1) 236/2017 Const. P. Tarique Hussain Umrani (Petitioner) V/S P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Matter:Deceased Quota
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro
Order Date: 30-APR-25
2) 151/2023 Criminal Appeal Inayat (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Matter:Imprisonment(More than 5 Upto 10 years)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Fiaz Ul Hassan Shah(Author)
Order Date: 29-APR-25
3) 622/2024 Cr.Misc. Mst Muskan & Another (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Matter:561-A Cr.P.C
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Fiaz Ul Hassan Shah(Author)
Order Date: 25-APR-25
4) 4545/2018 Const. P. Kaleem Ahmed Siddiqui (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
The core argument is that the 1999 Move-over Policy entitles an employee to the next higher scale one year after reaching their maximum pay. Reaching the maximum is presented as an independent criterion, not subordinate to the eight-year service requirement. Thus, employees at their maximum should not be denied move-over solely for not completing eight years, as this is an alternative condition intended to prevent pay stagnation without promotion. In this case, the petitioner, who retired on 24th May 2018, claims SVP move-over eligibility from 01/01/2017. He reached his VP scale's maximum on 01/01/2016 (promoted 01/04/2015), and the ZTBL policy allows a move-over one year after reaching maximum post-promotion. However he was simply denied his moveover based on his recovery performance being as Manager in the year 2016-2017, which prima facie is against th merit based on the anology that the employee is entitiiled to next higher scale one year after reaching maximum pay whereas petitioner reached his VP scalces maximum in the year 2016, however the denial is not based on merit, rather based on recovery, which can not be made an excuse to deny the benefit of move over policy by adding the provision in agenda item No.30 in Clause a and b which is conditional criteria cannot supersede the merit, thus the declining the request of the petitioner is not in consonance with the basic spirit of the policy.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Munir Ahmed Malik(ADVO-14377-SBC-KHS),Deputy Attorney General(),Irfan Mir Halepota(ADVO-9555-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 25-APR-25
5) 179/2022 Cr.Rev MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE S/IO MUNSIF KHAN (Applicant) V/S SHP MP.S DEFENCE KHI & ORS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:AGAINST ORDER
Advocates:Muhammad Safdar(ADVO-4807-SBC-KHI),Roheela Nazar(ADVO-8378-SBC-KHI),Syed Samiullah Shah(ADVO-9031-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khalid Hussain Shahani(Author)
Order Date: 25-APR-25
6) 1634/2019 Const. P. Muhammad Amjad (Petitioner) V/S FED Of Pakistan & Other (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Matter:Against Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Fiaz Ul Hassan Shah(Author)
Order Date: 24-APR-25
7) 1979/2013 Const. P. Abdul Razzak Memon (Petitioner) V/S National Bank of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
At first glance, the previously reached settlement between the parties cannot be revisited now. However, the court order dated December 8, 2011, and the terms of their compromise agreement, which has become final, must be strictly followed. Therefore, attempting to appoint the Petitioner to a new category is unwarranted. As the Petitioner, formerly a Labour Inspector (Shops & Establishment) Zone 'C' Hyderabad, was relieved from his duties specifically to join the National Bank of Pakistan under this compromise (endorsed by this Court on December 8, 2011 in Constitutional Petition No. D-106/2010), as such his prior service must be taken into account for pension, pay determination, and other employment benefits in terms of Civil Service Regulation (CSR) Article 371-A(i) as well as in terms of compromise application. on the aforesaid proposition, we are guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Nafees Ahmad V/S Government of Pakistan and others, 2000 SCMR 1864, Ch. Muhammad Azim V/S The Chief Engineer, Irrigation and others, 1991 SCMR 255, Chairman, Central Board of Revenue and others V/S Nawab Khan and others, 2010 SCMR 1399. And the case is reported as (2021 SCMR 1546). Besides, this protection is also provided under Fundamental Rule 22-A.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 23-APR-25
8) 3393/2017 Const. P. Manzoor Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
We understand that Pakistan Steel Mills has incurred substantial financial losses exceeding Rs. 100 billion, with total liabilities surpassing Rs. 110 billion. Given this precarious financial situation, directing PSM to grant the retired officers' claimed financial benefits under the promotion policy 2009 in these petitions is not considered appropriate at this time for the reasons discussed above in terms of the decision passed in the aforesaid proceedings.
8. Based on the reasoning outlined above, the relief requested by the petitioners cannot be granted. Consequently, these petitions are dismissed as not maintainable, along with any pending applications.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Deputy Attorney General(),Ameer Uddin(ADVO-10948-SBC-KHI),Sanaullah Noor Ghauri(ADVO-4123-SBC-KHI),Shoaib Mohiuddin Ashraf(ADVO-4396-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 23-APR-25
9) 4604/2017 Const. P. Nazar Muhammad Gad (Petitioner) V/S Federation Of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
With the petitioner's subsequent retirement, the challenged action has become ineffective. Therefore, this petition needs to be disposed of with the understanding that the petitioner's deferment is no longer applicable, and he is entitled to proforma promotion in line with promotions granted to his juniors, as per Rule 13 of The Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation, and Seniority) Rules, 1975. This petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Sharafuddin(ADVO-616-SBC-KHP),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 23-APR-25
10) 156/2024 Const. P. Islam Khalti & Others (Petitioner) V/S Manik Khan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:
Fraud and Misrepresentation
Read more Matter:
Against Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author)
Order Date: 23-APR-25
11) 966/2022 Const. P. Aijaz Ali Abro (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:
Pension Benefits Qualifying length of service.
