Binding Effect of Supreme Court

2011 P L C (C.S.
) 273
[Sindh High Court]
Before Sajjad Ali Shah and Shahid Anwar Bajwa, JJ
ABDUL HUSSAIN KORAI and 82 others
Versus
PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary Government of Sindh and 2 others
Constitutional Petition No.D-1302 of 2010, decided on 7th October, 2010.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Arts. 189 & 190---Decisions of Supreme Court are binding on all courts and under
Art.190 of the Constitution all executive and judicial authorities have been mandated to
act in the aid of Supreme Court---Words "legislative authority" have not been included in
Art.190 of the Constitution.
(b) Legislation---
----Provincial Legislature---No Province could be obliged to make a particular provision

merely on ground that another Province or Provinces had enacted similar provision---If
uniformity in Provinces in legislative domain would have been intended by legislature,
then there was no need for provincial autonomy and separate legislature for each
Province.
(c) Civil service---
----Contract employee released upon completion of project---Validity---Such release

could not be said to be without lawful authority.
Page No. 1 of 7
Sarfraz Ahmed v. Government of Sindh, 2006 PLC (C.S.) 1304 distinguished.
Agha Salim Khurshid and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1998 SCMR
1930; Naila Khalid v. Pakistan through Secretary Defence and others PLD 2003 SC 420;
Ateequr Rehman and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others Civil Petition No.246-K
of 2010 and Government of Balochistan, Department of Health, through Secretary, Civil
Secretariat, Quetta v. Dr. Zahida Kakar and 43 others 2009 PLC (C.S.) 206; WAPDA and
others v. Khanimullah and others, 2000 SCMR 879 and President United Bank Ltd. v.
Abdul Shamim Khan, PLD 1999 SC 990 rel.
Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Petitioners.
Nariandas C. Motiani for Respondent No.2.
Adnan Karim, A.A.-G.
Date of hearing: 5th October, 2010.
JUDGMENT
SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J--- For reasons to be recorded later, this Constitution
Petition was dismissed. Following are our reasons for the short order announced in open
Court:--
2. The petitioners were appointed on various posts on contract basis in Sindh On-Farm
Water Management Project (SOFWMP) in 2005. In the appointment letters it was
specifically stated that the employment shall be liable to termination before expiry of
project on giving one month's notice by either side or making payment in lieu thereof. It
was further stated in Para-3 of the letter as under:--
"(3) He will be governed by the Sindh Civil Servants Rules as amended from time
to time and instructions in force relating to the services and the Sindh Civil
Servants Act 1973 and the rules there under."
3. By letter 1st June, 2009 petitioners were informed that the project was going to be
closed on 30-6-2009 and that the World Bank Mission had informed Government of
Sindh that the salaries of contract staff of SOFWMP would not be released after June,
2009. Consequently they were informed that in terms of para.4 of contract of their
employment, their employment shall terminate with effect from 30-6-2009. This
Constitution Petition has been filed to challenge the termination of employment.
Page No. 2 of 7
4. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada learned counsel for some of the petitioners made the
following submissions:--
(1) There were two projects one called Sindh On-Farm Water Management Project
(SOFWMP) which was managed by the Provincial Government and one National
Programme for Improvement of Watercourses (NPIW) which was managed by
the Federal Government. In a meeting held on 25-11-2005 it was decided to
merge two projects for the purpose of strengthening field teams. Learned counsel
submitted that while the persons appointed for SOFWMP have been removed
from employment. The persons employed on (NPIW) have not been so removed.
(2) Learned counsel referred to newspaper clipping (Dawn of June 7, 2009) to

contend that the Chief Minister had announced that (NPIW) has been extended
for three more years. He also referred to an interview by the Provincial Law
Minister wherein it was stated that Provincial Government intended to present a
bill in the Provincial Assembly for making contract employees as permanent
employees. In this regard learned counsel referred to a summary submitted
before the Chief Minister to state that the employees employed in (NPIW) and
(SOFWM) in Punjab and Sindh have been regularized and if Chief Minister so
decide a bill can be moved in the Provincial Assembly for regularization of
employees of (SOFWM).
(3) Learned counsel referred letter dated December 1st 2005 to say that some of the
employees were transferred (SOFWM) to (NPIW). Learned counsel also referred
to certain advertisement where the Agricultural Department has invited
applications for appointment.
(4) Learned counsel referred to an Aide Memoire dated April 30, 2009 wherein it is
stated that further improvement in the watercourses is required.
5. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan learned counsel for some of the petitioners while adopting
arguments of Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada referred to the above quoted para of the letter of
appointment and contended that the petitioners are civil servants and are therefore not
contract employees. Learned counsel also submitted that since regularization has taken
place in Punjab and Balochistan the petitioners are also entitled to regularization. Learned
counsel referred to Sarfraz Ahmed v. Government of Sindh, 2006 PLC (C.S.) 1304.
6. Mr. Nariandas C. Motiani, learned counsel for respondent No.2 referred to the
comments submitted by respondent No.2 and contended that the petitioners were
employed on project internationally funded and which was for a period of 4 years and
was for completion of 4000 Watercourses in Sindh and was due to be closed in 2008 but
was extended till 30-6-2009 and after closure of the project employment of the petitioners
has been terminated. Regarding the Aide Memoire learned counsel submitted that it is
merely a wish of Provincial Government but no resources have been approved by any
international donors agency. Regarding merger of (NPIW) learned counsel submitted that
it was only for working purposes but the two projects remained distinct and separate all
along. Regarding contentions of the petitioners in terms of Para-3 of the notification of
appointment that they are civil servants, learned counsel submitted that if their contention
Page No. 3 of 7
is accepted then the jurisdiction of this Court is barred under Article 212 of the
Constitution. Learned counsel submitted that petitioners were contract employees and as
such they had no right to continue after completion of the project. Learned counsel relied
upon Agha Salim Khurshid and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1998 SCMR
1930, Naila Khalid v. Pakistan, through Secretary Defence and others PLD 2003 SC 420-
and unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ateequr Rehman and others
v. Federation of Pakistan and others Civil Petition No.246-K of 2010 decided on 20-9-
2010. Learned counsel submitted that no new recruitment in the category in which the
petitioners were employed has been effected on the projects after removal of the
petitioners.
7. Mr. Adnan Karim, learned A.A.-G. relied upon Government of Balochistan,

Department of Health, through Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Quetta v. Dr. Zahida Kakar
and 43 others 2009 PLC (C.S.) 206. He further submitted that petitioners are not civil
servants.
8. While exercising their right of reply Mr. Shabbir Awan submitted that either the
petitioners are civil servants or they are not. It is not available to the government
authorities to claim that petitioners are liable for the purpose of disciplinary action and
conduct just like civil servants as contended by A.A.-G. and not otherwise. Mr. Pirzada
submitted that same exercise has been carried on in the other Provinces.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone
through the record. Both Mr. Shabbir Awan and Mr. Pirzada have laid a lot of emphasis
on statement made in para.3 of the notification (para has been quoted above) which states
that the petitioners shall be governed by the Civil Servants Rules and Civil Servants Act.
Their contention was that by this statement the petitioners are entitled to all the protection
in this regard. The contention is obviously misconceived. Firstly because in the Sindh
Civil Servants Act a civil servant is defined in Section 2(b) and under clause (ii) thereof a
person who is employed on contract is ipso facto excluded from the definition of civil
servant. There is. no provision in the Sindh Civil Servants Act conferring a power on the
Provincial Government to make or declare a person as civil servant who does not fall
within the definition of the civil servant as given in Section 2(b) of the Civil Servants
Act. Therefore, since the petitioners were hired on contract and it is so obviously stated in
the notification itself the Provincial Government did not have power to make or declare
them a civil servant. It is in the light of this principle that Para-3 of the notification has to
be read.
10. Intent of the para, it has been argued by Mr. Adnan Karim, is only in respect of
requiring the petitioners to follow the principle relating to conduct and discipline and for
no other purpose. Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Awan vehemently contended that so could not have
been done. We are unable to agree if the Federal Government had hired a person on
contract that person is not a civil servant. Is not it available to every employer to lay
down the standard of conduct and discipline for his employees and unless such laid down
standard of conduct and discipline is found to be repugnant to any provision of law or any
principle having force of law the employer has right to enforce and this is, it is correctly
argued by Mr. Adnan Karim, exactly what was intended by para.3 of the notification.
11. Both the learned counsel for the petitioners emphasized that in the Punjab and
Balochistan contract employees have been regularized and therefore, the same practice
should be followed in the province of Sindh. Mr. Pirzada referred to the summary
submitted by the Law Minister to the Chief Minister that a bill be introduced in the
Page No. 4 of 7
Provincial Assembly for such regularization. As far as submission of a bill in a Provincial
Assembly is concerned, it is as old a judicial principle as extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction
that no writ can be issued to the Legislature requiring it to legislate. It may be instructive
to note in this regard that under Article 189 of the Constitution decision of the Supreme
Court have been held to be binding on all Courts and under Article 190 of the
Constitution all executive and judicial authorities have been mandated to act in the aid of
Supreme Court. It is significant that word 'legislative authority' has not been included in
Article 190.
12. Pakistan is Federation having four provinces and legislative domains of the
Federation and the Provinces are clearly specified in the Constitution and there is no
provision in the Constitution obligating a province to make a particular provision merely
on the ground that another province or provinces have enacted a provision. If uniformity
in the provinces in legislative domain would have been intended of the Legislature there
was no need to provide for provincial autonomy and need for separate Legislatures.
Therefore, mere fact that two Provinces have made similar provision is not sufficient,
though it may be a food for thought or reason for consideration for the provincial
executive, for issuance of a mandatory order to the Provincial Government of Sindh to do
the same.
13. Mr. Shabbir Awan relied upon Sarfraz Ahmed's case (supra). Facts of this case were
that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Director Labour initially for a period of six
months. Before expiry of that period his employment was terminated without assigning
any reason. The Supreme Court noticed that though petitioner was appointed for a period
of six months and though his employment was terminated within the period of six months
but in view of order by the Supreme Court order of termination was suspended and
notification in this regard was issued on 16-7-1997 and his services were continued from
1997 to 10th April, 2006 when the petition was heard by the Supreme Court. The
appellant all along remained in continuous employment. A notification dated 22-9-1998
was also placed before the Supreme Court evidencing that incumbent of the leave
vacancy on which the appellant was employed had been removed from employment and
therefore there was a clear vacancy and therefore, position of availability of vacancy as
specified in the order of the termination was no long available and, the Supreme Court
held that the appellant had a vested right to be appointed against the said vacancy. This
case is clearly distinguishable. It was not of contract employment but of appointment on a
leave vacancy.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Motiani relied upon Agha Salim Khurshid's case (supra). The
facts of that case were that appellant who was a practicing lawyer, was appointed as
Member, National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) for a period of three years.
Four months later the appointment of the petitioner was terminated. He challenged
termination in the High Court and then the matter went to the Supreme Court and the
Supreme Court held as under:--
"(5) The learned counsel for .the appellants has further contended that before
terminating their services, the appellants were entitled to notice and that the
appointment being statutory in nature, the Federal Government had no power to
terminate their service contract. We are unable to subscribe to the above
contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. The contract of service, under
which the two appellants were appointed, specifically provided that their
appointments shall be liable to termination on 3 months' notice or 3 months' salary
in lieu thereof on either side without assigning any reason. Such a contract, in our
view, does not create any vested right in the appointee so as to make him entitled
to notice before termination of the contract of service."
Page No. 5 of 7
15. Mr. Motiani also relied upon Naila Khalid's case (supra). She was appointed as a
Lecturer in a college on adhoc basis for six months or till availability of Federal Public
Service Commission nominee. She was relieved after four years when the F.P.S.C.
nominee was selected. The Supreme Court observed as under:--
"He is right in stating that, in law, there is no concept of reinstatement of an ad

