CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
Mr.Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. 
 
Mr.Justice Rana Bhagwandas 
 
Mr.Justice Javed Iqbal 
 
Mr.Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar 
 
Mr.Justice Faqir Muhammad Khokhar 
 
Mr.Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan 
 
Mr.Justice M.Javed Buttar 
 
Mr.Justice Tassaduq Hussain Jillani 
 
Mr.Justice Syed Jamshed Ali 
 
 
Sr. # 
Case No. 
Parties Name 
On appeal from 
the judgment of 
Service Tribunal 
passed in … 
Dated…. 
For the 
appellant / 
petioner 
For Respondents 
1  
C.A.792-816 of  
2005 
  
Muhammad Mubeen 
us Salam Vs. 
Federation of 
Pakistan thr. Secy. 
M/o Defence Govt. 
of Pakistan and 
another  
Appeal Nos.1023, 
1024, 1025, 1027, 
1028, 1029, 1031, 
1032, 1033, 1034, 
1038, 1087, 1088, 
1091, 1092, 1094, 
1095, 1098, 1099, 
1089, 1090, 1096, 
1097 and 1011 
(R)/CS/2003 
Dt.27.11.2004 
Mr. Muhammad 
Akram Sheikh, 
Sr. ASC a/w 
Altaf Elahi 
Sheikh, ASC and 
Ch. Muhammad 
Akram, AOR 
Assisted By: 
Barrister Kamran 
Sheikh, Hafiz 
Arafat Ahmad, 
ASCs 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali 
Khan, Attorney General 
for Pakistan a/w Raja 
Muhammad Irshad, 
DAG and Ms. Naheeda 
Mehboob Elahi, DAG 
Raja Abdul 
Ghafoor,AOR (in CA 
792/2005) Hafiz S.A 
Rehman, Sr. ASC a/w 
Mr. M.S. Khattak (in 
CAs 793-816) 
 
2  
C.M.A.2208-
2211/2003 
in C.R.Ps. 426, 
427, 428, 430, 
432, 429, 421 & 
431 of 2001 
Federation of 
Pakistan Vs. 
Muhammad Akram  
 
Malik 
Muhammad 
Qayyum, ASC 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak, AOR  
  
Mr. Abdul Hafeez 
Pirzada, Sr. ASC a/w 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, 
AOR(in CA 2208-2209, 
2211/2003) 
Mr. Waseem Sajjad, Sr. 
ASC (CA 2210/03) 
 
3  
C.M.Appeal l38-
139/2003 & 
C.M.Appeal 
No.47-48/2004 
in 
Const.P.Nil/2003  
Hashim Khan & 
others Vs. S.N.G.P.L 
& others.  
 
Syed Iftikhar 
Hussain Gillani, 
Sr. ASC a/w 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik, AOR  
 Raja 
Muhammad 
Ibrahim Satti, 
ASC a/w Ijaz 
Muhammad 
Khan (CM 
Appeal 47/04) 
Mr. Muhammad 
Akram Sheikh, 
Sr. ASC, Mr. 
Mehr Khan 
Malik, AOR( 
CM Appeal 
No.48/04)  
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR (CA 138-139/03) 
Not represented in CM 
Appeals 47, 48/04 
 5 
C.P.305-L/2001 
 
Javed Iqbal Vs. 
VP/Zonal Chief 
UBL, etc.  
Appeal No.310-
L/98 dt.30.12.2000 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC  
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
 
Mr. Shahid Karim, 
ASC 
 6 
C.P.586-L/2001 
 
Amjad Hameed Vs. 
Pakistan Postal 
Services Corp. etc.  
Appeal No.1751-
L/1998 dated 
11.1.2001 
Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Akram, ASC a/w 
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
2
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman  
 
 7 
C.P.587-L/2001 
 
Abdul Shakoor Rana 
Vs. N.B.P. etc.  
Appeal No.527-
L/1998 dated 
1.1.2001 
Nemo 
Mian Muhammad 
Saleem, ASC 
 
 8 
C.P.643-L/2001 
 
Wasim Anjum Vs. 
U.B.L, etc.  
Appeal No. 255-
L/98 dated 
9.1.2001 
P- In Person  
Mr. Shahid Karim, 
ASC 
 
 9 
C.P.647-L/2001 
 
Ali Ahmed Mirza Vs. 
Pakistan Atomic 
Energy Commission.  
 
