SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(Appellate Jurisdiction)
PRESENT:
Mr. Justice Guizar Ahmed, CJ
Mr. Justice Faisal Arab
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan
J)
CIVIL PETITION NO.852 OF 2018, CMA NO.5668 OF 2020 IN C.A.
NO.421 OF 2018, CMA NO.5669 OF 2020 IN C.A. NO.421 OF 2018,
CMA NO.955 OF 2017 IN C.A. NO.421 OF 2018, CMA NO.956 OF
2017 IN C.A. NO.422 OF 2018 AND CMA NO.957 OF 2017 IN C.A.
NO.423 OF 2018
(Against the judgments dated 24.11.2016, 3.1.2018, passed by the Islamabad High
Court, Islamabad, High Court of Sindh, Karachi, in I.C.As. No.292 to 294 of 2016,
C.P. No.3134 of 2015 and C.P. No. 1837 of 2014, respectively)
CA. 421/2018 
Privatization Commission through its Secretary
Vs. Aftab Hussain and others
CA. 422/2018 
Privatization Commission through its Secretary
Vs. Ch. Siraj Abbas and others
CA.42312018 
Privatization Commission through its Secretary
Vs. Ch. Siraj Abbas and others
CA. 1911/2019 
Chairman and others (Officer & Non-officers)'
Pakistan Petroleum Limited Officers Association
and others Vs. Federation of Pakistan through
Ministry of Finance Revenue and others
CP.85212018 Muhammad At-if Akhtar and others Vs
Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of
Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad
and others
CMA.566812020 in Privatization Commission through its Secretary
CA. 421/201 8 
Vs. Aftab Hussain and others
CAM. 566912018 in Privatization Commission through its Secretary
CA.42112018 
Vs. Aftab Hussain and others
CMA. 95512017 in Privatization Commission through its Secretary
CA.42112018 
Vs. Aftab Hussain and others
CMA. 956/2017 in Privatization Commission through its Secretary
CA .422/2018 
Vs. Cit. Siraj Abbas and others
CMA.95712017 in Privatization Commission through its Secretary
CA.42312018 
Vs. Ch. Siraj Abbas and others
For the Appellant(s) 
Mr. Sohail Mehmood,
(in CAs.421 to 423 of 
Addl. Attorney General for
2018) and 
Pakistan
LAs42I of 2018, etc.
For Respondents
(in CA. 19-K of 2019 as
Federation)
For Respondents No.1 to 239
,(in CA.421/2018, Respondents
No.1 to 32 (in CA.422/2018)
and
For Respondents No.1 to 17
(in CA.423/2018)
Ch. Akhtar Au, AOR along Mr.
Ikram-ul-Haque Qureshi,
Sr.Legal Counsel head of
Privatization Commission of
Pakistan.
Mr. Abdul Rahim Bhatti, ASC
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR
For OGDCL 
Mr. Khurram Mumtaz Hashmi,
(in CAs.421 to 423/2018) 
ASC
For Applicant (s)
(in CMAs.5668 & 5669/2018)
For the Appellant (s)
(in CA. 19-K/2019
Syed Asghar Hussain Sabzwari,
Sr. ASC
Mr. Mehmood A. Sheikh, AOR
Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan,
AOR/ASC
(via video link from Karachi)
For the Petitioner (s) 
Mr. Salahuddin Ahmed, ASC
(in CP.852/20 18
For Respondent(s) 
:
 N. R. 
H
(in CP.852/2018) 
H:
For Respondent (PPL) 
Mr. Muhammad Akif Khan,
Sr. Legal Counsel
Date of Hearing 
22.10.2020
ORDER
GULZAR ARMED, CJ.- In Civil Petitions No. 382 to 384 of
2017, leave to appeal was granted vide order dated 10.01.2018, which
is as follows: -
"In order to consider inter alia (1) whether the
Cabinet's decision dated 05.08.2009 while approving
the Benazir Employees Stock Option Scheme
(BESOS) is in violation of Article 154 of the
Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973
(the constitution); (ii) whether the benefits given to
the employees under the BESOS were not part of the
Terms and Conditions of their employment and
therefore, the same could not be enforced under the
CAs.421 of 2018, etc. 
-
E
law; (iii) what is the effect of the judgment dated
03.01.2018 passed in Constitution Petition
No.1837/2014 by the learned High Court of Sindh
whereby it declared the said decision of the Cabinet
to be violative of the Constitution. Leave is granted in
these petitions."