hoc employee whose services were dispensed with in accordance with the terms
and conditions of offer of appointment. Undoubtedly, the petitioner was appointed
as lecturer on adhoc basis as a stopgap arrangement for tenure of six months or till
the availability of a nominee by F.P.S.C. Ad hoc appointment of a person does not
confer any right or interest to continuous appointment, seniority, or promotion. It
is held by an incumbent till a person is regularly selected by the Public Service
Commission for the post held by an adhoc appointee. It is well settled that the
services of such employee can be dispensed with at any moment without
assigning any reason."
16. Mr. Adnan Karim referred to Dr. Zahida Kakar's case (supra). She was appointed as
Medical Officer on contract purely on temporary basis for a period of six months
extendable for a period of 2 years. Last extension expired on 31-3-2000 and upon such
expiry her employment was terminated. It was however, notified that she may apply for
selection to Public Service Commission which had already advertised the posts. She
approached High Court and through an interim order she was allowed to continue. The
interim order was confirmed which confirmation was challenged in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court vacated the interim order observing that the respondents before it
were employed purely temporary basis and specifically on contract and such contract
stood terminated on the expiry of contract period or any extended period on choice of the
employer or appointment authority. It was held that Prima facie, it did not create any
vested right. In WAPDA and others v. Khanimullah and others, 2000 SCMR 879,
respondents were employed on a project in 1986 and on completion of the project they
were declared surplus and were accordingly discharged from service in 1992. The matter
meandered through the Courts in judicial hierarchy and eventually reached the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court held that since they were employed on a project and were
released on completion of the project there was nothing wrong in such a release. Lastly
reference may be made to the unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Ateequr
Rehman's case (supra). Petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis and condition was
specified in the letter that the appointment on the regular basis shall be made after they
have completed 5 months of training at the Audit and Accounts Training Institute and
passed requisite examinations. Before the Supreme Court it was argued that employment
was governed by Rule 6(3) of the Civil Servants Act read with Rule 21 of the
Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules and therefore the test was not a prescribed
requirement. This contention was rejected by the Supreme Court and it was observed that
since the petitioners failed to pass the test they were not entitled to become regular
employees.
17. In the present case, the petitioners were hired on contract for a project and were
released upon completion of the project (whether the project completed or not to that we
shall return later), therefore, their t release upon completion of the project cannot be said
to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
18. Mr. Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada referred to Aide Memoire dated April 30, 2009. In the last
para of the Aide Memoire itself the following is written:---
Page No. 6 of 7
"The proposed Additional Financing is expected to go to Board for consideration
around 25 June 2009. To meet this target, that the Negotiation should take place
between 15-20 May. The Bank will send out the invitation to negotiate in due
course."
This clearly indicates that the Aide Memoire is merely a wish of the Provincial
Government and it desired to approach international lending institutions. No material has
been placed on record that any loan was taken or has been granted for continuation of the
project. Mr. Pirzada relied upon advertisement published in "Daily Kawish' on June 6,
2009. That advertisement stated that the Federal Government has given an application for
additional loan for Sindh On-Farm Water Management Project. Such application has been
submitted to International Development Association (I.D.A) Through advertisement the
Provincial Government expressed its intent to initiate process of Supervisory and
Monitoring Consultancy Services and for that it invited applications from Consultancy
Firms/Consortium. The fact that the applications have been invited from consultancy
firms etc. cannot be taken to mean that project has commenced and loans have been
granted by any international lending agency. It is clearly stated by respondent No.2 that
project has come to an end no material has been produced that further loan has been
received an end no material has been produced that further loan has been received and the
project is otherwise continuing. Therefore, the available record indicates that the project
Sindh On-Farm Water Management Project has concluded.
19. Mr. Pirzada also referred to letter dated 1st December, 2005 which indicates that
some of the officers from (SOFWM) project were transferred to (NPIW) in 2005. If they
were transferred in 2005 it cannot be said to be a malafide transfer because the present
petitioners' contract was terminated in June, 2009. A decision taken four years earlier
cannot be said to be mala fide by merely alleging that the authorities were intending to
remove others in 2009. If any authority in this regard is needed, one may refer to
President United Bank Ltd. v. Abdul Shamim Khan, PLD 1999 SC 990.
20. Result of the above discussion is that this Constitution Petition is dismissed in limine.
Listed application is also disposed of. The above are our reasons for the short order
announced in open Court on 5-10-2010.
S.A.K./A-114/K Petition dismissed.
Page No. 7 of 7
2 0 11 S C M R 437
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Mian Shakirullah Jan and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, JJ
IFFAT JABEEN---Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (M.E.E.), LAHORE and another---

Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 592 of 2006, decided on 2nd October, 2009.
(On Appeal from the judgment, dated 22-7-2005 passed by the Punjab Service
Tribunal, Lahore, in Appeal No.2396 of 2003).
(a) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---
----Rr. 5 & 6---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.212(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by

Supreme Court to consider the contention of petitioner that she was graduate at the time
of her appointment and thereafter, she further improved her educational qualification as
M.A., B-Ed and C.T. during her service and order passed by authorities of removal of
petitioner from service was not sustainable at law inasmuch as there was no concealment
or misrepresentation of any material fact o n the part of her who had rendered
satisfactory service before removal from service and further contended that quantum of
punishment did not commensurate the nature of charge.
(b) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---
---Rr. 5 & 6---Removal from service---Imposing of major penalty---Concealing of facts---

