Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---- ----O. XLI, R. 23----Remand of case----Jurisdiction of trial court upon remand----Plaintiff filed suit for wrongful termination and claimed damages against PTCL----Trial court decided the case solely on the issue of whether the General Manager (HRA) had jurisdiction to issue a show-cause notice and charge-sheet, concluding that he acted without lawful authority and awarding full damages to the plaintiff----Held, that the trial court erred in applying an unamended version of Paragraph 7.01 of the PTCL Service Regulations, 1996, instead of the amended version passed by PTCL’s Board of Directors (BoD) on 30.04.2009, which was in force at the time of issuance of the show-cause notice and charge-sheet----BoD Resolution authorized the GM (HRA) to issue and communicate disciplinary notices on behalf of the Authority----Trial court misread the evidence, as the amendment to Paragraph 7.01 was validly made and came into force upon the resolution’s passing, not its later communication----Appeal allowed, and case remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication on the remaining issues within six months. (b) Service Law---- ----Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (PTCL)----Disciplinary proceedings----Authority to issue show-cause notice and charge-sheet----Validity of termination----Plaintiff, a Grade-18 officer at PTCL, was issued a show-cause notice and charge-sheet by the General Manager (HRA) and subsequently removed from service----Trial court found the termination illegal on the basis that only the Chairman or SEVP (HR) had authority over Grade-18 officers----Held, that the BoD Resolution dated 30.04.2009 explicitly authorized the GM (HRA) to issue disciplinary notices on behalf of the Authority----Trial court’s reliance on an outdated version of PTCL Service Regulations, 1996, rendered its findings erroneous----Plaintiff’s claim for damages, predicated on wrongful termination, was set aside as the termination was held to be procedurally valid----Matter remanded to trial court for determination of other substantive claims. (c) Corporate Governance---- ----Board of Directors (BoD) Resolutions----Effectiveness and enforceability----Whether a corporate resolution is effective upon passage or upon communication----BoD of PTCL amended its disciplinary regulations in its 143rd meeting on 30.04.2009, but the resolution was formally communicated to employees on 15.06.2009----Trial court held that the amendment was not in force until its communication----Held, that corporate resolutions take effect on the date they are passed, unless expressly stated otherwise----Communication of the resolution was an administrative step and did not affect its legal enforceability----PTCL’s disciplinary action against the plaintiff was valid as per the amended regulations in force. (d) Burden of Proof---- ----Effect of non-production of documentary evidence by plaintiff----Plaintiff challenged the authority of the GM (HRA) but did not produce evidence to contradict PTCL’s reliance on the BoD Resolution dated 30.04.2009----Held, that the burden lay on the plaintiff to establish that the termination was illegal under the applicable rules----Where a plaintiff fails to rebut documentary evidence with cogent material, the presumption of validity of official acts remains intact----Trial court overlooked this principle and erred in finding in favor of the plaintiff. (e) Precedents and Case Law Applied---- Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v. M. Saleem (2016 SCMR 471) Muhammad Ismail v. Federation of Pakistan (2019 PLC (C.S.) 517) Messrs K-Electric Ltd. v. Muhammad Tanveer (2020 PLC (C.S.) 1223) State Life Insurance Corporation v. Pakistan Telecommunication Employees Trust (2022 SCMR 235) (f) Disposition: Appeal allowed, case remanded----Impugned judgment and decree of the trial court set aside----Trial court directed to decide remaining issues on merits within six months, except for the issue of the GM (HRA)'s competency, which was conclusively decided in this appeal.

Summary: Applicability of Section 10 of Civil Servant Act, 1973, appointment of a junior officer when no suitable person is available for promotion; held No; appointment set-aside

