Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Suo motu powers, exercise of---Limitation---Any revision petition filed under S.115, C.P.C., is subject to limitation but where High Courtexercises suo motu revisional jurisdiction under S.115 C.P.C., clog of limitation does not comein the way of High Court in administration of justice---Revisional power under S.115, C.P.C., issupervisory jurisdiction of High Court over subordinate Courts and if limitation of 90 days ismade applicable in respect of exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of High Court, then such powermay drastically curtailed and as authority in supervising affairs of its subordinate Courts isseverely hampered.Mst. Banori v. Jilani, PLD 2010 SC 1186 and Rehmdil v. Province of Balochistan 1999SCMR 1060 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction---Scope---Revisional jurisdiction is very vast andcorresponds to remedy of "certiorari" which although discretionary yet can be invoked suo motuas well and Court can "make such order in the case as it thinks fit".(c) Civil service-------Promotion---Even if promotion is not considered to be a vested right of any civil servant, alegitimate expectation of promotion to higher rank comes to reside in the minds of eligiblepersons.(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 2(2)---Decree-Applicability---Scope---Decree is binding only on parties to suit and not ona stranger---Every person/authority not impleaded in the array of dependents is a stranger.(e) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 212(2)---Words "other court"---Scope---Words "other courts" occurring in Art.212(2) ofthe Constitution, include all subordinate Courts/High Courts---No civil Court can exercisejurisdiction where matter brought before it involves enforcement of terms and conditions ofservice of civil servants.Dr. Rehmat Ibad Khan v. Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution 2002 SCMR 572 rel.(f) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Words "alternate remedy"---Scope---Adequacy of alternate remedy varies fromcase to case depending upon nature of remedy provided by law and peculiar facts andcircumstances of each case.(g) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 212---Service Tribunal, establishment of---Object to establish Service Tribunals was toprovide special forum to civil servants for rectification of wrong done to them in connection withany terms and conditions of their service.(h) Administration of justice-------Legal remedy---Indulgence---Effect---Where law provides a remedy by appeal to anotherTribunal fully competent to give any relief, any indulgence to the contrary by any Civil Courtincluding High Court is bound to produce a sense of distrust in statutory Tribunals.(i) Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1979-------R. 12-A---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212---CivilProcedure Code (V of 1908), S.115---Alteration in date of birth--- Terms and conditions ofservice---Civil Court, jurisdiction of---Civil servants filed civil suits for declaration regardingcorrection of their dates of births and sought amendment of their dates of births in officialrecord---High Court, in exercise of suo motu powers invoked revisional jurisdiction under S.115,C.P.C. against judgment and decrees passed in favour of civil servants---Validity---Civil servantsentered into government service in years, 1976 and 2005 respectively and if at all they had validclaims, they should have instituted proceedings for correction of their dates of births within theperiod of two years from dates of joining of government service and if it was not possible then atleast, they should have agitated for correction of their dates of births within a reasonable time,which according to them was wrongly recorded in service record---Presumption would be thatcivil servants were satisfied with dates of births mentioned in their service record and Annual Confidential Reports because they did not challenge the same at an earlier stage---Civil servantshad knowledge about their dates of births but kept silent at relevant time and slept over theiralleged rights and no request whatsoever was made to get it altered---Civil servants woke upfrom a deep slumber after about 36 and 5 years respectively and no explanation whatsoever hadbeen furnished regarding such silence, and the same had spoken volumes of their conduct andgenuineness of their claims---At such belated stage, civil servants could not be allowed to changetheir stance after a considerable long period in spite of the fact that they were in possession of allrelevant documents concerning to their dates of births---Civil/Qazi Court was not vested withjurisdiction to entertain suit of civil servant in respect of date of birth and its decree did not bindgovernment and therefore, government was not obliged to alter service record on the basis ofdecree passed by Civil Court---High Court directed to ensure scrutiny of record of governmentservants/civil servants who had got altered their dates of births in service record on the basis ofdecrees obtained by them from Civil/Qazi Courts without impleading Government ofBalochistan in the array of defendants---High Court further directed that such civil servants, ifthey were still in service, should be proceeded against after affording them a reasonableopportunity of hearing in accordance with relevant law that could culminate in their dismissal orretirement from service, besides recovery of excess amount paid to them on account of salary,perks and emoluments etc.---High Court also directed that if academic certificates or otherdocuments were found forged on the basis whereof dates of births were got altered in servicerecord, probability of instituting criminal cases should also be considered---High Court directedthat if any other public official was found to be guilty of connivance or negligence in suchrespect, the government would take appropriate disciplinary action against him / her under therelevant law---High Court, in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction, set aside judgmentsand decrees passed in favour of civil servants altering their dates of births---Revision wasallowed accordingly.M.R. Khalid v. Chief Secretary, Punjab 1994 SCMR 1633; Niaz Akbar v. PakistanAtomic Energy Commission 2002 SCMR 992 and Khyber Tractors (Pvt.) Ltd v. Pakistanthrough Ministry of Finance, PLD 2005 SC 842 ref.(j) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 2(2)---Decree---Court having no jurisdiction---Effect---Decree passed by a Court withoutjurisdiction is nullity and its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to beenforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and in collateral proceedings.