Read more Matter:
Regular Service
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author)
Order Date: 23-APR-25
12) 749/2024 Const. P. Ali Murtaza (Petitioner) V/S Govt: of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:
Salary of Probationer Employee
Read more Matter:
RELEASING OF SALARY
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author)
Order Date: 23-APR-25
13) 7422/2019 Const. P. Justice (R) Abdul Waheed Siddiqui (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:PENSION
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed
Order Date: 23-APR-25
14) 113/2019 Const. P. Allah Dino Jakhro (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:PROPERTY MATTER
Advocates:Jan Muhammad(ADVO-186-SBC-THT),Syed Aijaz Hussain Shirazi(ADVO-8688-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Soomar Samoo(ADVO-34-SBC-THT),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed, Hon'ble Justice Ms. Sana Akram Minhas(Author)
Order Date: 22-APR-25
15) 1556/2025 Const. P. Sufyan Rasheed and Others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION
Advocates:Syed Jamal Uddin Bukhari(ADVO-14803-SBC-KHI),Syed Ahsan Imam Rizvi(ADVO-11801-SBC-KHI),Syed Haider Imam(ADVO-8703-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed, Hon'ble Justice Ms. Sana Akram Minhas(Author)
Order Date: 22-APR-25
16) 6609/2017 Const. P. Naved Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S Fed of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Without touching the merits of the case and to resolve the encroachment on the public road as agitated by the parties, the Senior Member of the Board of Revenue (BOR), the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Korangi Creek, Karachi, and the head of the Anti-Encroachment Force Karachi are directed to jointly address this matter. They shall conduct a hearing involving all relevant parties to determine if an encroachment exists on the public road. If encroachment is confirmed, an immediate campaign must be launched to remove it from public pathways in Bhitai Colony, Karachi as well as from the relevant area. This entire process must be completed within three months. These petitions are disposed of accordingly with pending application(s).
Read more Matter:
ENCROACHMENT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 22-APR-25
17) 8715/2017 Const. P. Ehsanullah Khan (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
The initial impression is that Order II Rule 2 of the CPC applies in the present case for the reason that the petitioner's complaint of wrongful denial of promotion to BS-20 seems to be a single cause of action. This rule required him to seek all related remedies, including proforma promotion to both BS-20 and BS-21, in his earlier petition (C.P. NO. D-1945 OF 2013). Consequently, he is now barred from claiming a relief not granted previously. Furthermore, even if the petitioner was senior to the BS-21 promotee, that promotion stands if the Selection Board found the junior officer more meritorious. To claim proforma promotion to BS-21, the petitioner must prove not only his eligibility and the injustice of his BS-20 non-promotion but also that he was at least as meritorious as the promoted junior. This is because BS-21 is a selection post where merit, not seniority, is the paramount factor in promotions, ensuring the most capable individuals are elevated.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Naila Tabassum(ADVO-8444-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 22-APR-25
18) 270/2023 Const. P. Farooque Alias Ayaz Ali Jamali (Petitioner) V/S Mst: Asma Jamali & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:
A.F.R
Recovery of Dowry Article
Read more Matter:
Against Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author)
Order Date: 22-APR-25
19) 468/2019 Const. P. Abdul Hussain Soomro (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:
Deceased Quota
Read more Matter:
Deceased Quota
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author)
Order Date: 22-APR-25
20) 157/2021 R.A (Civil Revision) M/s Kotri Roller Flour Mills (Applicant) V/S Haji Mehfooz (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Matter:Against Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Hasan (Akber)(Author)
Order Date: 22-APR-25
21) 1216/2016 Const. P. Mohammad Azam Jalbani (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
The learned Assistant Advocate General (AAG) has informed the court that Mr. Muhammad Azam Jalbani was indeed promoted to Superintending Engineer (BS-19) as per the notification dated April 21, 2017. Based on this submission, the court has observed that the initial matter concerning petitioner's promotion appears to be resolved. The court has further directed the department to review the matter, considering that significant time has passed since 2016. If the issue was not resolved previously, the department is directed to resolve it in accordance with the law within a period of three months. Consequently, the petition stand is disposed of under these terms.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Haider Waheed(ADVO-10131-SBC-KHE),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
22) 1725/2015 Const. P. Muhammad Younis and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
In line with the Supreme Court's directive in Suo Moto Case No. 15 of 2010, this matter is to be addressed by the provincial government. The Chief Secretary is directed to seek the necessary approval from the competent authority to determine whether the petitioners' employment will be regularized according to the law or if they will remain on contract until retirement. This decision must be made within three months after hearing the petitioners' perspective. Consequently, this petition is now disposed of under these specified conditions.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Assitant Adv.Gen. Sindh(AssAdvGen),Zamir Hussain Ghumro(ADVO-10861-SBC-KHI),Naeem Iqbal(ADVO-11353-SBC-KHI),Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah(ADVO-12574-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
23) 4281/2016 Const. P. Dr. Sarfaraz Ahmed and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Generally, a court should not readily interfere with an evaluation conducted by an Expert Committee, as the court typically lacks the specialized knowledge required for such assessments. It is an established legal principle that, within its designated powers and authority, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) must evaluate each promotion proposal individually, in accordance with the law. In instances where a disciplinary case or criminal prosecution against a civil/government servant remains unresolved even two years after the initial DPC meeting deferred its findings regarding that individual, the appointing authority may consider granting an ad-hoc promotion, as per legal provisions.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Imtiaz Ali Solangi(ADVO-15225-SBC-KHS),Mansoorul Haque Solangi(ADVO-6746-SBC-KHI),Syed Shoa-un-Nabi(ADVO-2865HLC-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
