Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010: ----S. 2(h), 3, 4 & 6—Sexual harassment—Complaint and appeal—Maintainability—Complainant, a Principal at National Education Center for Physically Handicapped Children, filed a complaint of harassment against Director Works (Accused), alleging misbehavior during a dispute over allocation of official accommodation—Simultaneously, complainant filed a departmental complaint and also submitted an appeal under S.6 before the Ombudsman, while her complaint before the departmental inquiry committee remained pending—Held, filing of both complaint and appeal in parallel violated procedural requirements—Departmental inquiry committee found no case of harassment under the Act, though it noted inappropriate conduct by the Accused warranting proceedings under Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973—Complaint before Ombudsman held incompetent and was dismissed—Appeal also dismissed for lack of merit, as harassment under the Act was not established. (b) Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973: ----Misconduct—Departmental proceedings—Inquiry committee found no sexual harassment but confirmed misbehavior and rude conduct by the Accused—Held, although not falling within the purview of the Act, the matter could be taken up under the applicable E&D Rules by the competent authority—Federal Ombudsman declined jurisdiction on administrative disciplinary matters, leaving further action to the department. (c) Administrative Law—Multiplicity of proceedings—Forum shopping: ----Simultaneous filing of complaint and appeal—Improper recourse—Complainant filed both direct complaint and appeal before the Ombudsman while departmental proceedings were underway—Held, complainant was required to await the outcome of the inquiry before pursuing an appeal—Filing both simultaneously was improper, leading to confusion and delay—Complaint held incompetent and dismissed accordingly.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Appeal in WP 2817-14 (NEPRA, Against rejection of Power Generation License)

Summary: The respondent is the only daughter of her parents and it is not appealable to mind that no dowry articles would be given to respondent at the time of her marriage. Living with her maternal grandmother at the time of marriage would not lead to presumption that dowry articles had not been given to her.

Summary: This judgment from the Lahore High Court pertains to Income Tax References and involves multiple cases with common legal questions. The main issue revolves around the necessity of issuing a separate notice under Section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, when the taxpayer's explanation is deemed unsatisfactory.The cases under consideration include disputes between the Commissioner of Inland Revenue and various taxpayers. The Commissioner contends that unexplained income or assets should be included in the taxpayer's income under the head "Income from Other Sources" if the taxpayer fails to provide a satisfactory explanation. The specific question raised is whether a separate notice under Section 111 is required when the taxpayer's explanation is unsatisfactory, given that Section 122(9) notice has already been issued.The facts of one particular case involve a taxpayer who initially declared assets in the Wealth Statement but later faced an addition to their income by the assessing officer, leading to an appeal and subsequent hearings.The Commissioner's legal advisors argue that the Appellate Tribunal erred in annulling the addition, emphasizing that the notice under Section 122(9) is sufficient, and the lack of a separate notice under Section 111 does not invalidate the proceedings. They cite legal precedents to support their position.On the other hand, the taxpayers' counsel defends the Appellate Tribunal's decision, asserting that compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 111 was lacking, justifying the annulment of the addition. They also cite legal cases to bolster their argument.The court, after hearing both parties, concludes that the absence of a separate notice under Section 111 has indeed prejudiced the taxpayer, and the addition to income appears to be without lawful authority. The court emphasizes that the issuance of a proper notice under Section 111 is essential and cannot be disregarded. In rejecting the argument that the substance of the notice suffices, the court rules in favor of the taxpayers, deciding the reference against the applicant-department.The judgment highlights the importance of procedural compliance and the significance of issuing a specific notice under Section 111 when adding unexplained income or assets to a taxpayer's income.

Summary: The document discusses a legal case where the court affirms the clear legislative intent that the powers of a Commission under the Act of 2017 are additional and not derogatory to those under the Act of 1997. It emphasizes the Commission's authority to order investigations under section 29 of the Act of 1997, highlighting that this power is independent and protected. The court asserts that the Commission has the discretion to invoke section 29, and it must give the company an opportunity to be heard before ordering an investigation. The case involves allegations against a company, and the court examines the factors justifying the Commission's decision to investigate. The court rejects claims of procedural unfairness, stating that the order for investigation is a preliminary step to collect facts. It also cites relevant legal precedents to support its findings, ultimately dismissing the petition as without merit.

Summary: The petitioners seek relief through this petition, challenging the decision and promotion order of respondent No.5 as Joint Director in BS-19, alleging it to be illegal, unlawful, arbitrary, and without lawful authority. They request the issuance of a writ declaring the impugned decisions as such and direct the respondents to reconsider the petitioners' case for promotion fairly. The petitioners also seek to restrain the issuance of promotion orders for respondent No.5 during the petition's pendency.The petition primarily questions the eligibility of respondent No.5 for promotion, citing non-compliance with the Service Rules 1993 and Promotion Policy 2010. The petitioners argue that respondent No.5 did not fulfill the conditions, including not serving in any Functional unit of TEVTA during the last five years. The legal counsel for the petitioners argues that the question of eligibility is within the jurisdiction of the court and is not barred by Article 212 of the Constitution. The legal counsel for respondent No.4 contends that the promotion was in accordance with the Promotion Policy 2010, and respondent No.5 met the eligibility criteria.The court reviews the arguments and determines that the question of eligibility falls within the domain of the Service Tribunal, as established by various legal precedents. The court dismisses the petition, stating that the eligibility issue cannot be adjudicated without assessing the eligibility of respondent No.5, which is outside the scope of judicial review jurisdiction. The court also rejects the petitioners' claims regarding the quantification of Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs) and the decision-making process of the Provincial Selection Board-II (PSB). The court emphasizes the need for a clear distinction between eligibility and fitness in civil service matters.