Summary: Issues:--Whether the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal challenging her removal from service.--Whether the appellant's removal from service under the Removal of Service (Special Power) Ordinance, 2000, on the ground of misconduct was justified.--Whether the appellant was overaged at the time of her appointment as Assistant Librarian (BPS-09) and subsequent termination from service.--Whether the appellant was entitled to age relaxation as per government policy.----Decision:The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and evidence presented, set aside the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal and allowed the Civil Appeal filed by the appellant. The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, ordering her reinstatement with seniority counted from the date of her appointment letter, but without back benefits for the period she remained out of office.---Reasoning:The Court based its decision on several grounds:--Age Limit and Relaxation: The Court noted that the age limit for the advertised position of Assistant Librarian (BPS-09) was mentioned as 35 years, with a relaxation of 5 years as per government policy. The appellant, being 37 years old at the time of application, was within the age limit with the relaxation applied.--Procedural Errors: The Court observed that the termination of the appellant's service was based on her alleged overage, despite her appointment being made after fulfilling all codal formalities and providing necessary documents, including proof of age relaxation.--Government Policy: The Court emphasized that the general benefit of age relaxation extended to employees of the Federal Government should not be denied without justifiable reasons, and the respondents failed to show any valid reason for denying such benefit to the appellant.---Conclusion:The Supreme Court's judgment set aside the decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, ordering the reinstatement of the appellant with seniority from the date of her appointment letter. The case underscores the importance of adherence to government policies and procedural fairness in employment matters.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Service Matter, Regularization (Education Department)

Summary: S.17 cantonments rent restriction Act:Ejectment petition--Bona fide personal need of premises by landlord

Summary: The petitioner filed claims for compensation with the Railway Department, but they were rejected on the grounds that the death resulted from a heart attack and was not an accident eligible for compensation.The primary legal question in the case revolves around whether a heart attack during the course of employment can be considered an "accident" within the meaning of Section 3 of the Workmenís Compensation Act, 1923. The petitioner argues that her father's heart attack qualifies as an accident, as it was unexpected and untoward while he was performing his official duties. The court agrees with the petitioner's stance, defining "accident" in the popular and ordinary sense as an unexpected or unlooked-for mishap or untoward event. The court rules that the heart attack suffered by the petitioner's father while performing his official duties qualifies as an accident and falls within the scope of Section 3 of the Act. Consequently, the court sets aside the impugned order and directs the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased as per their entitlement under the law. The court emphasizes the urgency of resolving the compensation claim, as it has been pending for eight years. It orders the respondents to make the compensation payment within 45 days from the date of the judgment. The court allows the petition and grants compensation to the petitioner and other legal heirs of the deceased.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.