24) 5627/2016 Const. P. Muhammad Kamaluddin (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Previously, the private respondent (now relevant to the current petitioner's seniority claim) sought promotion as an Assistant Accountant BPS-15. This court, noting the official respondents' commitment to consider the promotion in an upcoming DPC within six months, disposed of that petition. Now, the current petitioner requests the court to retroactively correct his initial BPS to BPS-15 from his appointment date and place him above the private respondent in the seniority list. He also seeks to prevent the promotion of any junior employee to Assistant Accounts Officer BPS-16 until his case is resolved. The respondents submitted that the private respondent's BPS-15 appointment followed a different advertisement with distinct criteria and that the petitioner's promotion to BPS-15 was through a DPC. They also clarified that a later BPS-13 to BPS-14 upgrade was not retroactive. The private respondent asserted his seniority in the BPS-15 cadre, which the official respondents claimed the petitioner had never challenged before. They alleged the petitioner's current action is driven by ulterior motives following the private respondent's earlier petition and cite a previous court order (dated 20.4.2017 in C.P D No. 3006 2016) in their favor. This court concludes that this seniority issue needs to be resolved by the competent authority of the respondents after hearing both parties within three months. This petition stands disposed of in these terms.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Zulfiqar Ali(ADVO-12489-SBC-KHI),Deputy Attorney General(),In Person(INP),Muhammad Ali Lakhani(ADVO-13611-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
25) 6400/2017 Const. P. Safia Bano (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
In conclusion, while the petitioner has acquired educational qualifications that might make her eligible to apply for a teaching position, it is unlikely that there exists a direct promotion rule that allows a Lab Attendant to automatically be promoted to a High School Teacher. Her best course of action would be to look out for and apply to relevant teaching vacancies advertised by the Sindh government, provided she meets the stipulated criteria for those posts.
7. This petition stands dismissed with pending application(s).
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Muhammad Kamran Mirza(ADVO-11996-SBC-KHI),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
26) 6595/2017 Const. P. Ms. Khizra Saeed (Petitioner) V/S Fed of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
The regularization of contractual employees through writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is contingent upon its permissibility under existing law and a universally applicable policy decision, provided the organization in question falls under the High Court's writ jurisdiction. This principle was also upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Faraz Ahmed vs. Federation of Pakistan (2022 SCMR 1680). The Supreme Court specifically established that contractual employees do not possess an inherent right to regularization. However, their regularization may be considered based on their fitness, suitability, and the relevant laws, rules, and regulations of their respective department. An automatic right to regularization does not exist unless explicitly provided by law, and employees seeking it must demonstrate a statutory basis for their claim; otherwise, relief cannot be granted.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Kafil Ahmed Abbasi(ADVO-7764-SBC-KHI),Altaf Hussain(ADVO-12224-SBC-KHI),Naeem Iqbal(ADVO-11353-SBC-KHI),Faizan Hussain Memon(ADVO-15395-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
27) 6920/2016 Const. P. Owais Ali and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
The respondents have established a committee, including representatives from the Local Government & HTP Department and the Secretary of HDA, to examine the cases of former HDA contract, work-charge, and daily wage employees, in light of a Supreme Court order from November 29, 2023, and the Sindh Regularization Act of 2013. While the petitioners request a resolution of their petition per the Supreme Court's directive, the learned Assistant Advocate General (AAG) submitted that their case does not fall within the scope of that Supreme Court decision and thus cannot be decided on those terms, praying for the dismissal of the petition. Regardless, let this matter first be referred to the Secretary of the Local Government Department to scrutinize the petitioners' case. If their case falls outside the purview of the newly formed committee, the petitioners must be granted a hearing, and a decision should be reached within three months.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
28) 805/2016 Const. P. Sarfaraz Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S N.B.P and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
The core issue is whether the Petitioner fulfilled the mandatory five-year service requirement with the respondent bank from his appointment date of March 20, 2010, until his termination letter dated January 19, 2016. Although clause 6.2 of the appointment letter stipulated a five-year service period, which appeared to have been completed by March 2015, this is rendered complex by the regularization of the Petitioner's unauthorized absence from September 8, 2014, to February 12, 2015 (258 days), as unpaid Extraordinary Leave. Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted his resignation on April 27, 2015, to which the respondent bank replied on May 8, 2015, requesting the settlement of liabilities. Given that the five-year term was completed during this period, it seems this clause should not have been invoked. Instead, the Petitioner's resignation could have been accepted. The respondent bank's inaction in this regard, persistently demanding liability clearance under clause 6.2, demonstrates a lack of consideration, ultimately forcing the Petitioner to file the present petition on February 10, 2016. Consequently, this petition is allowed, and the respondent bank is hereby directed to address the Petitioner's resignation and issue a decision within two months from the date of this order and if need to pursue any autstandig liabilities before the court of competent jurisdicition. The contested orders are accordingly overturned.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Deputy Attorney General(),Saadat Hassan(ADVO-9057-SBC-KHI),Malik Khushhal Khan(ADVO-4812-SBC-KHI),Ahmed Ali Ghumro(ADVO-793-SBC-SUK)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
29) 1542/2025 Const. P. Anam Salman Jamali and Others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Petitions challenging the 2 years active practice eligibility requirement for appointment as civil judge / judicial magistrate.