2. The respondents in Civil Appeals No.421-423 of 2018 filed
writ petitions in the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad (hereinafter
called 'the Islamabad High Court'), which were disposed of by a
learned Single Judge of that Court vide judgment dated 29.04.2016, in
the following terms:-
11. It has already been held that pursuant to
issuance of the "Unit Certificates" rights were accrued
in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, their cases
have been processed and sent to the Privatization
Commission so that the funds could be released. This
Court has been informed that the implementation of
the Scheme is being considered by the Ministry of
Finance. There is no cavil to the proposition that
policies formulated and even implemented by the
Federal Government can be revamped, considered or
altered provided the rights which have come into
existence remain protected. It would, therefore, be
just and proper to direct as follows:
i)
The ministry of Finance while considering the
implementation of the Scheme shall take into
consideration the rights which have accrued in
favour of the petitioners.
ii)
The federal Government shall ensure that the rights
of the petitioners remain protected and to their
extent the benefits under the Scheme are not
denied in case it is decided to revamp, alter or wind
up the scheme.
iii)
The Federal Government shall take a decision to the
extent of the rights of the petitioners, preferably
within ninety days from the date of receipt of this
order."
This judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by
filing of three Intra Court Appeals (WAs) and a learned Division Bench
CAs.421 of 2018, etc. 
- -
,of the Islamabad High Court, vide impugned judgment dated
24.11.2016, dismissed all the three ICAs. The appellants in Civil
Appeal No. 19-K of 2019 and the petitioners in Civil Petition No.852 of
2018 filed two constitution petitions in the High Court of Sindh,
Karachi (hereinafter called "the High Court of Sindh), which were
dismissed by a learned Division Bench of that Court vide impugned
judgment dated 03.01.2018.
3. The short facts of the matter are that the respondents in
'Civil Appeals No.421-223 of 2018 were employees of Oil and Gas
Development Corporation Limited (OGDCL), while the appellants in
Civil Appeal No. 19-K of 2019 and Petitioners in Civil Petition No.852 of
2018 were employees of Pakistan Petroleum Limited (PPL), Both
OGDCL and PPL are entities of the Federal Government of Pakistan.
The Federal Cabinet approved a policy in the name of Benazir
Employees Stock Option Scheme (hereinafter called 'the Scheme').!
The Scheme, inter alia, provides as under: -
"THAT THE SALIENT FEATURES OF BENAZIR
EMPLOYEES STOCK OPTION SCHEME (BESOS)
BESOS AS APPROVED
BY THE CABINET ON 5TH AUGUST 2009 ARE AS FOLLOWS:-
1.
Empowerment of Employees of SOEs/other GoP
shareholding through transfer of twelve percent
(12%) of the GoP shareholding and a seat on the
Board.
2.
All permanent employees and contractual
Employees (with minimum service of live years) are
eligible for the BESOS and can only exist on
retirement or otherwise easing to be Employee of
the SOE. 
H
3.
Twelve percent (12%) of the GoP shareholding to be
transferred for free. 
II
4.
SOEs to create a Trust for BESOS with token cash.
The board of Trustees to consist of Government
Nominees and Employees representatives.
CAs.421 of 2018, etc. 
-5-
5 
The Shares of respective SOE to be transferred to
the Trust.
Trust to assign units to Employees in proportion to
their entitlement on the basis of length of service
through Unit Certificate.
7 
Unit Certificates are not saleable, however, these
can be pledged or hypothecated.
8, Employees to surrender the Unit Certificates to
Trust on retirement or otherwise ceasing to be an
Employee.
9. 
Trust to make payment for surrendered Unit.
10. Surrendered Units to be returned by Trust to the
Federal Government.
11. The GoP will guarantee the buyback of the
!1 
surrendered units on the following basis:-
a.
The market value of the listed companies.
b.
Break-up value at historical cost based on
the last audited financial statements
excluding re-valuation reserves for the
unlisted and private limited companies.
C. On net-worth based on the last audited
financial statements excluding re-valuation
reserves for SOEs established under Special
Acts and Ordinance till such time they are
corporatized.
12. Employees representative on the Board to be
nominated by GoP through Line Ministry/Holding
Corporation on the recommendation of Trust. Such
representative to be a Charted Accountant or a
Corporate Lawyer o, an eminent professional having
minimum professional having professional
experience of 15 years or a Senior Government
official not below the status of a Joint Secretary.