Civil servant was appointed as untrained teacher ' but she received salary of regular
Page No. 1 of 5
teacher---Authorities removed the civil servant from service on the allegation of securing
"service by playing fraud with authorities---Validity---During her service, civil servant
improved her qualification as M.A., B.Ed. and C.T. and also gained experience as a
teacher for ten years---Service Tribunal decided the case in violation of dictum laid down
by Supreme Court and even without perusing record after application of mind, as the
same was a condition precedent for passing a decision---Supreme Court set aside the
judgment passed by Service Tribunal and reinstated the civil servant in service without
back-benefits in accordance with law, as she did not perform any duty---Appeal was
allowed.
Zulfiqar Ali's case 2006 SCMR 678; Abdul Waheed's case 2004 SCMR 303; Secretary to
Government of N.-W.F.P.'s case 1996 SCMR 413; Abdul Hafeez Abbasi's case 2002
SCMR 1034; G.M. Sikdar's case PLD 1970 SC 158 and Mollah Ejahar Ali's case PLD
1970 SC 173 rel.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Arts. 189 & 190-Judgment of Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of
State.
(d) Administration of justice---
----Application of correct law---Improper advice of counsel---Effect---Judge must wear

all laws of country on the sleeves of his robe and failure of counsel as to properly advise
him is not a complete excuse in the matter.
Muhammad Sarwar's case PLD 1969 SC 278 rel.
Mian Mahmood Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
Saeed Yousaf Khan, Additional Advocate-General Punjab, Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Law
Officer/Assistant Education Officer, D.E.O. Office, Lahore for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd October, 2009.
JUDGMENT
CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.---Appellant filed C.P. No.2019-L of 2005 wherein appellant has
Page No. 2 of 5
sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated
22-7-2005 wherein order of her removal by the competent authority and rejection of her
representation by the appellate authority were not set aside. The petition was fixed before
this Court on 21-3-2006 and leave was granted in the following terms:--
"The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was graduate at
the time of her appointment. Thereafter, she further improved her educational
qualification as M.A., B.Ed. and C.T. during her service. The order dated 4-7-
2003 passed by respondent No.1 of the removal of the petitioner from service was
not sustainable at law inasmuch as there was no concealment or misrepresentation
of any material facts on the part of the petitioner who had rendered satisfactory
service before her removal from service on 4-7-2003. It was lastly submitted that
the quantum of punishment did not commensurate the nature of the charge.
Leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia, the above and other submissions
of the learned counsel."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned judgment is not sustainable in
the eyes of law in view of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer against her.
Inquiry was conducted in violation of mandatory provisions of Efficiency and
Disciplinary Rules. The appellant was inducted in the service by the competent authority
in accordance with the law as is evident from the inquiry report and she was removed
from service after 10 years. This fact was not considered by Service Tribunal in the
impugned judgment.
3. Learned Law Officer submitted that appellant secured her appointment by playing
fraud with the Department as her appointment letter did not exist in their record. He has
vehemently supported the impugned judgment.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of
the parties and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative
part of the impugned order dated 4-7-2003 wherein the appellant was removed from
service.
"Whereas Mst. Raheela Arjumand, SST/Headmistress, Government Shah Din

Aslam Middle School Shad Bagh, Lahore was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The
Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry sent her report with the
recommendation that Service Record of the teacher found bogus, i.e. she was
appointed PTC regular by Mirza Muhammad Shafi the then Deputy District
Education Officer (M) Lahore City vide No.1020/E-I dated 10-5-1993 while she
was untrained but not verified and she received salary as regular teacher. The
appointment orders are not verified by the Deputy District Education Officer
concerned, domicile was not available."
5. Mere reading of the aforesaid order clearly envisages that appellant was appointed as
untrained teacher but she received salary for regular teacher. During her service she had
improved her qualification as M.A., B.Ed. and C.T. and also gained experience as a
teacher for 10 years. The impugned judgment is not in consonance with the law laid
Page No. 3 of 5
down by this Court in various pronouncements. See:
(i) Zulfiqar Ali's case (2006 SCMR 678)
(ii) Abdul Waheed's case (2004 SCMR 303)
(iii) Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P.'s case (1996 SCMR 413)
(iv) Abdul Hafeez Abbasi's case (2002 SCMR 1034)
The relevant observation from the Abdul Hafeez Abbasi's case is as follows:
"We have noted in number of cases that Departmental Authorities do show haste
at the time of making such appointments when directives are issued to them by
the persons who are in the helm of affairs without daring to point out to them that
the directions are not implementable being contrary to law as well prevalent Rules
and Regulations. In fact such obedience is demonstrated by the concerned officers
of the Departments to please the Authorities governing the country just to earn
their time being pleasures but on the change of regime they do show speed in
undoing illegal actions which they themselves have accomplished in the previous
regime and due to their such illegal acts the employees who were appointed suffer
badly without any fault on their part and then even nobody bothers for their future
career. Therefore, we are of the opinion that in such situation besides proceedings
against the beneficiaries of so-called illegal appointments the officers who were
responsible for implementing illegal directives should also be held equally
responsible and severe action should be taken against them so in future it may
serve as deterrent for other like-minded persons. This Court in an identical case
declined to grant leave to appeal in the case of Secretary to Government of N.-
W.F.P. 1996 SCMR 413-and observed that it is disturbing to note that in this case
petitioner No.2 had himself been guilty of making irregular appointment on what
has been described "purely temporary basis". The petitioners have now turned
around and terminated his service due to irregularity and violation of rule 10(2)
(ibid). The premise, to say the least, is utterly untenable. The case of the
petitioners was not that the respondent lacked requisite qualification. The
petitioners themselves appointed him on temporary basis in violation of the rules
for reasons best known to them. Now they cannot be allowed to take benefit of
their lapses in order to terminate the services of-the respondent merely because
they have themselves committed irregularity in violating the procedure governing'
the appointments."
6. It is settled proposition of law that judgment of this Court is binding on each and every
organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189-190 of the Constitution. It is settled law that
Judge must wear all the laws of the country on the sleeve of his robe and failure of the
counsel as to properly advise him is not a complete excuse in the matter as law laid down
by this Court in Muhammad Sarwar's case (PLD 1969 SC 278).
Page No. 4 of 5
7. The learned Service Tribunal had decided the case in violation of the dictum laid down
by this Court in the aforesaid judgments and even without perusing the record after
application of mind as evident from the operative part of the order of department dated 4-
7-2003 reproduced hereinabove. Mere reading of the impugned judgment, it is crystal
clear that the learned Service Tribunal had decided the case without application of mind
which is condition precedent in view of law laid down by this Court in G.M. Sikdar's
case (PLD 1970 SC 158) and Mollah Ejahar Ali's case (PLD 1970 SC 173).
8. In view of what has been discussed above this appeal is accepted and the impugned
judgment of the Service Tribunal is set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate
the appellant without back-benefit of any salary as she did not perform any duties.
However, she is entitled other benefits in accordance with law, if any.
M.H./I-21/SC Appeal allowed.
Page No. 5 of 5
2010 P L C (C.S.) 641
Present: Raja Fayyaz Ahmed and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, JJ
SECTION OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FINANCE

DEPARTMENT and others
Versus
GHULAM SHABBIR
Civil Appeal No.381-L of 2009, decided on 5th April, 2010.
(Against the judgment dated 24-11-2008 passed by the Lahore High Court,
Bahawalpur Bench in Writ Petition No.3300 of 2008).
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Art. 185 (3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider the
contentions of employer/bank that High Court had erred in law in allowing employee's
constitutional petition as he could not have withdrawn his request for retirement after
availing leave preparatory to retirement and that if order passed by High Court would be
allowed to remain in field it would be taken as precedent and entire fabric of service
would be punctured, while the employee contended that petition was barred by time and
before completion of leave preparatory to retirement, he had lawfully withdrawn his
request for retirement.
(b) Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1955---
----R. 3.5, Note-I---ESTACODE, 2003 Edition (Punjab), page 690---Leave preparatory

to retirement---Withdrawal---Respondent was employee of bank, who applied for
voluntary retirement and had availed leave preparatory to retirement---After availing
almost full period of leave preparatory to retirement, employee withdrew his option of
retirement---Bank did not allow the employee to. withdraw his option of retirement but
High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction directed the bank to let the employee
Page No. 1 of 5
withdraw his option of retirement---Validity---Employee availed leave preparatory to
retirement for almost 365 days in view of his acceptance of retirement by bank vide order
dated 16-6-2006 coupled with the fact that employee had submitted application for
withdrawal of his voluntary retirement just five days before his actual retirement on 30-6-
2007---Employee had taken benefit of order dated 16-6-2006 and had mentioned his
intended date of retirement as 30-6-2007--On 19-5-2008, competent authority dismissed
his application for withdrawal of his resignation with cogent reasons in terms of law on
the subject---Employee had failed to point out any illegality in the order passed by
bank---High Court accepted constitutional petition filed by employee, without adverting
to relevant rules on the subject---Judgment passed by High Court was set aside by
Supreme Court while the order dated 19-5-2008, passed by authorities was upheld---
Appeal was allowed.
(c) Administration of justice---
----Judge must wear all laws of the country on the sleeves of his robe and failure of
counsel to properly advise is not a complete excuse in the matter.
Muhammad Sarwar's case PLD 1969 SC 278 and Shamoon Bahadur's case PLD 1979 SC
835 rel.
(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Arts. 189 & 190---Judgment of Supreme Court---Binding effect---Judgment of

Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of Arts.189 and
190 of the Constitution.
Muhammad Iqbal's case 1984 SCMR 334 rel.
Muhammad Hanif Khattana, Additional Advocate-General for Appellants.
Mian Shah Abbas, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th April, 2010.
JUDGMENT
CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- Necessary facts out of which the present appeal arises are that
Page No. 2 of 5
respondent was appointed by the appellants as Junior Clerk in Agricultural Department.
He had completed 26 years and 3 months service qualifying for pension. Respondent
submitted an application before Appellant No. 3 for voluntary retirement. He also
submitted an application for securing LPR w.e.f. 1-7-2006 to 30-6-2007 before appellant
No.3 who accepted the same vide order dated 16-6-2006. Notification also contained the
following para:---
"He shall stand retired from Government Service with effect from 30-6-2007
(after noon)".
2. Respondent submitted an application under the subject `request for cancellation of