Read more Matter:
AGAINST AMENDMENT Advocates:Muhammad Haseeb Jamali(ADVO-10211-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Shahrukh Siddiqui(ADVO-22718-SBC-KHC),Danish Rashid(ADVO-13031-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho
Order Date: 21-APR-25
30) 71/2022 Cr.Rev Zulfiqar Ali @ Bhutto & Others (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Matter:Against Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jan Ali Junejo(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
31) 586/2024 Cr.Bail Jongal Khan @ Babal Korejo and Another (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:
Case calling for further inquiry, pre-arrest bail granted
Read more Matter:
BAIL BEFORE ARREST
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
32) 358/2025 Cr.Bail AZHAR ALI S/O ABDUL RASHEED (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:BAIL AFTER ARREST
Advocates:Khalid Rahim(ADVO-9042-SBC-KHE),Daniyal Muhammad Hussain(ADVO-22224-SBC-KHC),Muhammad Kamran Mirza(ADVO-11996-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khalid Hussain Shahani(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
33) 126/2025 Cr.Bail Ali Dost Jhangwani (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:
Case calling for further inquiry, pre-arrest bail granted
Read more Matter:
BAIL BEFORE ARREST
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
34) 34/2024 R.A (Civil Revision) Mst. Ruqiya Qureshi and Others (Applicant) V/S Akhtiar Ali Sangi and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:
Section 44 Transfer of Property Act. (Joint Possession of Dwelling House)
Read more Matter:
Impugned Judgement
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-25
35) 359/2025 Cr.Bail ADIL KHASKHELI S/O SHAFI MUHAMMAD (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:BAIL AFTER ARREST
Advocates:Muhammad Yousif(ADVO-18584-SBC-KHE),Muhammad Dauod(ADVO-10638-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jan Ali Junejo(Author)
Order Date: 20-APR-25
36) 5575/2016 Const. P. Syed Sajjad Ali Shah (Petitioner) V/S Chief Sect: and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
The consistent stance of the Supreme Court is that contractual employees possess no inherent right to regularization. Regularization can only be considered based on fitness, suitability, and applicable departmental laws and rules. Cases like Khushal Khan Khattak University v. Jabran Ali Khan (2021 SCMR 977), Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Raheel Ali Gohar (2020 SCMR 2068), and others reiterate that regularization requires a legal and statutory basis. Contractual employees serve at the pleasure of their master and cannot seek reinstatement for wrongful termination, only compensation through a competent court. Chairman NADRA v. Muhammad Ali Shah (2017 SCMR 1979) clarifies that contractual employees are governed by their contract terms until regularized and generally cannot invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that temporary, contract, or project employees lack a vested right to regularization unless their initial appointment followed regular recruitment rules against sanctioned vacant posts, which is not the case here. Vice-Chancellor, Bacha Khan University v. Tanveer Ahmad (2022 PLC (C.S.) 85), Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998), Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman (2022 SCMR 406), and Deputy Director Finance and Administration FATA v. Dr. Lal Marjan (2022 SCMR 566) all decisions confirm that regularization is not a vested right but requires a statutory basis, which is absent in this instance. A contractual employee seeking regularization must demonstrate this statutory basis, as relief cannot be granted solely on the principle of "similarly placed persons."