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 202, 203 & 212(3) Judicial Officers—Permission to pursue LLM abroad on scholarship—Fair treatment and discretionary powers of the High Court—Policy formulation regarding study leave—Scope and principles—Judgment of Tribunal and Administration Judge set aside for lack of reasoning. Petitioner, a judicial officer serving for over ten years, sought permission under a circular issued by the Lahore High Court to pursue an LLM degree on scholarship from a foreign university. The permission was denied without assigning any reasons, and the Tribunal upheld the denial without citing justification. Under Articles 202 and 203 of the Constitution, the High Court holds supervisory and administrative control over subordinate courts, yet such authority must be exercised fairly and transparently. Study leave rules applicable to government servants, including Rule 8.129 of the Civil Service Rules (Punjab), permit study leave under certain conditions, which the petitioner fulfilled. The Supreme Court held that denying permission without stating valid reasons amounted to arbitrary discretion, which cannot be sustained. Additionally, the Court directed the Lahore High Court to formulate a clear, transparent, and uniform policy regarding study leave for judicial officers to prevent ambiguity and ensure equity. (b) Civil Service Rules (Punjab): ----R.8.129 & Appendix 20—Study Leave—Entitlement and Conditions—Applicability to Judicial Officers. Study leave may be granted under Rule 8.129 of the Civil Service Rules (Punjab) for acquiring advanced qualifications relevant to the officer’s work, provided certain conditions, including minimum service tenure and proximity to retirement, are met. The petitioner met all these conditions and secured admission on scholarship, with no financial liability on the Lahore High Court. The refusal of leave without valid justification was contrary to established rules and principles of administrative fairness. (c) Administration of Justice: ----Judicial Discretion—Requirement to Provide Reasons—Fair and Transparent Decision-Making. Any administrative or judicial decision impacting an individual’s rights or career must be supported by reasons. Arbitrary exercise of discretion without justification violates principles of transparency and fairness. The impugned judgment of the Tribunal and the decision of the Administration Judge were set aside as neither cited valid reasons for denial of permission for study leave. -----Disposition: Petition was converted into an appeal and allowed. The petitioner was granted permission to pursue his LLM degree abroad on scholarship. In case the current academic year could not be availed, the permission would remain valid for the following academic years. The Lahore High Court was directed to formulate a clear and uniform policy regarding study leave for judicial officers.

Summary: Employees’ Old-Age Benefits Act (XIV of 1976)--- ----Ss.9 & 35---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Availing of alternate remedy of appeal---Contribution towards Employees’ Old-Age Benefits Institution (EOBI)---Determination---Revision/enhancement of minimum wage---Insistence of the petitioner-Trust on continuation of pre-amendment contribution---Validity---Petitioner had also filed an appeal before the relevant Tribunal in addition to the constitutional petition before the High Court, thus, approached two distinct forums simultaneously---Once a party elects to pursue an alternate remedy provided under statutory law, the jurisdiction of High Court under the Constitution ordinarily cannot be invoked---All judgments cited by the petitioner pertain to adjudications concerning wages, which were contested by various institutions and such issue of wages was not under consideration before High Court---Section 9 of the EOBI Act, 1976, was unequivocal regarding contributions---Wages had been increased and duly notified by both the Federation and the Provinces, however, the EOBI had not yet revised its contribution rates to reflect these changes, consequently, the petitioner's assertion that it will remit unrevised contribution (Rs. 170/- per month) was illogical, as the said section pertains to the assessment of contributions based on applicable monthly salaries---Pre-amendment contribution rate of per employee per month was now obsolete and no longer legally applicable---EOBI was mandated to revise the rates in alignment with the newly applicable wages across the country, implementing a uniform policy that compels employers to remit contributions in the interest of their workers, whose hard-earned income sustains their livelihoods and status---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Welfare Funds, Ministry of Human Resources Development Islamabad and others v. East Pakistan Chrome Tannery (Pvt.) Limited and others PLD 2017 SC 28; Soneri Bank Limited through Jaffar Ali Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Law and Justice Division, Pak Secretariat Islamabad and others 2013 PLC 134; Phonix Security Service (Private) Limited and another v. Employee Old Age Benefits Institution and others (W.P. No.3274/2022); M/s Dairy Land Private Limited v. Federation of Pakistan (C.P.No.D-1995/2016) and Welfare Funds, Ministry of Human Resources Development Islamabad through Secretary and others v. East Pakistan Chrome Tannery (Pvt.) Limited through G.M. (Finance) Lahore and others PLD 2017 SC 28 distinguished. Dr. Abdul Nabi, Professor, Department of Chemistry, University of Balochistan, Sariab Road, Quetta v. Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Quetta 2023 SCMR 1647 rel. Haad Abid Pagganwala for Petitioners. Moiz Ahmed along with Abdul Ahad, Law Officer, Employees’ Old Age Benefits Institution for Respondent. Muhammad Qasim, D.A.G. Date of hearing: 22nd August, 2024.