13. 
Trusts are entitled to receive dividends, if any from
the date of applicability of the BESOS.
14 
Funding armaments:-
50 % of the dividends to be transferred to central
' I 
revolving fund for annual payout and 50% to be
distributed amongst the employees. This will result
into an annual payout of Rs.1,670/- billion which
will be funded by GoP.
15. A central revolving fund out of the future dividends
to be established in Privatization Commission for
payments against surrendered Unit Certificates.
If
C4s.421 02018. etc. 
- 6-
16.
The BESOS to be implemented by the Privatization
Commission in coordination with the Line Ministry
/holding corporation/ respective SOEs.
17.
Corporation of the SOEs established under Special
Acct/Ordinance by the Privatization Commission
in-coordination with the Line Ministries."
4. Pursuant to this Scheme, the OGDCL Employees
Empowerment Trust (hereinafter called 'the Trust) as well as PPL
Employees Empowerment Trust were executed and 12% shares of
OGDCL and PPL in the shape of Unites Certificates were allocated and
distributed to their employees. It seems that as many as 130
retired/ deceased employees of OGDCL benefited from this scheme
while in PPL about 2693 employees benefited from this scheme. The
scheme having huge financial implications on the funds of the Federal
Government, could not be continued and its payment was stopped.
The respondents in Civil Appeal No.421-423/ 18 so also the appellants
in Civil Appeal No.19-K/2019 and the petitioners in Civil Petition
No.852 / 2018 had filed petitions for seeking direction for making
payment to them under the scheme.
S. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
(length and have also gone through the record of the case. Leave was•
granted to consider three questions, reproduced above, which shall be
taken up one by one. The first question reads as under: -
(i) 
Whether the Cabinet decision dated
05.08.2009 while approving the Benazir
Employees Stock Option Scheme (BESOS) is in
violation of Article 154 of the Constitution of
Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the
Constitution)
6. The main controversy is that whether the Scheme, which
was launched in furtherance of a cabinet's decision to transfer to the
CAs.421 of 2018, etc. 
-7.-
employees, through the means of trust deeds, 12% shares of
Government of Pakistan in State Owned Enterprises ("SOEs") and
other Government of Pakistan Shareholdings, was lawfully prepared.
In this regard, learned counsel for the appellants, at the outset,
contended that the very issuance of the Scheme was illegal, in that, its
purpose was to benefit the selected number of employees of the SOEs
'and further that no consideration whatsoever was provided in the
Scheme for entitling the employees of the SOEs to the benefit of the
Scheme. Further, the Scheme itself was a political stunt at the State
expense with no benefit whatsoever to any of the SUEs, rather the
Scheme became a huge burden on the public exchequer and could not
be allowed to be continued being contrary to the Constitution and was
even against the Rules of Business, under which the Scheme is said to
have been made.
7. First of all we shall consider the Scheme of the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan ("the Constitution")
whereby it envisaged arrangement for the exercise of executive
authority in the Federation. Article 97 of the Constitution lays down I
that the executive authority of the Federation is coextensive with th&!
Parliament's power of making laws. However, there is a qualifying'
phrase 'subject to the Constitution' at the beginning of Article 97 ibid. I
It clearly provides that the extent of the executive authority of the
Federation is not absolute rather circumscribed by other
Constitutional provisions. The executive authority of the Federation, to
be exercised by the Federal Government/ Federal Cabinet, is
subordinated to the Constitutional division of powers among different
state organs. Reliance may be made to the case of Messrs Mustafd
Impex, Karachi and others vs. The Government of Pakistan through
CAs.421 of 2018. etc. 
-8-
Secretarq Finance. Islamabad and others (PLD 2016 Supreme Court
1808), wherein it was held as under: -
"The use of the phrase "subject to the constitution" in
Article 97 indicates that the executive authority of the
Federation, as exercised by the Federal Government,
is subordinated to the constitutional scheme in
relation to the conferment of constitutional powers
and responsibility on the three great organs of the
State. It would be recollected that all executive
actions of the Federal Government are expressed to
be taken in the name of the President. It is not the
actions of the Secretary, or head of a Division, as
such, but the executive actions of the Federal
Government which are to be taken in the name of the
President."