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Abdul Samad(ADVO-9460-SBC-KHI),Assitant Adv.Gen. Sindh(AssAdvGen)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 18-APR-25
37) 1524/2016 Const. P. Raees Mohammad (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
At the outset, we address the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The maintainability of a writ petition against the Respondent-Bank is supported by the Supreme Court's judgments in Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited, etc vs. Said Rehman & others (2013 SCMR 642) and Muhammad Rafiullah & others vs. Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited & another (2018 SCMR 598). Based on these precedents, we conclude that this Petition falls within the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and can be heard and decided on its merits.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Munir Ahmed Malik(ADVO-14377-SBC-KHS),M/S. SAATHI M. ISHAQUE LAW ASSOCIATES(FIRM-181-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Asadullah Shaikh(ADVO-13708-SBC-KHI),Asif Ali(ADVO-20048-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 17-APR-25
38) 4242/2017 Const. P. Niaz Muhammad (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Given the AAG's statement regarding the petitioners' current pay scales (BPS-17 for #1-6, BPS-16 upgraded to BPS-17 for #7-13 & #15-18, and BPS-11 upgraded to BPS-17 for #14) and the cancellation of prior upgrade orders under the 2020 Rules, this court finds itself unable to order the petitioners' post upgradation under Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Muhammad Kamran Mirza(ADVO-11996-SBC-KHI),Syed Shoa-un-Nabi(ADVO-2865HLC-SBC-KHI),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 17-APR-25
39) 4769/2014 Const. P. Muhammad Kausar Noor (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Drawing an analogy from the present situation and, more importantly, guided by the principles established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v. Government of Punjab and others (2003 SCMR 291) and Shahzad Shahmir and others v Government of Sindh & others (2021 SCMR 824). The Dr. Naveeda Tufail case shows that the Federal Government regularized ad hoc employees through the Public Service Commission. While the Petitioners, as provincial contract employees, cannot automatically claim this, Article 25 of the Constitution calls for equal treatment. In Naveeda Tufail, the Supreme Court recognized a legitimate expectation of regularization for Punjab's ad hoc lecturers due to continuous ad hoc appointments. The Supreme Court directed the Punjab government to regularize them via the Punjab Public Service Commission, following the Federal model with some concessions, ensuring separate consideration from direct recruits and non-retention of unsuitable candidates. This case highlights the need for fairness and the Public Service Commission's role in regularization.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Mansoorul Haque Solangi(ADVO-6746-SBC-KHI),Zubair Ahmed Rajput(ADVO-7308-SBC-KHI),Imtiaz Ali(ADVO-1474-SBC-KHP),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 17-APR-25
40) 1039/2014 Const. P. Afghan Ali @ Oghan Ali (Petitioner) V/S Chief Executive Officer SEPCO Sukkur and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:
Reinstatement in Service
Read more Matter:
Reinstate
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author)
Order Date: 17-APR-25
41) 143/2025 Const. P. Izhar Ali Dhamraho (Petitioner) V/S CEO SEPCO Sukkur & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:
Pagri system in allotment of Government Accommodation.
Read more Matter:
Vacation Of Quarters
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author)
Order Date: 17-APR-25
42) 1497/2023 Const. P. Baqaullah Rajput (Petitioner) V/S Syed Muhammad Hyder Zaidi & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Matter:Against Order / Civil Rev:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Fiaz Ul Hassan Shah
Order Date: 17-APR-25
43) 724/2025 Cr.Bail ARIF GUL S/O GUL KHAN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:BAIL AFTER ARREST
Advocates:Kamran Ali(ADVO-17557-SBC-KHE),Spl. Prosecutor Sindh (ANF)(SpPANF),Aneela Rafique(ADVO-21859-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khalid Hussain Shahani(Author)
Order Date: 17-APR-25
44) 138/2017 Const. P. Syed Zeeshan Ali (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:SERVICE
Advocates:Dy Attorney General(DAG),Naeem Iqbal(ADVO-11353-SBC-KHI),Altamash Arab(ADVO-14079-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 17-APR-25
45) 105/2020 Const. P. Muhib Ali (Petitioner) V/S Khalid Hussain Solangi and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Matter:Against Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author)
Order Date: 16-APR-25
46) 6753/2014 Const. P. Habib Ahmed Siddiqui (Petitioner) V/S Province Of Sindh and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
At this point, the petitioner's counsel stated that the sole remaining matter for resolution concerns the petitioner's promotion from BS-8 to BS-15 during his service period before his retirement as he was eligible and fit for promotion, however that was delayed leading him to retire, as such he is entitled for proforma promotion. This specific aspect of the case requires review by the respondents' competent authority within three months. This review should be conducted after hearing the petitioner's perspective, in accordance with the principles established by the Supreme Court in the cases of Capital Development Authority v Shabbir Hussain & others (2022 SCMR 627) and The Chairman Central Board of Revenue vs Muhammad Mlook (1999 SCMR 1540). This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Usman Tufail Shaikh(ADVO-8304-SBC-KHI),Shamshad Ali(ADVO-19351-SBC-KHS),Dhani Bakhsh(ADVO-14857-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 16-APR-25
47) 17/2025 Const. P. Sadaf Gul & Others (Petitioner) V/S Sain Bux & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:
Right of Fair Trial
Read more Matter:
Against Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author)
Order Date: 16-APR-25
48) 20/2025 Criminal Miscelleneous Saqib Hussain Soomro (Applicant) V/S Badaruddin Soomro (Applicant)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Matter:Against Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jan Ali Junejo(Author)
Order Date: 16-APR-25
49) 362/2023 Criminal Miscelleneous Salman Shaikh (Appellant) V/S SHO PS Taluka Larkana and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Matter:22 A-B
Advocates:Safdar Ali Bhutto(ADVO-185-SBC-LAR)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jan Ali Junejo(Author)
Order Date: 16-APR-25
