Summary: According to the terms and conditions of the appointment order of petitioners, they have been engaged on fixed pay on the basis of two years contract which is in continuance till date and therefore, they cannot be termed as retained employees against retained fee. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondents in their comments that petitioners are retained against a monthly retainer fee holds no water. Petitioners by all intents and purposes are contract employees of the project which is sustained from 2007 with no end in the future particularly after the 25th Constitutional Amendment, there is need to do much more to resolve the socio-economic problems in the erstwhile FATA.Criteria for appointment, responsibilities, objectives and SOPs of the male mobilizer or social mobilizer are defined in Clause 6.3.15 of the PC-1 of the Population Welfare Programme FATA (2010-15), according to which the social mobilizers play a pivotal role in enlighten adoption of family planning, responsible parenthood and mother & child healthcare. According to sub-Para-c, the Male Mobilizer has been re-designated as Social Mobilizer, Para-d denotes that the social mobilizer will be recruited on contract basis with fixed emoluments with fixed yearly increment. Thus, it has become crystal clear that the appointment of male/social mobilizer is on contract basis. Since petitioners have been serving for the last twelve years, it means the male mobilizers are eternal need of the department and now the merger of erstwhile FATA, has increased their importance. Their services have been matured and as such, they have earned entitlement for regularization of their services. Regularization of employees does not require any statutory rules rather the same depends on the length of their service, therefore, they are fully entitled to be regularized.

Summary: Defunct FATA. i) Exemption from payment of tax and exemption from provision of Ordinance.

Summary: Article 247. Anti Corruption law applicability to tribal Areas

Summary: Domicile Holders of FATA can validly apply for the posts of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. the zonal Allocation formula notified by the provincial Govt is intra constitutional.

Summary: The tax exemption granted in the year 2010 under Clause 126F of Part I of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to the taxpayers of certain areas of the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, FATA and PATA, whose business suffered on account of internal strife, could only have been intended for the taxpayers falling under the domain of ?normal tax regime? whose profitability while doing business in the affected areas had diminished in the past on account of an external factor i.e. political strife that affected the profitability of doing business there. The exemption was never meant for the taxpayers like the petitioners whose businesses fall within the domain of ?final tax regime? for whom the question of experiencing loss of business opportunity on account of internal strife does not arise. They made their presence in the affected area only when they had in their hands a business opportunity to make profits and gains in the form of contracts to be executed there----In June 2010, the government of Pakistan invoked Section 53 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to grant tax relief to taxpayers in certain areas of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, FATA, and PATA, whose businesses suffered due to internal strife. This relief was provided through exemptions listed in the Second Schedule of the Ordinance, particularly through Clause 126F, which exempted profits and gains derived by taxpayers in the affected areas for three years starting from 2010.Several companies, including private and public limited ones, with business operations in Lahore or Multan and deriving income from construction contracts, sought refunds for taxes deducted from payments made towards fulfilling contracts in affected areas. They believed they were entitled to exemptions under Clause 126F.However, the Additional Commissioner of Inland Revenue disallowed the exemption, arguing that companies operating under the 'final tax regime' were not intended beneficiaries of Clause 126F. The matter escalated through appeals and references to higher authorities and courts.The court held that Clause 126F was meant for taxpayers under the 'normal tax regime' who suffered financial losses due to adverse business conditions in affected areas. It clarified that companies under the 'final tax regime' did not face such circumstances since they only entered affected areas upon securing contracts, without being affected by prior adverse conditions.The court emphasized that the intent of the exemption was to aid businesses directly impacted by adverse conditions, not those entering affected areas for profit opportunities. Commissioner of Income Tax Peshawar Vs. Islamic Investment Bank (2016 SCMR 816): This case likely deals with income tax matters and may have provided relevant legal interpretations regarding tax liabilities and exemptions.Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 582): This case appears to involve a dispute between Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and the Federation of Pakistan, possibly concerning legal or regulatory issues within the textile or manufacturing industry.Commissioner of Income Tax Legal Division Vs. Khurshid Ahmad (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 545): This case probably deals with tax matters, specifically regarding legal interpretations of tax laws or disputes related to tax liabilities.Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Federation of Pakistan (NLR 1992 Tax 186): This case likely involves Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. and the Federation of Pakistan, possibly concerning tax-related issues within the sugar industry.Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitions, concluding that the exemption under Clause 126F was not applicable to taxpayers under the 'final tax regime', and directed the income tax department to recover wrongly refunded amounts.

Summary: Background:In the CSS Competitive Examination 2011, the petitioner, Haider Abbas, from Gilgit-Baltistan-FATA region, was initially placed at Serial No. 249 on the overall merit list. Due to his placement, he was recommended for the Inland Revenue Service instead of his preferred choice, the Foreign Service. Subsequently, a vacancy occurred in the Foreign Service due to the failure of a previously recommended candidate to join. The petitioner sought reallocation to the Foreign Service based on his merit and challenged the decision of the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) before the Islamabad High Court, which dismissed his appeal. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner filed a petition before the Supreme Court.---Issues:Whether the petitioner had a legal right to claim reallocation to the Foreign Service due to the vacancy created by the failure of a previously recommended candidate.Whether the vacancy created in the Foreign Service Group in the Competitive Examination 2010 was valid, and if the petitioner's claim based on the alleged improper creation of this vacancy was justified.---Holding/Reasoning:The FPSC maintained that the vacancy in question was reserved for women's quota and not for the merit quota of the Foreign Service Group. As the petitioner belonged to the merit quota, he could not claim the vacant seat. The Court found the FPSC's decision legally sound and rejected the petitioner's claim on this ground.Regarding the petitioner's argument about the allegedly improper creation of a vacancy in the Foreign Service Group in the Competitive Examination 2010, the Court examined the allocation of vacancies for that year. It found that the creation of vacancies was in accordance with the recruitment policy and rules for competitive examinations. Thus, the petitioner's argument lacked legal justification.Additionally, the petitioner's representation to the FPSC was found to be time-barred as it was made belatedly in 2015.---Conclusion:The Court dismissed the petitioner's claims, affirming the FPSC's decision to reject his representation. Leave to appeal was refused.---Quote:Where a vacancy is created for a particular quota of the group, if the candidate to whom it is allocated fails to avail it then it is to be filled by a candidate of the same category and cannot be allocated to a candidate who is eligible from any of the remaining two categories.

Summary: S.247(3) Constitution of Pak:Exemption of FATA & PATA from advance tax & Sales Tax on imports

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Regularization of employees/ contract employees in FATA.

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Jurisdiction of Prevention of corruption Act 1997 in FATA and PATA.

Summary: Art. 199, 245(3), 247(7) Constitution of Pakistan. 1973.Armed forces in aid of civil power--- curfew in FATA,Bar on Jurisdiction of High Court.