Appeal No.672-
L/98 dated 
26.12.2000 
 Nemo 
N.R. 
 10 
C.P.931-L/2001 
 
H.B.L. etc. Vs. Tariq 
Mukhtar Buttar.  
Appeal No.866-
L/98 dated 
9.2.2001 
Raja Muhammad 
Akram, Sr. ASC 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi  
 
N.R. 
 11 
C.P.980-L/2001 
 
M.D. Passco, etc. Vs. 
Mohammad Nazir  
Appeal No.1373-
L/99 dated 
23.2.2001 
Mr. Muhammad 
Akram Khwaja  
 
Nemo 
 12 
C.P.998-L/2001 
 
Ms. Khawar Zia Vs. 
P.I.A. etc.  
Appeal No.913-
L/98 dated 
25.1.2001 
Nemo 
Muhammad Sharif 
Chaudhry, ASC 
 
 13 
C.P.999-L/2001 
 
Qaiser Hussain 
Siddiqui Vs. U.B.L. 
etc.  
 
Appeal No.828-
L/98 dated 
20.2.2001 
 Mr. Shahid 
Karim, ASC 
N.R 
 14 
C.P.1008-L/2001 
 
Mohammad Ashraf 
Raza Vs. The State 
Bank of Pakistan, etc. 
  
Appeal No.832-
L/98 dated 
8.2.2001 
Mian Habib 
Elahi, ASC.  
N.R. 
15  
C.P.1024-L/2001 
& C.P.1069-
L/2001 
Rao Muhammad 
Siddique Akhtar Vs. 
ADBP and others  
Appeal No.683-
L/98 dated 
14.2.2001 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman 
 Petitioner in CP 
1069/01: Nemo  
 
N.R. 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-Rehman 
AOR 
16  
C.P.1065-L/2001 
& C.P.1066-
L/2001 
Ghulam Sarwar Vs. 
PASSCO and others  
Appeal No.420-L-
421-L/98 dated 
30.1.2001 
Mr. Muhammad 
Jehangir Wahila, 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi  
  
Mr. Muhammad Akram 
Khawan, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
Islam, AOR 
17  
C.M.A.1439-
L/2002 in 
C.P.1276-L/2001  
Agha Shahid Rashid 
Vs. M.D. PTV and 
others  
 
Appeal No.582-
L/98 dated 
10.3.2001 
Nemo 
N.R. 
18  
C.P.1291-L/2001 
 
Liaquat Ali Daultana 
Vs. The President, 
National Bank of 
Pakistan, Karachi and 
others 
  
Appeal No.650-
L/98 dated 
23.2.2001 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
N.R. 
19  
C.P.1491-L/2001 
 
Muhammad Iqbal Vs. 
The President HBL 
and others  
Appeal No. 663-
L/98 dated 
10.3.2001 
Syed Aqa Asif 
Jehfri, ASC 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi  
  
Mian Abdul Rashid , 
ASC 
20  
C.P.1509-L/2001 
 
Muhammad Arshad 
Butt Vs. Pakistan 
Engineering 
Company Ltd. 
  
 
Appeal No.1727-
L/98 dated 
26.2.2001 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
21  
C.P.1557-L/2001 
 
NBP and others Vs. 
Shamoon Khan and 
another  
Appeal No.533-
L/98 dated 
28.2.2001 
Mian Qamar uz 
Zaman, ASC 
M.A. Qureshi  
  
Mr. Faiz-ur-Rehman, 
AOR 
22  
C.P.1638-L/2001 
 
Muhammad Rafique 
Vs. Airport Director 
Agency and others  
 
Appeal NO.661-
L/98 dated 
22.3.2001 
 Nemo 
N.R. 
23  
C.P.1818-L/2001 
Abid Hussain Vs. 
Appeal No. NIL 
 Mr. Muhammad 
Mr. S.M. Abdul 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
3
 
ADBP and others  
(L) CE/2001 dated 
2.4.2001 
Afzal Sidhu, 
ASC 
  
Wahab, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR 
 
24  
C.P.1909-L/2001 
 
Muhammad Anwar 
Sindhu Vs. The 
National Bank of 
Pakistan,etc.  
 
Appeal No.2044-
L/98 dated 
7.5.2001 
Mian Qamar uz 
Zaman,ASC.  
 