50) 233/2025 Cr.Bail MUHAMMAD SHAHBAZ S/O MUHAMMAD UMAR (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:BAIL AFTER ARREST
Advocates:Arshad Hussain Bhutta(ADVO-16651-SBC-KHE),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Justice Ms. Tasneem Sultana(Author)
Order Date: 16-APR-25
51) 14/2016 Spl. Federal Excise Reference Application Alfalah GHP Investment Management Ltd. (Appellant) V/S Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:EXCISE & TAXATION
Advocates:KHALID ANWER & CO. ( A. K. BROHI ).(FIRM-157-SBC-KHI),Rashid Anwar(ADVO-6374-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Aqeel Qureshi(ADVO-7601-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Abdur Rahman(Author)
Order Date: 16-APR-25
52) 1327/2023 Const. P. Mst. Iffat Khattak and Another (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
It may be noted that although the Colleges in question are permanent and are required to have permanent status, the staff which is working therein is required to have permanent status. However, the respondents have created the relationship between the petitioners and Hadeed Welfare Trust as master and servant to avoid the regularization of their service, as the issue has already been set at naught by the judgment rendered by this Court in Hafeez Junejo???s case has been implemented in its letter and spirit. Additionally, the Hon???ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has already taken care of the issue of regularization of service of teaching staff in the aforesaid cases; as such, no further deliberation is required on our part.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE / REGULARIZATION Advocates:Dy Attorney General(DAG),Muhammad Ramzan(ADVO-7072-SBC-KHI),Tousif Mansoor Khan(ADVO-4342HLC-SBC-KHE)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 15-APR-25
53) 3666/2016 Const. P. Ahmed Nawaz and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Prisons Department has been pursuing the extension of these benefits to their teachers since the early 1990s, engaging in correspondence with the Home and Finance Departments. The matter remains "under process" with the government, with requests for information and financial implications being exchanged. The AAG requests the court to pass orders as deemed appropriate given the ongoing process, more particularly the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ali Azhar Khan Baluch case 2015 SCMR 456.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Syed Shoa-un-Nabi(ADVO-2865HLC-SBC-KHI),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 15-APR-25
54) 500/2024 Cr.Acq.A. MUHAMMAD QAISER MIRZA (Appellant) V/S NAZIM ALI PANHWAR & ORS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
Advocates:Muhammad Yousif(ADVO-18584-SBC-KHE),Haad Abid(ADVO-15656-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Dauod(ADVO-10638-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jan Ali Junejo
Order Date: 15-APR-25
55) 197/2020 Cr.Rev NOMAN S/O MUHAMMAD AKRAM (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
Advocates:Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan(),Ghulam Mustafa(ADVO-16267-SBC-KHE),Muhammad Shahid(ADVO-14140-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khalid Hussain Shahani(Author)
Order Date: 15-APR-25
56) 1749/2015 Const. P. Abdul Wahid and others (Petitioner) V/S Fed: of Pakistan and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
From 2010-2016, before formal FMU rules, petitioners submitted that Clause 31 of 2009 rules mandated applying State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) policies to their perks and privileges. They highlight that FMU adopted SBP's Monetized Salary Scales, approved by the PM, to attract market specialists with competitive packages. Petitioners contended that the same rationale necessitates implementing SBP's employee benefits at FMU, as SBP policies on appraisal, increments, TA/DA, and leave are already in effect for them. Despite lump-sum salaries upon appointment, governed by FMU rules (approved earlier than stated), petitioners were placed on SBP-aligned FMU scales. They pointed out that SBP officers at FMU received full SBP benefits per Rule 9(xiii). Thus, petitioners asserted that FMU Rule 31 entitled them to SBP's allowances, benefits, perks, and perquisites. Having served for several years without any issue, their non-confirmation contradicts FMU rules. They submitted that benefits like Employee Loans are limited to confirmed staff, causing frustration and resignations, including trained Analysts. Therefore, the petitioners requested that the application of SBP-related benefits under FMU Rule 31 from their appointment date and confirmation of their service as per FMU rules after completing probation.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Dy Attorney General(DAG),Zamir Hussain Ghumro(ADVO-10861-SBC-KHI),Naeem Iqbal(ADVO-11353-SBC-KHI),Kumail Sheerazee(ADVO-7387-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 14-APR-25
57) 2257/2015 Const. P. Muhammad Abbas Halepota (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
It is well-settled law that the right to claim a pension is a right connected with the tenure of service, which under the applicable pension rules has to be served by an employee to make him eligible for a pension. So, to claim a pension, the minimum qualifying service is the threshold that has to be crossed first, which would then entitle an employee to claim the pension.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Abdul Zubaid(ADVO-9493-SBC-KHI),Dy Attorney General(DAG),Abdul Salam(ADVO-9175-SBC-KHE)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 14-APR-25
58) 2792/2015 Const. P. Muhammad Asif (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
The foundation of the petitioner's case rests upon the precedent established in the matter of the Taimur Ali Khan case (C.P No. 2873 of 2012). In that instance, KPT proposed a Grade-II Traffic Supervisor position with seniority commencing from January 1, 2014, while declining to pay retroactive salary. Despite Taimur Ali Khan's initial request for arrears, this Court ultimately mandated his immediate assumption of the offered role. The present petitioner seeks analogous relief based on the findings of the division bench of this Court, as such deviation at this stage is almost impossible as the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court. Consequently, this petition can be resolved in the same manner, contingent upon the Chairman of KPT's impartial determination, following a hearing with the petitioner within a three-month time frame, that the petitioner's circumstances are comparable to those of the Taimur Ali Khan case as discussed supra.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 14-APR-25