8. In this background, it needs to be determined as to what
is the nature of the Scheme, and whether Federal Cabinet was
competent to independently take a decision about it. Apparently, the
emerged from a decision taken by the cabinet to empower the
employees of SOEs and other Government of Pakistan Shareholdings
through transfer of shares and representation on the Board. A
substantial portion of government holding in SOEs and other
Government of Pakistan Shareholdings i.e. 12% shares was to be
transferred for free. Thus, huge amount of public money was involved
in the matter. The scheme was not limited to one or two government
enterprises but was designed generally for all the SOEs and other
'Government of Pakistan Shareholdings. It is evident that the cabinet's
decision to launch the Scheme was not merely related to the internal
management or day to day working of an SOE or Government of
Pakistan Shareholding, rather, it was a major decision taken to
provide financial benefit to the employees of SUEs out of the
CAs.421 o(2018. etc. 
ME
Government of Pakistan Shareholdings. In fact, it was an extensive
measure affecting dozens of SOEs/ Government of Pakistan
Shareholdings and entailing financial implications for the state, which
was done within the realm of policy formulation. It needs to be seen
whether the Federal Cabinet was competent to take a policy decision
about launching of the Scheme or whether, in view of the qualifying
phrase of Article 97 ibid, its authority was restricted in the matter.
9. The relations between the Federation and the Provinces
are managed in terms of Chapter 3 of Part V of the Constitution. One
of the modes provided therein is the Council of Common Interests
,("CC!"). Article 154 of the Constitution provides the functions and
rules of procedure of the CCI. Clause (1) thereof provides that CCI
"shall formulate and regulate policies in relation to matters in Part II of
the Federal Legislative List ("FLL") and shall exercise supervision and
control over related institutions." Entry No.3 of Part II of FLL, inter
alia, deals with the institutions, establishments, bodies and
corporations administered or managed by the Federal Government,
and undertakings, projects and schemes of such institutions,
' establishments, bodies and corporations, industries, projects and
undertakings owned wholly or partially by the Federation or by a
corporation set up by the Federation. The said entry reads as under: -
"3. Development of industries, where development
under Federal control is declared by Federal law to be
expedient in the public interest; institutions,
establishments, bodies and corporations
administered or managed by the Federal Government
immediately before the Commencing day, including
/ 
the Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority
and the Pakistan Industrial Development
Corporation; all undertakings, projects and schemes
of such institutions, establishments, bodies and
corporations, industries, projects and undertakings
L1s.421 of 2018, etc. 
- 10-
owned wholly or partially by the Federation or by a
corporation set up by the Federation."
10. From the above, it is clear that in terms of Article 154(1) of
the Constitution read with Entry No.3 of Part II of FLL, CCI has
authority to formulate and regulate policies in relation to matters
regarding institutions, establishments, bodies and corporations
administered or managed by the Federal Government, and all
undertakings, projects and schemes of such institutions,
establishments, bodies and corporations, industries, projects and
undertakings owned wholly or partially by the Federation or by a
corporation set up by the Federation. However, under Clause (6) of
Article 154 of the Constitution Majlis-e-shoora (Parliament) in joint
may from time to time by resolution issue directions through
the Federal Government to the CCI, generally or in a particular matter,
to take action as Majlis-e-shoora (Parliament) may deem just and
proper and such directions shall be binding on the Council. Under Ht
Clause (7) thereof, if the Federal Government or a Provincial
Government is dissatisfied with a decision of CCI, it may refer the
matter to Majlis-e-,Shoora (Parliament) in a joint sitting, whose decision
in this behalf shall be final.
ii. It is to be noted that the word 'schemes' is used in Entry
No.3 of Part II of FLL. Thus, it appears that formulation and regulation
of policies in relation to all schemes of institutions, establishments,
bodies and corporations, industries, projects and undertakings owned
wholly or partially by the Federation or by a corporation set up by the
Federation falls in the domain of CCI. In view of the above-referred
Constitutional scheme, it follows that the decision of launching of the
Scheme needed to be discussed in CCI.
-- _
CAs42I 012018, etc. 
-11
12.
CCI is a separate body apart from Federal Government.
The Constitution has curtailed the executive authority of Federal
Government in relation to matters in Part II of FLL and handed it over
to CCI. The matter of authority of Federal Government and CCI qua
Part II of FLL has come up before this Court in a number of cases. It
has been held by this Court in Federation of Pakistan throu gh the
Secretary. Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad etc.
vs. United Sugar Mills Ltd. Karachi (PLD 1977 Supreme Court 397) as
under: -
"Again in one significant respect the federal executive
authority has been abridged under the Constitution
and has been entrusted to a newly created institution
called "the Council of Common Interests". It is a body
quite apart from the Federal executive. (See Articles
153-156). The administration of matters falling in
/ Part II of the Federal Legislative List (Railways,
mineral oil, natural gas etc.) and item 34 of the
Concurrent List (electricity) are entrusted to the
Council of Common Interests."