LPR Ghulam Shabbir, LC." on 24-6-2007 which was received in the office of the
appellants on 25-6-2007 and the same was forwarded by his parent department to the
Finance Department. The same was declined in the light of note No.1 beneath Rule 3.5.
of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Respondent being aggrieved filed Constitutional
Petition No.3300 of 2008 in the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench which was
accepted vide impugned judgment.
3. On 29-5-2009, this Court granted leave to the petitioners/ appellants, relevant para
therefrom is reproduced hereunder:---
"Learned Law Officer, on merits, submitted that the respondent voluntarily

applied for retirement, the Department allowed his application, vide order dated
16-6-2006 and sanctioned LPR, which was to expire on 30-6-2007 on which date
he was to retire but the respondent after availing total period of LPR applied for
withdrawal of his request for retirement; that the learned High Court erred in law
in allowing respondent's constitutional petition as the respondent could not have
withdrawn his request for retirement after availing LPR and that if the impugned
order is allowed to be remained in field it will be taken as precedent and the entire
fibre of service will be punctured. Conversely, learned AOR for the respondent,
submitted that the petition was barred by time and that the respondent before
completion of LPR lawfully withdrew his request for retirement. Having heard
learned Additional Advocate General and the learned AOR for the respondent, we
grant leave to appeal to the petitioners, to inter alia, consider the afore-noted
contentions, subject to the bar of limitation, which question will be decided at the
time of hearing the appeal."
4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that impugned judgment is not in

consonance with Punjab Civil Service Pension Rules, 1955 particularly note-I of rule 3.5
under the heading retiring pension. He also urged that impugned judgment is not in
consonance with the law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment.
6. We have given our anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce basic facts
alongwith note-I in rule 3.5 retiring pension of said rules to resolve the controversy
between the parties:
Page No. 3 of 5
(i) Respondent submitted application for voluntary retirement alongwith another
application to secure LPR w.e.f. 1-7-2006 to 30-6-2007 which was accepted vide
order dated 16-6-2006 alongwith the observation that respondent would stand
retired from service w.e.f. 30-6-2007 (after noon).
(ii) Respondent submitted an application 4/5 days before his actual date for
withdrawal of his voluntary resignation to the appellants on 26-6-2007 which was
forwarded by the appellants to the Finance Department and the same was rejected
vide order dated 19-5-2008.
PUNJAB ESTACODE, RULE 3.5 NOTE-I:
{Note (1) Subject to the provisions of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, all
government servants shall have the right to retire on a retiring pension after
completing 25 years qualifying service; provided that a government servant, who
intends to retire before attaining the age of superannuation, shall, at least three
months before the date on which he intends to retire, submit a written intimation
to the authority which appointed him, indicating the date on which he intends to
retire. Such an intimation, once submitted, shall be final; provided that if a
government servant withdraws his application for voluntary retirement, or
modifies the date of such retirement, before its acceptance by the competent
authority, the application or the date of retirement shall be deemed to have been
withdrawn or modified, as the case may be.
7. In case the aforesaid facts and the Note-I of Rule 3.5 of the Punjab Civil Services
Pension Rules, 1955 (Punjab ESTACODE 2003 page 690) are put in a juxtaposition, then
respondent had availed LPR almost 365 days in view of his acceptance of his retirement
by the appellants vide order dated 16-6-2006 coupled with the fact that the respondent
had submitted an application for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement just five days
before his actual retirement on 30-6-2007. This fact brings the case of the respondent that
the respondent had taken the benefit of the order dated 16-6-2006. The respondent had
mentioned his intended date of retirement as 30-6-2007. The competent authority had
dismissed his application for withdrawal of his resignation with cogent reasons in terms
of laws on the subject as mentioned above vide order dated 19-5-2008. Respondent had
failed to point out any illegality in the impugned order of the appellate dated 19-5-2008.
The learned High Court had accepted the constitutional petition without adverting to the
relevant rules on the subject as evident from the contents of the impugned judgment. It is
a settled law that a Judge must wear all the laws of the country on the sleeve of his robe
and failure of the counsel to properly advise is not a complete excuse in the matter as law
laid down by this Court in Muhammad Sarwar's case PLD 1969 SC 278. The question of
law has settled down by this Court since long in Shamoon Bahadur's case PLD 1979 SC
835. The relevant observation in as follows:--
"Nonetheless when the LPR was about to come to an end the respondent, by an
application dated 3rd of June 1971 showed his desire to withdraw his request
which apparently was misconceived as on that date an effective order for his
retirement has already been passed. The option having been once exercised it did
not lie in his mouth to go back on it in the context of the finality of the
consequences ensuing therefrom by its acceptance"
Page No. 4 of 5
8. The said view was approved by this Court in Muhammad Iqbal's case 1984 SCMR
334. The impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law on any canon of
justice. It is a settled law that judgment of this Court is binding on each and every organ
of the State by virtue of Articles 189-190 of the Constitution but the learned High Court
had accepted the constitutional petition of respondent in violation of law laid down by
this Court in the aforesaid judgment.
9. In view of what has been discussed above, appeal is allowed as a result whereof
impugned judgment is set aside with no order as to costs.
M.H./S-17/SC Appeal allowed.
Page No. 5 of 5
2010 P L C (C.S.) 297
Present: Sardar Muhammad Raza Khan, Raja Fayyaz Ahmed and Mahmood
Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, JJ
HAMIDA BEGUM
Versus
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION through Secretary

and others
Civil Petition No.1587 of 2008, decided on 4th August, 2009.
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 11-11-2008 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad
passed in I.C.A. No.93 of 2004).
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---
----S. 10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3)---Deputation---Repatriation to

parent department---Civil servant was employee of Provincial Government and was on
deputation in Education Department, Government of Pakistan.--Authorities issued order
for repatriation of civil servant to her parent department but she wanted to be absorbed
permanently---Validity---Civil servant held lien in her parent department of the province
and could not be absorbed permanently for want of concurrence of Provincial
Government, but such concurrence was not conveyed to Federal Government---Civil
servant was repatriated to her parent department but no response was shown by her parent
department nor concurrence of Provincial Government for permanent absorption of civil
servant was conveyed in absence whereof, service of civil servant could not be absorbed
in the concerned department of Federal Government even if she held requisite
qualification and eligibility for such absorption---Civil servant also did not approach to
Provincial Government for the purpose of grant of "No Objection Certificate" and.
consequently in terms of an earlier order passed by Supreme Court, the office order
issued by Federal Government for repatriation of civil servant held the field---Judgment
passed by High Court was not open to any exception and Supreme Court declined to
interfere in the same---Leave to appeal was refused.
Page No. 1 of 6
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record/Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
Shah Khawar, D.A.-G., Arshad Anjum, A.D. (FDE), Hadayatullah S.O. (Education),
Peshawar for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 4th August, 2009.
JUDGMENT
RAJA FAYYAZ AHMED, J.--- In the earlier round of litigation culminating in the filing
of Civil Petitions Nos.918, 920, 921, 922, 923, 924, 925, 926, 927, 928, 929, 984, 996,
961, 1142, 1143 and 1230 of 1998 by the petitioner and others against the orders, dated
25-5-1998, 26-5-1998 and 16-7-1998, whereby I.C.As. Nos.40 to 48 of 1998, 50, 52, 55,
53, 59, 61 and 94 of 1998 dismissed by the learned High Court, Rawalpindi Bench,
Rawalpindi were disposed' of by this Court vide order, dated 4-12-1998 in the terms
specified therein reproduced hereunder in extenso:---
"Ajmal Mian, C.J.--- Petitioners in above petitions are School Teachers who were
on deputation in the Federal Ministry of Education, Islamabad, from the
Provinces of Punjab, Sindh and N.-W.F.P. Their husbands are working in various
Government Departments at Islamabad/Rawalpindi. The deputation period of the
petitioners have expired. They do not wish to go back to their respective
Provinces on the ground that their husbands are still posted at
Islamabad/Rawalpindi. Mr. Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court
appearing the petitioners has produced a copy of Office Memorandum No.10/184-
R-5, dated 26th November, 1998 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Cabinet '
Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad, addressed to the Ministry of
Education, Islamabad, which reads as follows:---
Office Memorandum
Subject: Absorption of Female Teachers on Deputation to Federal Government

Schools, Islamabad from Provincial Education Departments.
The undersigned is directed to refer the Ministry of Education's O.M. No.D-