59) 3459/2015 Const. P. Dr. Asma Sarwar Khan and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
It appears that much water has flown under the bridge since 2015 when the captioned petitions were filed to claim implementation of the order dated 15.04.2012 passed by this Court in C.P. No.D-215 of 2012. Without touching the merits of the cases, these petitions can be resolved by directing the respondent department to look into the issue involved in the petition if the petitioners??? cause still subsists. In the meanwhile, the respondents are mandated to advertise all job vacancies that have not been previously advertised. This would ensure that all eligible individuals have the opportunity to compete for these positions if vacant based purely on merit through a competitive process.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 14-APR-25
60) 4984/2015 Const. P. Piar ALi Jokhio (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Prima facie, this issue of late submission of Domicile and PRC, which prompted the respondents not to consider their candidature, needs to be looked into by the Secretary of Education after hearing both the petitioners within three months if the petitioners meet the requisite criteria as set out in the Teachers Recruitment Policy 2012; besides no other candidates having lower marks superseded the petitioners. A copy of this order shall be sent to Secretary Education for compliance. These petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
Read more Matter:
APPOINTMENT Advocates:Assitant Adv.Gen. Sindh(AssAdvGen),Irfan Mir Halepota(ADVO-9555-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 14-APR-25
61) 609/2015 Const. P. Dr. Tasnim Ahsan (Petitioner) V/S Govt Of Sindh and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
This petition is being disposed of with the understanding that the Sindh government's retirement notification dated December 29, 2014, has already been implemented, and the petitioner has received some pension benefits. These benefits will be subject to the final outcome of the review petition regarding the core issue, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court between the Federal and Sindh governments. Therefore, this court will not delve into the merits of that underlying controversy at this stage, as the matter is sub judice. However, the respondent Sindh government is directed to abide by the Supreme Court's decision on their review application. The consequences of the Supreme Court's ruling (whether the review succeeds or fails) will then follow. This petition is disposed of in these terms.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:M/S. MANSOOR AHMED KHAN & CO.(FIRM-106-SBC-KHI),Dy Attorney General(DAG),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 14-APR-25
62) 254/2019 Criminal Appeal Hakim Ali (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Matter:Life Imprisonment
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Riazat Ali Sahar(Author)
Order Date: 14-APR-25
63) 986/2014 Const. P. Mohammad Khursheed (Petitioner) V/S Fed. Of Pakistan and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
The petitioners are reportedly retired, and one has passed away during the case's proceedings, although no updated title reflecting this has been submitted. The core issue is the restoration of their basic pay to its pre-April 2012 level, particularly considering the cessation of Pakistan Steel's operations in 2015 and the retirement benefits already received by the petitioners. As such, no further cause of action appears to exist. The petition seems to have become ineffective ("infructuous") due to the closure of the Steel Mills after 2015. Therefore, remanding the case to Pakistan Steel or its affiliated company to re-fix the petitioners' pay after their retirement would be unproductive. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Muhammad Ramzan(ADVO-7072-SBC-KHI),Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan(),Asghar Ali(ADVO-4424-SBC-KHI),Dilawar Hussain(ADVO-4390-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 11-APR-25
64) 2616/2014 Const. P. Gulsher Siyal (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
CSR Article 420 states that a break in an officer's service typically forfeits their previous service, except in these situations: (a) Approved leave. (b) Unauthorized absence directly following approved leave, as long as their position isn't permanently filled. If it is, the prior service is lost. (c) Suspension is immediately followed by reinstatement (in the same or a different role), or if the officer dies, retires, or is retired while suspended. (d) Abolition of their position or job loss due to staff reduction. (e) Transfer by a competent authority to non-pensionable service within government control (voluntary resignation from pensionable service forfeits this). Transferring to a grant-in-aid school also leads to forfeiture. (f) Transfer to the President's household staff. (g) Time spent traveling between appointments when transferred by a competent authority or, for non-gazetted officers, with their previous head of office's consent. (h) Any other reason provided the break wasn't due to the government servant's fault or intentional action (like unauthorized absence, resignation, or removal). Besides CSR Regulation 423 provides automatic relaxation of six months in case of short service, if he or she, is entitled for pensionary benefits as such the question of latches are of no significance at this stage as the petitioner is requesting for continuation of his past service in different government departments.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Abdul Sattar Mughal(ADVO-2678-SBC-KHS),Waqar Muhammad Khan Lodhi(ADVO-2069-SBC-KHI),Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan()
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 11-APR-25
65) 175/2023 Const. P. Mirza Aslam baig (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Matter:AGAINST LETTER
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arbab Ali Hakro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Riazat Ali Sahar(Author)
Order Date: 11-APR-25
66) 86/2024 I. A Farhan Najeeb (Appellant) V/S Aslam Qureshi & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Matter:Against Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Hasan (Akber)(Author)
Order Date: 11-APR-25
67) 4/2018 II.A. Ismail Jatoi (Appellant) V/S Deputy Commissioner, Larkana & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Matter:Against Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jan Ali Junejo(Author)
Order Date: 11-APR-25
68) 76/2023 R.A (Civil Revision) Azizullah Soomro & another (Applicant) V/S Muzafar Hussain Soomro & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:
Recording of additional evidence during the Appellate proceeding.