The matters referred to in Part II of FLL are required to be placed
before CCI for formulating and regulating policies. It has
authoritatively been held by this Court in Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills
and 814 others vs. WAPDA and others 11997 SCMR 641) as under: -
/ "29 We are inclined to hold that the matters referred
to in Part II of the Federal Legislative List and Item 34
of the Concurrent Legislative List (electricity) are to be
brought before C.C.I. for formulating and regulating
policies.....
13.
The role of CCI was under consideration before this Court
in Wattan Partu through President vs. Federation of Pakistan through
Cabinet Committee of Privatization, Islamabad and others (PLD 2006
CAs.421 of 2018, etc. 
- 12-
Supreme Court 697). The matter had arisen out of privatization of
'Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. The impugned judgment of the High
Court of Sindh had held that "the provisions of Article 154 are
mandatory and the functions of the Cabinet under the Privatization
Ordinance, 2000 ought to be performed by the Council of Common
Interest". A 9-Member Bench of this Court upheld the view of the High
Court of Sindh and also approved the earlier view taken in Gadoon
Textile Mills' case (supra) with reference to functioning of CCI under
(Articles 153 & 154 of the Constitution, which is as follows: -
"35......Therefore the view taken by this Court in
the case of Messrs Gadoon Textile Mills ibid is
respectfully approved with reference to functioning of
C.C.I. under Articles 153 & 154 of the Constitution.
As a consequence whereof the view taken by the
Sindh High Court in the impugned judgment is
upheld."
14. In the case of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council through
, President and 3 others vs. Muhammad Fahad Malik and 10 others
(2018 SCMR 1956) while considering the role of CCI viz, power of
Parliament, this Court held as under: -
"9. ......In order to create inter-provincial
harmony, CCI has been created under Article 153 of
the Constitution which is appointed by the President
and includes, the Prime Minister who shall be the
Chairman of the Council, the Chief Ministers of the
Provinces and three members from the Federal
Government to be nominated by the Prime Minister
from time to time. According to Article 153(4) of the
Constitution, CCI is responsible to Parliament and is
required to submit an Annual Report to both Houses
(of Parliament). Article 154(6) of the Constitution
provides that Parliament may, from time to time, by
resolution, issue directions through the Federal
CAs.421 of 2018. etc. 
- Li -
Government to CCI generally or in a particular matter
to take action as Parliament may deem just and
proper and such directions shall be binding on CCI.
Furthermore, as per Article 154(7) of the
/ Constitution, if the Federal or a Provincial
Government is dissatisfied with a decision of CCI, it
may refer the matter to Parliament in a joint sitting
whose decision in this regard shall be final. Thus, the
foregoing provision of the Constitution clearly
indicates that CCI is subservient, and not superior to
Parliament.
10. Parliament on the other hand, under Article 70
of the Constitution, has been given absolute authority
to make laws with respect to the matters enumerated
in the Federal Legislative List. From a plain reading of
the said Article, it is abundantly clear that no
constitutional restriction or constraint has been
imposed upon the power and authority of Parliament
to legislate with respect to the matters enumerated in
the Federal Legislative List. Article 70 ibid is an
independent Article and neither subject to nor
subservient to any other provision of the
Constitution. However, CCI does not have unfettered
power and is responsible to Parliament. As per Article
154(1) of the Constitution, CCI has been given power
to formulate and regulate policies in relation to
matters in Part II of the Federal Legislative List and to
exercise supervision and control over related
institutions. Therefore, it is clear from this provision
that CCI has no role in the legislative process with
respect to the matters enumerated in the Federal
Legislative List, rather it is restricted to formulation
and regulation of policies in relation to the said
matters, and that too contained only in Part II of such
List. Once policies are finalized, CCI cannot interfere
in the legislative process, nor can any legislation be
struck down for the reason that CCI was not involved
in the relevant legislative process. Additionally, CCI
U
CAs.421 of 2018, etc.
P1
can exercise supervision and control over the related 
if
institutions but not over Parliament, which according
to the scheme of the Constitution is supreme and all
the other institutions have to function whilst
remaining within their constitutional domain.