1281/98-CEI, dated 12th October, 1998, on the above subject and to request that
the following information/ documents may be supplied to this Division:---
(i) A copy of formal concurrence of the Provincial Governments to the permanent

absorption of its employees in the Federal Government.
(ii) A certificate/confirmation to the effect that husbands of the lady teachers
Page No. 2 of 6
proposed to be absorbed are working under the Federal Government at Islamabad.
(2) The proposal in regard to absorption of TUGT's. and MTT's who do not carry
the pay scales at par with these of the Federal Government for similar posts,
cannot be accepted because under Rule 9 of the Civil Servants (Appointment,
Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, appointment by transfer is permissible only
from persons servings in the same Basic Pay Scale. Ministry of Education is
requested to furnish its comments, if any, on this point.
(Sd.) (Muhammad Arshad)
Section Officer
(3) When the above petitions came up for hearing before this Court on 26-11-
1998, Mr. Abdul Karim Khan Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court, has pointed out
that Provincial Governments are not accepting the petitioners as their employees.
We had issued notices to the learned Deputy Attorney-General, Advocate-
Generals of the Provinces. In response to the above notice Maulvi Anwarul Haq,
Dy. A.-G., Mr. M. Sardar Khan, A.-G. N. -W. F. P., and Mr. Muhammad Zaman,
Advocate Supreme Court representing A.-G. Punjab, are present. They state that
the petitioners have still lien over their respective posts in the Provinces.
(4) In our view, it will be appropriate if no further action is taken against the
petitioners for a period of three months. In the meantime, if some action is taken
pursuant upon above OM the same may be implemented, otherwise they will be
repatriated to their respective Provinces. Petitions are disposed in the above
terms."
2. Vide Office Order, dated 3-10-2003 the petitioner was repatriated to her parent
Department and relieved from duty with immediate effect by the Federal Directorate of
Education, Government of Pakistan. The contents of the Office Order read as under:---
Consequent upon the decision of Supreme Court on Civil Petition No.984 etc.
dated 4-12-1998 and amended in Recruitment rules for absorption/appointment
through transfer Mrs. Hamida Begum, PTI, (Junior) (Deputationist) Federal
Government Girls Primary School, Humak (FA), Islamabad is hereby repatriated
to her parent department and relieved from duty with immediate effect.
(2) As she has been on deputation since 2-6-1994 i.e. more than 9 years and she
could not be retained/absorbed for further period as she is not qualified according
to the recruitment rules i.e. FA/FSc IInd Division with junior diploma in physical
Education.
(3) This is issued with the approval of the Competent Authority."
Page No. 3 of 6
3. Petitioner Hameeda Begum was working as Physical Education Teacher (PET) in the
Government Girls High School, Nakot, District Mansehra and was taken on deputation
from N.-W.F.P. as PTI for a period of 3 years. She joined Federal Directorate of
Education on 2-6-1994. On completion of her tenure she was repatriated to her parent
department on 22-5-1997. Thereupon, she challenged her repatriation order in writ
petition before the learned Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi. She was
allowed to continue her duty in the light of the stay order issued by the said learned
Court. Eventually, her Writ Petition No.3093 of 2003 was dismissed vide judgment, dated
14-5-1997 whereafter, her repatriation order with effect from 20-7-1998 were again
issued which was unsuccessfully, assailed in I.C.A., before the learned Division Bench of
.the Lahore High Court. After the dismissal of her I.C.A. as above-noted, the petitioner
along with others filed civil petitions before this Court which were disposed of vide
order, dated 4-12-1998. Subsequently, vide Office Order dated 3-10-2003 the Federal
Directorate of Education, Government of Pakistan repatriated the petitioner to her parent
department on the ground that she remained on deputation for a period of 9 years could
not be retained/absorbed for further period as she is not qualified according to the
recruitment rules i.e. FA/FSc 2nd Division with Junior Diploma in Physical Education.
This order was challenged in Writ Petition No.3093 of 2003 by the petitioner before the
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench Rawalpindi dismissed by the learned Single Judge
in the Chambers on 5-4-2004. The petitioner feeling dissatisfied with the dismissal of her
writ petition filed I.C.A. No.93 of 2004, which met the same fate vide impugned
judgment dated 11-11-2008 passed by the learned Division Bench of the Islamabad High
Court, Islamabad. The operating part of the impugned judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:---
"(9) Appellant petitioner's Constitution Petition No.3093 of 2003 was dismissed

by the learned Judge in Chamber of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench,
Rawalpindi, C.P.L.A. was filed before the Honourable Supreme. Court of
Pakistan, which was disposed of on 4-12-1998. Appellant lacks requisite
qualification and was not absorbed by respondent on that count. Appellant availed
the remedy through constitution petition by invoking the jurisdiction under Article
199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan which was dismissed and
the decision was affirmed by honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. After the
decision of honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, appellant cannot seek the
remedy once again on the same cause of action. The constitutional petition is not
maintainable on this score. Even otherwise the appellant has failed to establish her
case, as she does not possess requisite qualification for acclaimed absorption. The
absorption or extension of period in deputation falls within the domain of
departmental authority, which has exercised its discretionary power in accordance
with law. No interference is called for in the judgment passed by the Judge in
Chamber. This appeal being meritless is dismissed."
4. The earlier civil petition on the same subject was disposed of by this Court vide order
dated 4-12-1998 whereafter the petitioner filed complaint with the Wafaqi Mohtasib
where her claim was that she may not be repatriated unless the rules for permanent
absorption of deputationists are not approved by the Establishment Division Vide O.M.
No.10/184/R-5 dated 26-6-2003 the Establishment Division accorded approval for the
amendment of the recruitment rules.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Shah Khawar, D.A.-G. for respondents
Nos.1 to 4 have been heard. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that during
the pendency of the I.C.A. the petitioner was successful in obtaining Master Degree in
Physical Education in the year 2005 which stand on a high pedestal being a higher
qualification than the Junior Diploma in Physical Education. As regards the second
objection of the pay scale of PET remained uncontested as the N.-W.F.P. Government
upgraded the post from BS-12 to BS-14 for the holder of BA degrees. Accordingly, the
Page No. 4 of 6
petitioner was placed to the upgraded post with effect from 11-1-2001 and petitioner's
pay scale .thus, became equivalent to the scale of PTI in the Federal Government and
besides a number of employees have been absorbed in the Federal Government,
Education Department but discrimination has been meted out to the petitioner.
The learned counsel when confronted to the operating part of the order passed by the-
Court on 4-12-1998 submitted that it was the duty of the Government to have issued
NOC with regard to the permanent absorption of the service of the petitioner in the
Federal Government Education Department or at least reference for the purpose to have
been made to the Provincial Government by the Education Department, Government of
Pakistan. The learned counsel further contended that the petitioner still holds her lien of
service in her parent department of N.-W.F.P., unless NOC is issued by the Provincial
Government.
6. On the other hand, the learned D.A.G. argued that subsequent to the decision of this
Court, after due consideration and examining the case of the petitioner vide Office Order
dated 3-10-2003, she was repatriated to her parent department and relieved from duty as
she was deputationist for a period of more than 9 years with the Federal Government and
could not be absorbed for being not qualified as per recruitment rules i.e. F.A./F.Sc. 2nd
Division with Junior Diploma in Physical Education. According to the D.A.-G. since
action has been taken with regard to the repatriation of the petitioner to her parent
department in the light of the O.M. reproduced in the order dated 4-12-1998 passed by
this Court, therefore, in terms of the said order and the repatriation order passed on 3-10-
2003 needs be acted upon as the formal concurrence of the Provincial Government for the
permanent absorption of the petitioner in the Federal Government has not been given.
7. Notwithstanding the ground with regard to the improvement of qualifications of the

petitioner and the question of her entitlement to be permanently absorbed in the Federal
Government under the rules for time being in force; admittedly, the petitioner who holds
lein in her parent department of the Province could not be absorbed permanently in the
Education. Department, Government of Pakistan for want of concurrence of the
Provincial Government nor such a concurrence pre-requisite for absorption as claimed
was conveyed to the Federal Government which till date has not been done. Vide Office
Order, dated 3-10-2003 the petitioner was repatriated to her parent department with a
copy thereof forwarded to the Director Public Instructions, Peshawar, the District
Education Officer/the Executive District Officer, Mansehra, and the District Accounts
Officer, Mansehra to which no response was shown by the parent department of the
petitioner nor concurrence of Provincial Government for permanent absorption of the
petitioner in Education Department of the Federal Government was conveyed in absence
whereof, obviously the petitioner's service could not be absorbed in the concerned
department of the Federal Government even if she holds the requisite qualifications and
eligibility for such absorption. The petitioner also did not approach to the Provincial
Government for the purpose for grant of NOC and consequently, in terms of the order
passed by this Court on 4-12-1998 reproduced hereinabove the Office Order issued by the
Federal Government for repatriation of the petitioner holds the field. Hence, the
impugned judgment in our considered opinion is not open to any exception.
8. Thus, for the foregoing reasons this civil petition having no substance is dismissed.
Leave refused.
M.H./H-9/SC Petition dismissed.
Page No. 5 of 6
Page No. 6 of 6
2010 P L C (C.S.) 804
Before Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J Ch. Ijaz Ahmed and Khalil-ur-Rehman
Ramday, JJ
CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and others
Versus
NAWAB KHAN and others
Civil Appeals No. 537 and 538 of 2006, decided on 16th March, 2010.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 7-2-2004 passed by the Federal Service
Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 660(R)(C.S.) of 2002).
(a) Fundamental Rules---
----R. 22(a)---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Leave to appeal was granted