Summary: (Against the judgment of the High Court of Balochistan, Quetta dated 28.09.2020 passed in Civil Revision No. 199 of 2020). (a) Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989--- ----R. 4.10 (2) [as amended]---Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925), Ss. 372 & 373---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. II, R. 2---Succession certificate---Family monthly pension---Failure to include all claims---Successive proceedings---Scope---Provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Applicability---Petitioner was unmarried daughter of deceased civil servant and had applied for family monthly pension---Succession Certificate was refused to her by the Courts below on the plea that she did not include claim of family monthly pensionin earlier succession application---Validity---Judge is empowered to issue more than one certificates, as provided by sections 372 (3) and 373 (3) and (4) of Succession Act, 1925---No limitation under Succession Act, 1925, has been placed upon right of parties in filing more than one application---Any decision made under Part-X upon any question of right between parties, does not bar trial of the same or related question in any subsequent proceedings under Succession Act, 1925 or in any suit or other proceedings between same parties---No person has been restricted under Succession Act, 1925 from filing application in respect of a portion of claim which he omitted while filing earlier application---Provisions of C.P.C. cannot be applied to matters falling under Succession Act, 1925 which is a special law and a specific procedure has been provided---Provisions of Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. are not attracted in the matters under Succession Act, 1925---Where Succession Act, 1925 is silent on matters relating to procedure for trial of case, procedure provided by C.P.C. may be adopted to regulate proceedings---Earlier certificate issued to petitioner was in respect of amount left by her late father in his bank account, whereas, through second application, she was claiming her share in monthly family pension---Supreme Court set aside decision of High Court which was based upon unamended Balochistan Civil Servants Pension Rules, 1989, and was an illegality---Supreme Court remanded the matter to Trial Court to determine status, entitlement and share of petitioner in family monthly pension---Appeal was allowed. (b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--- ----Ss. 372 & 373---Successive application for grant of Succession certificate---Maintainability---There is no bar under Succession Act, 1925 in filing successive applications for grant of a certificate---No limitation can be imposed upon filing second application for grant of a certificate---Any person aggrieved from order granting earlier certificate, has a right to avail his remedy provided by law, subject to all just exceptions. Manzoor Ahmed Shah, Advocate Supreme Court and Gohar Yaqoob Yousafzai, Advocate-on-Record along with petitioner for Petitioner. Muhammad Riaz Akhtar Tareen, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in C.M.A. No. 185-Q of 2024). Muhammad Ali Rakhshani, Addl. A.G. Balochistan, Muhammad Ayub Tareen, Asstt. A.G. Balochistan, Noor Hussain Baloch, Addl. Secy S&GAD, Haji Muhammad Naeem, Addl. Secy, S&GAD (PAY), Rehmat Ullah Kakar, Dy. Secretary Finance and Abdul Wajid, Representative, A.G., Balochistan for Respondent No.1. Muhammad Mehmood Sadiq, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 15th August, 2024.

Summary: ----Quote: (1) The constitutional importance of the implementation of Orders of the Supreme Court by individuals and entities. (2) Contempt and the role of the law of contempt in this context. ----Background: This case involves an appeal filed by a petitioner against a respondent in relation to the payment of pensions to retired employees of a national bank. The Supreme Court had previously issued a judgment on 25.09.2017, directing the bank to pay pensions to over 11,000 pensioners. Despite the court's order, there was a significant delay in the payment process. The petitioner sought enforcement of this judgment, leading to the current proceedings where the court reviewed the implementation status and the bank’s compliance. ----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent bank had complied with the Supreme Court’s previous order to pay pensions to retired employees. 2- Whether the delay in the payment of pensions constitutes a violation of the Supreme Court's order. 3- What measures should be taken to ensure full and timely compliance with the court’s directives. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the importance of complying with its orders, emphasizing that in a constitutional democracy, the rule of law is paramount. The court noted that non-compliance with its orders threatens the integrity of the judiciary and the entire legal system. The court acknowledged that the bank had begun the payment process but expressed concern over the delay and the need for verification of certain pensioners’ records. The court directed the President of the national bank to appoint a senior officer as a focal person to oversee the implementation of the court’s order. This officer is tasked with ensuring that all pensioners receive their due payments and resolving any issues that may arise during the verification process. The court ordered that a compliance report be submitted by the next hearing date to ensure that the directive is being followed promptly and thoroughly. ----Citations/Precedents: 25.09.2017 Judgment - Supreme Court’s directive on pension payments. The case highlights the broader constitutional principles of rule of law, judicial authority, and compliance with court orders.