Read more Matter:
Against Order
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author)
Order Date: 11-APR-25
69) 35/2018 Cr.Acq.A. Muhammad Siddique (Appellant) V/S Shamsuddin & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Matter:OTHER
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Miran Muhammad Shah, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Hasan (Akber)(Author)
Order Date: 11-APR-25
70) 1015/2014 Const. P. LT CDR (R) Dr. Muhammad Nawaz (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
The primary submissions of the petitioner is that the staff plot is a contractual entitlement. However, this raises the question of whether a Constitutional Petition is the appropriate legal avenue for an employee of a statutory corporation with non-statutory service rules to enforce the terms of those rules. Established service law dictates that if a statutory body's employee service conditions aren't governed by statute-based rules but by internal rules or instructions, their violation is generally not enforceable through constitutional jurisdiction and falls under the principle of master and servant. Here, the petitioner seeks enforcement of the DHA Service Rules 2008, which this Court cannot typically enforce via a Constitutional Petition. This position is supported by the Supreme Court of Pakistan's ruling in Pakistan Defense Officers Housing Authority vs. Mrs. Itrat Sajjad Khan and others (2017 SCMR 2010).
Read more Matter:
ALLOTMENT OF PLOT Advocates:Dy Attorney General(DAG),Naeem Iqbal(ADVO-11353-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-APR-25
71) 1333/2025 Const. P. Muhammad Anjum (Petitioner) V/S Govt of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
5. The Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of Sakhib Zar vs. M/s K-Electric Limited & others ( 2024 SCMR 1722) has held that even 10 days??? absence without leave is quantified as misconduct and on proving the guilt of the employee after fulfilling the requisite formalities envisaged under the law, and that could not be modified. No premium or advantage could be given on this count for any compassionate or sympathetic view. The management has a legitimate and unbridled right and authority to make a decision and mete out the punishment as provided under the law, including the dismissal/termination of service of a delinquent.
6. The Supreme Court further held that the distinction between the act of misconduct and the quantum of punishment provided under the law for such misconduct. Likewise, different acts of misconduct are defined in the different laws with different quantum or genres of punishments to be 5 imposed according to the fine sense of judgment of the competent authority/management/employer, in which the Courts have no role to play in the decision making of management which is the sole arbiter.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Abdul Salam(ADVO-9175-SBC-KHE)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-APR-25
72) 3095/2010 Const. P. Syed Shoukat Ali & Ors. (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Without addressing the substantive arguments of these cases and merits, these petitions are now considered concluded and are hereby disposed of in the terms that much water has flown under the bridge since 2008 and we are now in 2025 besides petitioners have not asked for the issuance of writ of quo warranto against the individual who were purportedly appointed in violation of the rules as no record has been produced to infer adverse against them at this stage in a case of writ of mandamus. However, if the cause of action for these petitions still exists, the petitioners retain the right to initiate appropriate legal action, including proceedings under a writ of quo warranto, if they believe the appointments of the private respondents are contrary to law and if such legal recourse is permissible. These petitions are disposed of along with the pending application(s) in the above terms.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-APR-25
73) 4092/2014 Const. P. Imran Khan Siyal (Petitioner) V/S Prov. of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Generally, a contract employee who resigns forfeits the right to demand regularization. Resignation is a voluntary termination of the contract, which outlines employment terms. Regularization, a separate process for permanent positions, is not automatically triggered by resignation and requires specific policies or employer decisions. Contract employees don't have an inherent right to regularization based solely on service length or satisfaction. While legal remedies might exist for the unfair use of resignation to avoid regularization, they don't guarantee it.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-APR-25
74) 4754/2014 Const. P. Nabi Hussain and Ors (Petitioner) V/S M.D KW & SB and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:
Upgradation with retrospective effect" refers to a situation where an employee's pay scale is increased to a higher level, without a change in their duties or position, and this increase is applied to a period before the official date of the upgradation. It is further clarified that upgradation cannot be construed to be promotion, as is generally misunderstood. Up-gradation is carried out without necessarily creating a post in the relevant scale of pay it is carried out under a policy and specified scheme. It is only for the incumbents of isolated posts, which have no avenues or channels of promotion at all. Up-gradation under the scheme is personal to incumbents of the isolated posts to address stagnation and frustration of incumbents on a particular post for a sufficient length of service on the particular post without any progression or avenue in the service.
Read more Matter:
SERVICE Advocates:Afsheen Aman(ADVO-8828-SBC-KHI),Sameer Ghazanfar(ADVO-11222-SBC-KHI),Mohammad Mahmood Sultan Khan Yousifi(ADVO-395-SBC-SUK)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-APR-25