by Supreme Court to consider; whether civil servant was entitled to have protection of
previous service in another organization for the purposes of fixation and counting of
previous service for pension.
(b) Constitution o f Pakistan (1973)---
----Arts. 189 & 190---Judgment of Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ of
the State by virtue of Arts. 189 and 190 of the Constitution.
(c) Fundamental Rules---
----R. 22(a)---Hand Book for Drawing and Disbursing Officers, Chapter, IX, R. 9.6(v)---
Page No. 1 of 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(2) & (3)---Pay and pensionary benefits---
Previous service, counting of---Absence of lien on previous post---Findings of fact---
Interference by Supreme Court---Scope---Appellant was appointed by another
government organization and his grievance was that his previous service in earlier
government organization was to be counted for fixation of pay and pensionary benefits---
Service Tribunal partially allowed the appeal and did not grant any protection of his pay
drawn during previous appointment---Validity---Finding of fact recorded by Service
Tribunal was in consonance with rules on the subject and law laid down by Supreme
Court---Service Tribunal had rightly refused second relief to appellant in terms of R.22(a)
of Fundamental Rules---Parties failed to point out any infirmity or illegality in the
judgment passed by Service Tribunal and no question of public importance as
contemplated under Art.212(2) of the Constitution was raised---Finding of Service
Tribunal was finding of fact and could not call for any interference by Supreme Court
while exercising power under Art.212(3) of the Constitution---Constitutional jurisdiction
was always discretionary in character as the Service Tribunal had decided the case within
the parameters and rules on the subject and law laid down by Supreme Court, therefore,
Supreme Court declined to exercise its discretion under Art.212(3) of the Constitution in
favour of appellants---Appeal was dismissed.
Nafees Ahmad's case 2000 SCMR 1864 and Ch. Muhammad Azim's case 1991
SCMR 255 rel.
Dil Muhammad Khan Alizai, D.A.-G., Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record (in
C.A. No.537 of 2006) and Hafiz S.A.Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (in
C.A. 538 of 2006) for Appellants.
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (in C.A. No.537 of 2006), Dil
Muhammad Khan Alizai, D.A. G. and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record (in
C.A. No.538 of 2006) for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 16th March 2010.
JUDGMENT
CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.---We intend to decide the captioned appeals by one
consolidated judgment having similar facts arising out of the common impugned
judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 7-2-2004.
2. Necessary facts out of which the aforesaid appeals arise are that Nawab Khan,
respondent in C.A. No.537 of 2006 and also appellant in Civil Appeal No. 538 of 2006,
was appointed as Deputy Manager in the Federal Government approved pay scale EPS-
III which is equal to BPS-18 in the Pakistan Machine Tool Factory Limited, Karachi, an
autonomous body under the State Engineering Corporation, Ministry of Industries and
Production, Government of Pakistan, on 20-5-1984. His services were transferred to the
Head Office i.e. State Engineering Corporation, Islamabad in March, 1989. He was
promoted to the post of Manage in March, 1991 in EPS-IV which is equal to BPS-19.
Page No. 2 of 4
Thereafter his services were transferred to the Heavy Electrical Complex, Haripur, in
July, 1996. An advertisement was published for the post of Cost Accountant BPS-19 in
Sales Tax Department of CBR. In response to the said advertisement he submitted an
application for the same allegedly through proper channel. He was selected by xhe
Selection Board. Appointment letter was issued by the Chairman CBR, Islamabad. Copy
of the appointment letter was also endorsed by CBR to the Managing Director/Chairman,
Heavy Electrical Complex, Haripur with the request to relieve him for joining CBR.
Subsequently he was relieved on 23-1-1999 and (24-1-1999 being Sunday) he joined the
CBR on 25-1-1999 without any service break. He had been asking for counting of his
previous service of 14 years and 8 months i.e. from 20-5-1984 to 24-1-1999 for the
purpose of pcnsionary financial benefits as well as pay protection to the competent
authority of the CBR. CBR intimated him vide letter dated 17-4-2002 that the matter was
referred to the Finance Division but his request was not accepted. He being aggrieved
filed departmental appeal/representation before the competent authority on 4-5-2002
which was dismissed vide order dated 15-6-2002 which was conveyed to him on 21-6-
2002. He being aggrieved filed an Appeal No.660(R)(C.S.) of 2002 before the Federal
Service Tribunal, Islamabad. The learned Service Tribunal partly accepted his appeal vide
impugned judgment dated 7-2-2004. The Chairman CBR and others and Nawab Khan
being aggrieved filed C.Ps. Nos.840 of 2004 and 881 of 2004 which were fixed before
this Court on 4-4-2006 and leave was granted in the following terms:--
"After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners at length, we grant leave to
appeal to consider, inter alia, the question whether the respondent, Nawab Khan
was entitled to have the protection of his previous service rendered in the State
Engineering Corporation for the purposes of pay fixation and counting of
previous service for pension...."
3. The learned Deputy Attorney General submits that Nawab Khan had submitted
application directly in response to the advertisement to the office of the Chairman CBR.
He had already completed requisite length of service in the autonomous body and had
resigned from the said organization, therefore, the learned Service Tribunal erred in law
to accept his appeal to the extent of counting his previous service for the purpose of
financial benefits in the autonomous body from 20-5-1984 to 24-1-1999.
4. The learned counsel of Nawab Khan has supported the impugned judgment and further
urged that the learned Service Tribunal had granted one relief to him as prayed for in his
appeal before the Service Tribunal but the second relief was denied without application of
mind.
the parties and perused the record. The learned Service Tribunal had decided the
controversy between the parties after analyzing the documents on record in accordance
with law on the subject `Pensionary Rules' of `Hand Book for Drawing and Disbursing
Officers' Chapter IX, Rule 9.6(v) read with CSR 418(b). The said provision of law had
already been interpreted by this court in Nafees Ahmad's case 2000 SCMR 1864. The
relevant observation is as follows: -
"The respondent authorities are bound to follow the law in relation to the above
facts of the claim of the appellant i.e. (1) protection of his pay and (2) counting of
his period of service with S.B.P. towards pensionary benefits. Failure on the part
of the Tribunal to act in accordance with the law on the subject cannot but be
reversed with a direction to the respondent to fix the salary of the appellant at
Page No. 3 of 4
Rs.2,530 commencing vide order, dated 14-11-1999 and July, 1989. Order
accordingly."
6. The operative part of the impugned judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
"We agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that the case being discussed
in the above judgment is identical with the case in hand inasmuch as (i) the
appellant in the present case has put in 14 years and 8 months service in the
autonomous body, (ii) he had also resigned his previous job before taking up
his new appointment in the Government (iii) his service in the autonomous
body is to be treated as effective service on his appointment in the
Government and (iv) that the appellant is prepared to pay his pension
contribution out of his own resources in case his former department shows any
reluctance to pay the same. In our view, the judgment dated 13-5-1999
supports the case of the appellant whole hog………Additionally
FR 22(a) bars protection of pay to an employee who does not hold a lien on
his previous permanent post. The appellant resigned his post as Manager
HEC, before joining as Cost Accountant in the CBR and, therefore, obviously
his lien in his formal post stood abolished, debarring him from protection of
his pay drawn as Manager HEC"
7. The learned Service Tribunal had decided the case in terms of the dictum laid
down by this court in the aforesaid judgment. It is settled principle of law that
judgment of this court is binding on each and every organ of the State by virtue of
Articles 189 and 190 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The
learned Service Tribunal had rendered finding of fact after appreciation of evidence
on record. Finding of fact recorded by the Service Tribunal is also in consonance
with the aforesaid rules on the subject and law laid down by this court. Similarly the
learned Service Tribunal had rightly refused the second relief to Nawab Khan in
terms of fundamental rules 22(a). Both the learned counsel had failed to point out
any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment. Even otherwise appellants had
failed to raise any question of public importance as contemplated under Article
212(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. It is settled principle of
law that finding of the Service Tribunal being finding of fact cannot call for any
interference by this court while exercising power under Article 212(3) of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan as law laid down by this court in Ch.
Muhammad Azim's case 1991 SCMR 255. It is also settled principle of law that
constitutional jurisdiction is always discretionary in character as the Service
Tribunal had decided the case within the parameters and rules on the subject and law
laid down by this court, therefore, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion
under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in
favour of the appellants.
8. In view of what has been discussed above these appeals have no merit and the
same are dismissed.
M.H./C-5/SC Appeal dismissed.
Page No. 4 of 4
2010 P L C (C.S.) 451
Present: Mian Shakirullah Jan and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, JJ
IFFAT JABEEN
Versus
DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (M.E.E.) LAHORE and another
Civil Appeal No.592 of 2006, decided on 2nd October, 2009.
(On Appeal from the judgment, dated 22-7-2005 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal,
Lahore, in Appeal No.2396 of 2003).
(a) Government Servants ( E f f i c i e n c y and Discipline) Rules, 1973---
---Rr. 5 & 6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Leave to appeal was

granted by Supreme Court to consider the contention of petitioner that she was graduate
at the time of her appointment and thereafter, she further improved her educational
qualification as M.A., B-Ed and C.T. during her service and order passed by authorities
of removal of petitioner from service was not sustainable at law inasmuch as there was
no concealment or misrepresentation of any material fact on the part of her who had
rendered satisfactory service before removal from service and further contended that
quantum of punishment did not commensurate the nature of charge.
(b) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---
----Rr. 5 & 6---Removal from service---Imposing of major penalty---Concealing o f