Summary: (Service)

Summary: (Promotion)

Summary: (a) Civil Servants – Departmental Inquiry – Right to Cross-Examination – Principles of Natural Justice - Departmental proceedings under E&D Rules, 1973—Failure to allow cross-examination—Effect—Held, inquiry proceedings were vitiated due to violation of natural justice and due process, particularly the denial of cross-examination rights to petitioners—Cross-examination is not a discretionary concession but a vested right integral to fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution—Inquiry report lacked legal sanctity where witnesses were not subjected to cross-examination—Major punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on defective inquiry proceedings set aside. (b) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973 – Rules 5 to 7 – Procedure and Powers of Inquiry Officer - Departmental inquiry mechanism—Scope and application—Held, under Rules 5–7 of the E&D Rules, proper charge framing, opportunity for written defence, oral evidence, cross-examination, and reasoned conclusions are mandatory—Inquiry Officer is vested with powers akin to those of a Civil Court under the CPC for summoning witnesses and receiving evidence—Failure to follow mandatory procedure renders entire inquiry void. (c) Discriminatory Punishment – Unequal Treatment among Accused Officials – Validity - Unequal disciplinary treatment—Effect—Held, disciplinary action must be consistent across similarly situated individuals—In instant case, five FIA officials were proceeded against, but only two were compulsorily retired while others faced lesser or no punishment despite same evidence—Such disparity unsupported by rationale—Court held the punishment as discriminatory, reinforcing the need for equitable treatment under service law. (d) De Novo Inquiry – Legal Basis and Scope - Fresh inquiry—When warranted—Held, de novo proceedings are directed where prior inquiry suffers from procedural irregularities, absence of fair trial, or arbitrary findings—Such inquiry is conducted afresh without reference to prior flawed proceedings—Court remanded matter for de novo inquiry, with specific direction to conclude within three months and afford fair hearing. Disposition: Petitions converted into appeals and allowed; impugned judgment set aside. Matter remanded to department for de novo inquiry within 3 months. Petitioners' compulsory retirement to abide by final outcome of fresh proceedings.

Summary: "Discussion: (a) Whether simply passing a written examination and being invited for an interview establishes any legal right or legitimate expectation for the candidates regarding their selection or appointment. (b) Whether the outcome of an interview process can be legally challenged within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court." ---- Background: The petitioners, who applied for jobs in the Food Department, Government of Sindh, pursuant to an advertisement dated February 14, 2010, passed the written test and were called for interviews on December 26, 2011. After the interviews, the petitioners received no information about their results and later discovered that certain candidates who did not appear for the written test were appointed. The petitioners filed constitutional petitions (C.P.No.D-756 of 2013 and C.P.No. D-3575 of 2013) challenging the appointments, which were dismissed by the High Court of Sindh on December 15, 2021. ----Issues: 1- Whether merely passing a written test and being called for an interview creates any right or interest in favor of the candidates. 2- Whether the interview results can be challenged in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court held that passing a written test and being called for an interview does not create a vested right for appointment. It is well-established that an interview is a subjective evaluation, and courts do not substitute their opinion for that of the Interview Board unless there is evidence of mala fides, bias, or significant errors. The High Court's view that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge the interview process was correct. Furthermore, the petitioners' claim regarding the illegality of certain appointments was dismissed as those individuals were not made parties to the case, and no specific prayer was made regarding their appointments. The Supreme Court found no illegality or infirmity in the High Court's decision and dismissed the petitions. ----Citations/Precedents: Secretary Finance and others v. Ghulam Safdar (2005 SCMR 534) Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan (2014 SCMR 157)