government of Punjab, Finance Department v. Ismail Tayer 2015 PLC (C.S.) 296; I.A. Sharwani v. Government of Punjab 1991 SCMR 1041; Chief Engineer, Hydel (North) and Project Director, WAPDA v. Zafarullah Shah 2003 SCMR 684 and Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Mubarak PLD 1990 SC 346 rel. Ms. Shireen Imran, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Rashideen Nawaz Qasoori, Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan, M. Saeed Anwar, Assistant Account Officer and Abdul Rehman, APS for Respondents. Date of hearing: 7th January, 2026.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Police Rules, 1934— ----R.13.6(2) & R.13.9—Promotion of constables as Head Constables—Outstanding merit course promotions—Vested rights—Effect of alleged repeal/omission— Police constables were promoted as Head Constables after completing requisite courses and their names were included in Promotion List, but later promotions were withdrawn and they were reverted/demoted under departmental orders on premise of “out of turn/shoulder promotions” pursuant to directions of IGP Sindh in light of Suo Motu Case No.03/2012—Service Tribunal upheld withdrawal without determining whether promotions were in fact covered by R.13.6(2) at the relevant time—Held, Service Tribunal was obligated to verify whether R.13.6(2) was in force when promotions were granted and, if omitted/repealed later, whether such omission could retrospectively disturb vested rights or closed transactions—Without examining service record, requisite courses/examinations, and applicability of rule at time of promotion, promotions could not mechanically be labeled as “out of turn/shoulder”—Impugned judgment suffered from non-application of mind and failure to decide essential factual/legal questions, hence could not be sustained. Cited Cases: Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others v. Province of Sindh and others 2015 SCMR 456 Contempt proceedings against Chief Secretary Sindh and others 2013 SCMR 1752 (b) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973— ----Arts. 189 & 212—Binding effect of Supreme Court judgments—Role of Service Tribunals as fact-finding fora— Judgments of Supreme Court are binding under Art.189, including deprecation of out of turn/shoulder promotions—Held, notwithstanding binding principles, each service case must be decided on its own facts through independent and judicious appraisal—Service Tribunal, as appellate fact-finding forum constituted under Art.212, must examine service record and determine whether impugned action truly falls within ratio of binding precedents—Mechanical reliance on departmental stance, without factual verification of merit-based promotion and codal formalities, amounts to abdication of statutory duty. (c) Service Tribunal—Appellate jurisdiction—Duty to address factual and legal pleas— ----Scope under Service Tribunal law—Appeal as continuation of proceedings— Service Tribunal has jurisdiction to confirm, set aside, vary or modify departmental orders and must satisfy test of reasonableness and judiciousness—Held, Tribunal is ultimate judicial fact-finding forum for service matters; it must thoroughly examine original and appellate departmental orders and address all factual and legal pleas—Failure to examine crucial questions (whether promotions were merit-based under rules; whether rule was in vogue; whether promotions were improperly termed “out of turn”; and effect of alleged omission) vitiates adjudication—Matter required remand for fresh decision after affording opportunity of hearing and permitting production of relevant qualification/course documents. Cited Cases: Rao Muhammad Rashid and others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and others 2024 SCMR 1864 = 2024 PLC (C.S.) 1349 Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Department, Lahore v. Ali Ahmad Khan 2025 SCP 2 = 2025 SCMR 289 = 2025 PLC (C.S.) 549 = 2025 SCLR 25 (d) Police service—Out of turn/shoulder promotions—Distinction from merit-based promotions under rules— ----Uniform application of law—Requirement of record-based determination— Out of turn/shoulder promotions stand condemned in law and may be withdrawn, however, before depriving an employee of promotion already granted, Tribunal/Court must determine on record whether promotion was actually out of turn/without merit or granted pursuant to codal requirements—Held, where employees assert promotion under R.13.6(2) on basis of course merit and completion of prescribed stages, Tribunal must scrutinize relevant service record and dates to determine applicability of precedents; otherwise reversion becomes unsustainable on legal plane. Disposition: Civil Petitions for leave to appeal were converted into appeals and allowed; consolidated judgment dated 29.04.2025 of Sindh Service Tribunal was set aside; matter was remanded to Sindh Service Tribunal to decide service appeals afresh in accordance with law after providing ample opportunity of hearing to parties, preferably within three months; petitioners were permitted to file relevant documents to establish qualification and completion of requisite courses prior to promotion.

Summary: Terminal / cut-off date of effectiveness of omission of Rule17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974. 71Transport 48034/25 Khawaja Muhammad Asif & 7 Others Vs Province of Punjab etc. Mr. Justice Raheel Kamran 15- 12- 2025 2025 LHC 7904