facts---Civil servant was appointed as untrained teacher but she received salary of regular
teacher---Authorities removed the civil servant from service on the allegation o f
securing service by playing fraud with authorities---Validity---During her service, civil
servant improved her qualification as M.A., B-Ed and C.T. and also gained experience as
a teacher for ten years---Service Tribunal decided the case in violation o f dictum laid
down by Supreme Court and even without perusing record after application o f mind, as
Page No. 1 of 5
the same was a condition precedent for passing a decision---Supreme Court set aside the
judgment passed by Service Tribunal and reinstated the civil servant in service without
back-benefits in accordance with law, as she did not perform any duty---Appeal was
allowed.
Zulfiqar Ali's case 2006 SCMR 678; Abdul Waheed's case 2004 SCMR 303; Secretary to
Government of N.-W.F.P.'s case 1996 SCMR 413; Abdul Hafeez Abbasi's case 2002
SCMR 1034; G.M. Sikdar's case PLD 1970 SC 158 and Mollah Ejahar Ali's case PLD
1970 SC 173 rel.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---
----Arts. 189 & 190---Judgment o f Supreme Court is binding on each and every organ
o f State.
(d) Administration of justice---
----Application o f correct law---Improper advice o f counsel---Effect---Judge must wear

all laws o f country on the sleeves o f his robe and failure o f counsel as to properly
advice him is not a complete excuse in the matter.
Muhammad Sarwar's case PLD 1969 SC 278 rel.
Mian Mahmood Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.
Saeed Yousaf Khan, Additional Advocate-General Punjab, Ch. Muhammad Aslam, Law
officer/Assist ant Education Officer, D.E.O. Office, Lahore for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd October, 2009.
JUDGMENT
CH. IJAZ AHMED, J.--- Appellant filed C.P. No.2019 of 2005 wherein appellant has
sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore dated
22-7-2005 wherein order of her removal by the competent authority and rejection of her
representation by the appellate authority were not set aside. The petition was fixed before
this Court on 21-3-2006 and leave was granted in the following terms : ---
Page No. 2 of 5
"The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner was graduate at
the time of her appointment. Thereafter, she further improved her educational
qualification as M.A., B-Ed. and C.T. during her service. The order dated 4-7-
2003 passed by Respondent No.1 of the removal of the petitioner from service
was not sustainable at law inasmuch as there was no concealment or
misrepresentation of any material facts on the part of the petitioner who had
rendered satisfactory service before her removal from service on 4-7-2003. It was
lastly submitted that the quantum of punishment did not commensurate the nature
of the charge.
Leave to appeal is granted to consider, inter alia, the above and other submissions
of the learned counsel."
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that impugned judgment is not sustainable in
the eyes of law in view of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer against her.
Inquiry was conducted in violation of mandatory provisions of Efficiency and
Disciplinary Rules. The appellant was inducted in the service by the competent authority
in accordance with the law as is evident from the inquiry report and she was removed
from service after 10 years. This fact was not considered by Service Tribunal in the
impugned judgment.
3. Learned Law Officer submitted that appellant secured her appointment by playing
fraud with the Department as her appointment letter did not exist in their record. He has
vehemently supported the impugned judgment.
the parties and perused the record. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the operative
part of the impugned order dated 4-7-2003 wherein the appellant was removed from
service.
"Whereas Mst. Raheela Arjumand, SST/Headmistress, Government Shah Din

Aslam Middle School Shad Bagh, Lahore was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The
Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry sent her report with the
recommendation that Service Record of the teacher found bogus, i.e. she was
appointed PTC, regular by Mirza Muhammad Shafi the then Deputy District
Education Officer (M) Lahore City vide No.1020/E-I dated 10-5-1993 while she
was untrained but not verified and she received salary as regular teacher. The
appointment orders are not verified by the Deputy District Education Officer
concerned, domicile was not available.
5. Mere reading of the aforesaid order clearly envisages that appellant was
appointed as untrained teacher but she received salary for regular teacher. During
her service she had improved her qualification as M.A., B-Ed. and C.T. and also
gained experience as a teacher for 10 years. The impugned judgment is not in
consonance with the law laid down by this Court in various pronouncements. See:---
Page No. 3 of 5
(i) Zulfiqar Ali's case 2006 SCMR 678, (ii) Abdul Waheed's case 2004 SCMR
303, (iii) Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P.'s case 1996 SCMR 413, (iv)
Abdul Hafeea Abbasi's case 2002 SCMR 1034.
The relevant observation from the Abdul Hafeez Abbasi's case is as follows:---
"We have noted in number of cases that Departmental Authorities do show

haste at the time of making such appointments when directives are issued to
them by the persons who are in the helm of affairs without daring to point out
to them that the directions are not implementable being contrary to law as
well prevalent Rules and Regulations. In fact such obedience is demonstrated
by the concerned officers of the Departments to please the Authorities
governing the country just to earn their time being pleasures but on the
change of regime they do show speed in undoing illegal actions which they
themselves have accomplished in the previous regime and due to their such
illegal acts the employees who were appointed suffer badly without any fault
on their part and then even nobody bothers for their future career. Therefore,
we are of the opinion that in such situation besides proceedings against the
beneficiaries of so-called illegal appointments the officers who were
responsible for implementing illegal directives should also be held equally
responsible and severe action should be taken against them so in future it
may serve as deterrent for other like-minded persons. This Court in an identical
case declined to grant leave to appeal in the case of Secretary to Government
of N.-W.F.P. 1996 SCMR 413 and observed that it is disturbing to note that in
this case petitioner No.2 had himself been guilty of making irregular
appointment on what has been described "purely temporary basis". The
petitioners have now turned around and terminated his service due to
irregularity and violation of rule 10(2) (ibid). The premise, to say the least, is
utterly untenable. The case of the petitioners was not that the respondent
lacked requisite qualification. The petitioners themselves appointed him on
temporary basis in violation of the rules for reasons best known to them.
Now they cannot be allowed to take benefit of their lapses in order to
terminate the services of the respondent merely because they have
themselves committed irregularity in violating the procedure governing the
appointments."
6. It is settled proposition of law that judgment of this Court is binding on each and
every organ of the State by virtue of Articles 189-190 of the Constitution. It is
settled law that Judge must wear all the laws of the country on the sleeve of his robe
and failure of the counsel as to properly advise him is not a complete excuse in the
matter as law laid down by this Court in Muhammad Sarwar's case PLD 1969 SC
278.
7. The learned Service Tribunal had decided the case in violation of the dictum laid
down by this Court in the aforesaid judgments and even without perusing the record
after application of mind as evident from the operative part of the order of
department dated 4-7-2003 reproduced herein above. Mere reading of the impugned
judgment, it is crystal clear that the learned Service Tribunal had decided the case
without application of mind which is condition precedent in view of law laid down
by this Court in G.M. Sikdar's case PLD 1970 SC 158 and Mollah Ejahar Ali's case
PLD 1970 SC 173.
Page No. 4 of 5
8. In view of what has been discussed above this appeal is accepted and the
impugned judgment of the Service Tribunal is set aside and the respondents are
directed to reinstate the appellant without back benefit of any salary as she did not
perform any duties. However, she is entitled other benefits in accordance with law,
if any.
M.H./I-21/SC Appeal allowed.
Page No. 5 of 5
2010 P L C (C.S.) 920
[Karachi High Court]
Before Munib Ahmed Khan, Sajjad Ali Shah and Khalid Ali Z. Qazi, JJ
Dr. MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR YOUSFANI
Versus
SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION/CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF

REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and 6 others
Constitutional Petitions Nos.D-753, 1332, 1412, 1605, 1673, 1686, 1709, 1743,
1747, 1759, 1767, 1800, 1852, 1894, 1895, 1896, 1897, 1930, 1946, 1948, 1956,
1957, 1971, 2014, 2073, 2118, 2123. 2124, 2152, 2333, 2411 of 2006; C.Ps. Nos. D-
95, 274, 332, 339, 340, 405, 473, 498, 636, 537, 539, 563, 574, 606, 617, 618, 619,
709, 740, 754, 813, 815, 824, 865, 1086, 1320, 1331, 1505, 1772, 1817, 1905, 1926,
1943, 2012, 2013, 2145, 2307, 2464, 2564, of 2007 and C.P. No.D-259 of 2008,
decided on 30th March, 2009.
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)---
----S.2-A---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.189, 190 & 199---Constitutional

petition---Abating of proceedings---Judgment passed by Supreme Court---
Implementation---Plea raised by petitioners was that after passing of judgment by
Supreme Court whether appeals / proceedings filed by petitioners before Service
Tribunal had abated automatically or judicial order was needed---Validity---Keeping
in view the difficulties pointed out by petitioners, High Court allowed thirty days'
time to petitioners to approach Service Tribunal for making application for judicial
order on their appeals---High Court directed that present petitions were considered to
be pending and would be taken up after the decision from Service Tribunal was
filed---Order accordingly.
2007 PLC (C.S.) 1046; 2008 SCMR 402; PLD 2006 SC 602; SBLR 2008 Tribunal
133 and 2009 PLC (C.S.) 497 ref.
Khalid Javed Khan, Farogh Naseem, Asim Iqbal, Moin Azhar Siddiqui, Manzoor
Ahmed, Rana Ikramullah, Qazi Abdul Hameed, Khalid Javed, M.M. Tariq, Khalid
Page No. 1 of 1
Imran, Latif Saghar, R.F. Virjee, Jaffer Hussain, Niaz Ahmed, Masood Mukhtar
Naqvi, Latifur Rehman Serwary, Muhammad Yaqoob, Shahkeel Ahmed, Mansoor-
ul-Haq Solangi, Sohail Zafar Bhatti, Syed Toqeer Hassan, Islam Hussain,
Muhamamd Tasleem, Muhammad Asif Khan, Khilji Bilal, Muhammad Azam Khan,
Ghulam QadirJatoi, Muhammad Junaid Farooqui, Dilawar Hussain, Ainuddin Khan,
Advocates for the Parties.
ORDER
MUNIB AHMED KHAN, J.---This Full Bench has been constituted to determine
following questions:
(i) Whether the employees/workers, proceeded against and punished under

the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 (as amended)
can still invoke the jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal or in view of
judgment of a Full Bench of this honourable Court reported as 2007 PLC
(C.S.) 1046, remedy, if any, is by way of Constitution petitions or Civil Suits;
(ii) What is the effect of judgment of honourable Supreme Court reported as