15. It is, thus, apparent that CCI holds a significant position
in the Constitutional structure. Its role is not limited to deliberations
only. Rather, it is endowed with important functions of formulating
and regulating polices in relation to the matters detailed in Part II of
FLL of the Constitution, The Constitutional provisions relating to the
functions of CCI are mandatory in nature and, no other person, body
or authority can perform the functions of CCI. However, the
Parliament, in joint sitting, may by resolution issue directions through
,the Federal Government to the CCI, to take action as the Parliament
may deem just and proper and such directions shall be binding on
CCI. If the Federal Government or a Provincial Government is
dissatisfied with a decision of CCI, it may refer the matter
to Parliament, in a joint sitting, whose decision in this behalf shall be
final. 
I
16 In view of the above, irrespective of the objective of the
Scheme, we are of the considered view that the matter of transfer of I
12% shares of Government of Pakistan in dozens of SOEs and
Government of Pakistan Shareholdings without any policy input by
1
CCI, definitely fell outside the ambit of the authority of the Federal $
Cabinet. We, therefore, hold that the Federal Cabinet was not
competent to take decision dated 05.08.2009 approving the Scheme
and the same is declared to be in violation of Article 154 of the
Constitution.
CAs.421 of 2018. etc. 
-1
U
17. Now we shall consider the second question formulated in
the leave granting order, which reads as under:
(ii)
Whether the benefits given to the employees
under the BESOS were not part of the terms and
conditions of their employment and therefore,
the same could not be enforced under the law
The grievance of the employees relates to their claims emanating
'from unit certificates issued to them as a consequence of transfer of
12% shares of Government of Pakistan in OGDCL and PPL. Leave was
initially granted to consider whether the benefits given to the
employees under the Scheme were not part of the terms and
conditions of their employment and, therefore, the same could not be
enforced under the law. However, our determination on question No.(i),
that the Federal Cabinet was not competent to take a policy decision of
approving the Scheme relating to SOEs and other Government of IJ
Pakistan Shareholdings, decides the fate of the employees of OGDCL
and PPL. As a consequence, question No.(ii) becomes academic
because when the main Scheme has been declared to be ultra vires, ii
any benefit arising out of it would be illegal and not protected.
18, 
The next question formulated in the leave granting order
reads as under:
(iii)
What is the effect of the judgment dated
03.01.2018 passed in Constitution Petition
No.183712014 by the learned High Court of Slndh
whereby it declared the said decision of the
Cabinet to be violative of the Constitution.
In this regard it is to be noted that leave was granted vide order
dated 10.01.2018 in Civil Petitions No. 382 to 384 of 2017 preferred by
the Privatization Commission against the judgment of learned
Islamabad High Court passed in ICAs No. 292 to 294 of 2016 when
Bench-I
Islamabad
22. 10.2020
APPROVED FOR REPORTING
abbani/
CAs.421 of 2018, etc. 
-16-
judgment dated 03.01.2018 passed in Constitution Petition No. 1837
of 2014 by the learned High Court of Sindh had not been assailed
before this Court. A question was, therefore, framed to consider the
effect of judgment dated 03.01.2018 passed by the learned High Court
of Sindh. Subsequently, the judgment of the learned High Court of
Sindh was also impugned before this Court through Civil Petition No.
521-K of 2018 and leave was granted vide order dated 12.04.2019.
Another Civil Petition No. 852 of 2018 challenging the judgment dated
03.01.2018 of the learned High Court of Sindh was also preferred
before this Court. All these matters were clubbed and heard together.
19.
In view of our discussion above, where the very Scheme
has been found to be against Article 154 of the Constitution, we set
aside the judgment dated 24.11.2016 passed by the learned Islamabad
High Court in ICAs No. 292 to 294 of 2016 and uphold the judgment
'dated 03.01.2018 passed by the learned High Court of Sindh in
Constitution Petition No. 1837 of 2014.
20.
Above are the reasons of our short order dated
22.10.2020, which is as follows: -
"We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length and have also gone through the record of the
cases. For reasons to be recorded later, Civil Appeals
No.42 1 to 423 of 2018 are allowed and the impugned
judgment is set aside, while Civil Appeal No. 19-K of
/ 2019 and Civil Petition No.852 of 2018 are dismissed.
All the pending Civil Misc. Applications are disposed
of." 