2008 SCMR 402 on petitions/proceedings pending since 2006/2007 having
filed the same on the basis of judgments reported as PLD 2006 SC 602
and/or whether abatment of Appeals/proceedings had been automatic
(without any formal orders) or whether a judicial order still would be needed
the Tribunal.
Learned counsel appearing for the parties state that the question No.1 is already
pending before honourable Supreme Court in some petitions, therefore, this Court
and the parties as well may wait for a decision in this respect. We have also seen a
judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal reported as SBLR 2008 Tribunal 133 as
well as an order passed by the honourable Supreme Court in different Civil Appeals
including Civil Appeal No.1555 of 2006. The SBLR case shows that the Tribunal
has started taking jurisdiction in respect to matters touching question No.1. In the
reported judgment, the Tribunal has specifically mentioned in para 19 of its
judgment as follows:
"19. The jurisdiction of this Tribunal shall however, continue to be available

to a person aggrieved of an order under the Removal from Service (Special
Powers) Ordinance, 2000 as provided under sections 10 and 11 ibid. The
reason for this is not far to seek as the RSO, 2000 does not use the term "civil
servant" but only refers to a person in Government Service or a person in
corporation service and allows any such persons if aggrieved of an order
under the said Ordinance, to approach this Tribunal in accordance with law."
The observation of the honourable Supreme Court in this context in the relevant
matter is as under:--
Page No. 2 of 1
"Both the sides have admitted that after passing the impugned judgments, the
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad had taken a somewhat different view by
entertaining the service appeals, involving the department penalties imposed
under the provisions of Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance
XVII of 2000.
In this view of the matter, these appeals are allowed. Impugned judgments
passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad are set aside.
Consequently, the appeals before the Service Tribunal in these cases shall be
deemed to be pending for a decision afresh, in accordance with law. No order
as to costs."
Anyhow, keeping in view the statement of learned counsel that the honourable
Supreme Court is already considering the question No.1, therefore this question to
be kept in waiting till the order by the honourable Supreme Court in this respect.
Question No.2.
As far as question No.2 is concerned, it is in respect to the abatement of the appeals

in terms of para 108(3) in the case reported as Muhammad Mubeen-us-Salam and
others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2006 SC 602, which is as follows:
108. The threadbare discussion on the subject persuades us to hold:
(1) ………………
(2) ………………
(3) The cases of the employees under section 2-A, STA, 1973, who do not fall
within the definition of civil servant as defined in section 2(1)(b) of the CSA,
shall have no remedy before the Service Tribunal, functioning under Article
212 of the Constitution and they would be free to avail appropriate remedy.
It has been observed that after the judgment of Mubeen-us-Salam's case, certain
appeals were abated before the FST and in some of these appeals Registrar of the
Tribunal communicated stereo type order which was challenged before the
honourable Supreme Court, hence a judgment reported as 2008 SCMR 402 was
passed with the following observations:--
"We are not inclined to agree with the submission of learned counsel for the
Page No. 3 of 1
respondent because separate order is required to be passed in every case by
the Service Tribunal after providing opportunity to the parties keeping in view
the observations made by the Court in the judgment relied upon."
Following the above order of the honourable Supreme Court, the Tribunal has started
passing judicial order with the signature of Presiding Officer of the Tribunal.
The learned counsel submit that there are several appeals which are not
maintainable before Service Tribunal keeping in view Mubeen-us-Salam's case but if
the appeals are dismissed on the ground that judicial order from FST is required or
other directions are issued then the appellants will suffer on account of limitation
whereas this Court has held in 2009 PLC (C.S.) 497 that no separate order by the
Tribunal is necessary and the directions in para. 108(3) in Mubeen-us-Salam's case
will be suffice.
Against the above High Court reported judgment 2009 PLC (C.S.) 497, honourable
Supreme Court has passed order in C.P.No.1467 of 2008, whereby the judgment of
the High Court has been maintained.
Keeping in view the difficulties which are being pointed out as well as pendency of
the petitions and above authorities, we are of the view that thirty days' time from
today be given to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal for making an application
for judicial order on their appeals. Order accordingly. The petitioners to file such
order in their petitions after same is passed by FST while the petitions will be
considered to be pending and will be taken up after the decision from the Tribunal is
filed. It is also expected from the FST that the issue will be expedited and orders
will be passed as early as possible.
Some counsel have pointed out that there are cases which are not affected by the
above question and they have wrongly been fixed. It is ordered that cases which are
not subject-matter of the above question be placed before the relevant Benches as
they were.
Both the referred questions are answered/decided as above.
M.H./M-80/K Order accordingly.
Page No. 4 of 1
Page No. 1 of 1
Page No. 1 of 1
Page No. 1 of 1
Page No. 1 of 1
Page No. 1 of 1
Page No. 1 of 1
Page No. 1 of 1
Page No. 1 of 1

Binding Effect of Supreme Court

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Binding Effect of Supreme Court

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2011 P L C (C.S.

[Sindh High Court]

Before Sajjad Ali Shah and Shahid Anwar Bajwa, JJ

ABDUL HUSSAIN KORAI and 82 others

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary Government of Sindh and 2 others

Constitutional Petition No.D-1302 of 2010, decided on 7th October, 2010.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan---

----Provincial Legislature---No Province could be obliged to make a particular provision

(c) Civil service---

----Contract employee released upon completion of project---Validity---Such release

Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Petitioners.

Nariandas C. Motiani for Respondent No.2.

Adnan Karim, A.A.-G.

Date of hearing: 5th October, 2010.

(2) Learned counsel referred to newspaper clipping (Dawn of June 7, 2009) to

7. Mr. Adnan Karim, learned A.A.-G. relied upon Government of Balochistan,

"He is right in stating that, in law, there is no concept of reinstatement of an ad

S.A.K./A-114/K Petition dismissed.

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Mian Shakirullah Jan and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, JJ

DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER (M.E.E.), LAHORE and another---

Civil Appeal No. 592 of 2006, decided on 2nd October, 2009.

(a) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---

----Rr. 5 & 6---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.212(3)---Leave to appeal was granted by

(b) Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973---

---Rr. 5 & 6---Removal from service---Imposing of major penalty---Concealing of facts---

(c) Constitution of Pakistan---

(d) Administration of justice---

----Application of correct law---Improper advice of counsel---Effect---Judge must wear

Muhammad Sarwar's case PLD 1969 SC 278 rel.

Mian Mahmood Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 2nd October, 2009.

"Whereas Mst. Raheela Arjumand, SST/Headmistress, Government Shah Din

(i) Zulfiqar Ali's case (2006 SCMR 678)

(ii) Abdul Waheed's case (2004 SCMR 303)

(iii) Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P.'s case (1996 SCMR 413)

(iv) Abdul Hafeez Abbasi's case (2002 SCMR 1034)

M.H./I-21/SC Appeal allowed.

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

Present: Raja Fayyaz Ahmed and Ch. Ijaz Ahmed, JJ

SECTION OFFICER, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, FINANCE

Civil Appeal No.381-L of 2009, decided on 5th April, 2010.

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---

(b) Punjab Civil Services Pension Rules, 1955---

----R. 3.5, Note-I---ESTACODE, 2003 Edition (Punjab), page 690---Leave preparatory

(c) Administration of justice---

(d) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---

----Arts. 189 & 190---Judgment of Supreme Court---Binding effect---Judgment of

Muhammad Iqbal's case 1984 SCMR 334 rel.

Muhammad Hanif Khattana, Additional Advocate-General for Appellants.

Mian Shah Abbas, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 5th April, 2010.

2. Respondent submitted an application under the subject `request for cancellation of

"Learned Law Officer, on merits, submitted that the respondent voluntarily

4. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that impugned judgment is not in

PUNJAB ESTACODE, RULE 3.5 NOTE-I:

M.H./S-17/SC Appeal allowed.

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF EDUCATION through Secretary

Civil Petition No.1587 of 2008, decided on 4th August, 2009.

Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)---

----S. 10---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3)---Deputation---Repatriation to

Date of hearing: 4th August, 2009.