N.R. 
 25 
C.P.1983-L/2001 
 
Faizullah Khan Vs. 
Chief Manager State 
Bank of Pakistan  
Appeal No. 1416-
L/98 dated 
Mr. Farooq 
Zaman Qureshi, 
ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR 
 
N.R. 
 26 
C.P.2042-L/2001 
 
Muhammad Latif Vs. 
M.D. PASSCO,etc.  
Appeal No. 
1541(L)/1998 
Dated 13.4.2001 
Ch. M. Khalid 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
 
N.R. 
 27 
C.P.2026-L/2001 
 
Waheed Amjad 
Malik Vs. U.B.L.etc.  
Appeal 
No.1921(L)/1998 
Dated 13.4.2001 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
 
Mr. Shahid Karim, 
ASC 
 28 
C.P.2030-L/2001 
 
C.M.Bashir Vs. State 
Life Corporation of 
Pakistan,etc.  
Appeal 
No.1860(L)/1998 
Dated 20.4.2001 
Nemo 
  
Mr. Sher Zaman Khan, 
ASC a/w Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi, AOR 
 
 29 
C.P.2189-L/2001 
 
Regional Head 
NBP.etc Vs. Fayyaz 
Ahmad Bhatti  
Appeal 
No.715(R)/1998 
Dated 28.4.2001 
 Mian Qamar uz 
Zaman, ASC 
  
Mr. Ehsan ul Haq Ch. 
ASC a/w Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi, AOR 
 
 30 
C.P.2270-L/2001 
 
Malik Muhammad 
Azam Vs. The M.D. 
PASSCO,etc.  
Appeal 
No.1040(L)/1998 
Dated 28.4.2001 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR 
  
Mr. Muhammad Akram 
Khawaja, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
Islam, AOR 
 
 31 
C.P.2307-L/2001 
 
Syed Kausar Hussain 
Shah Vs. The 
President Institute of 
Cost and 
Management,etc.  
Appeal 
No.357(L)/1999 
Dated 28.4.2001 
Nemo 
Mr. Saleem Baig, ASC 
a/w  
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR 
 
 32 
C.P.2378-L/2001 
 
Humayun Asadullah 
Vs. National Bank of 
Pakistan,etc.  
Appeal 
No.408(L)/1998 
Dated 9.5.2001 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
  
Mian Qamar-uz Zaman, 
ASC 
33  
C.P.2426-L/2001 
& C.P.2495-
L/2001 
Muhammad Yousaf 
Vs. The Central Div. 
State Bank of 
Pakistan.etc.  
Appeal No.2426-
L/98 & 208-(L)  
CE/2001  
Dated  23.5.2001 
Mr. Parvez 
Inayat Malik, 
ASC(CP 2426-
L/01),  
Mr. Ghulam 
Nabi Bhatti, 
ASC (in CP 
2495-l/01) 
 
 
 
N.R. 
 34 
C.P.2498-L/2001 
 
U.B.L. Vs. 
Muhammad Rafique  
Appeal No. 
101(L)/1999  
Dated 7.6.2001 
Mr. Shahid 
Karim, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam, AOR 
 
N.R. 
 35 
C.P.2568-L/2001 
 
Muhammad Rafique 
Vs. The President, 
NBP.etc.  
Appeal 
No.1908(L)/1998 
Dated 4.6.2001 
 
 
 Nemo 
Mr. Zafar Iqbal 
Chaudhry, ASC 
 36 
C.P.2643-L/2001 
 
U.B.L.etc Vs. Tanvir 
Ahmed Khan  
Appeal 
No.1554(L)/1998 
Dated 29.5.2001 
Raja Muhammad 
Akram, Sr. ASC 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi, AOR  
 
N.R. 
37  
C.P.2769-L/2001 
& C.P.2972-
P.S.O. Co.Ltd.etc Vs. 
Syed Ihad Ali 
Appeal 
No.1429(L)/1998 
 
 Mr. Zafar Iqbal 
Nemo 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
4
L/2001 
Shah,etc.  
& 301(L) CE/1998 
Dated 14.7.2001 
 
Chaudhry, ASC 
38  
C.P.2777-L/2001 
 
Syed Khalid Pervaiz 
Hussain Shah Vs. 
The P.I.A. Corp.etc.  
Appeal 
No.1403(L)/1998  
Dated 9.5.2001 
 Nemo 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. 
AOR/ASC a/w 
Azmatullah Khan, 
Manager Legal PIA 
 
39  
C.P.2951-L/2001 
 
Manzoor Ahmed Vs. 
PASSCO Ltd. and 
others  
Appeal 
No.984(L)/1998 
Dated 28.6.2001 
Ch. Khalid 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, ARO 
  
Mr. Muhammad Akram 
Khawaja, ASC a/w Mr. 
Mehmood-ul-Islam, 
AOR 
 
40  
C.P.3105-L/2001 
 
Muhammad Siddique 
Vs. The G.M. Central 
Tel. Region PTCL, 
and others  
 
Appeal No. 
1180(L)/1999 
Dated 24.7.2001 
Nemo 
  
Nemo 
41  
C.P.3108-L/2001 
 
State Life Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan and others 
Vs. Dr. Afzaal 
Ahmed Khan  
W.P. No. 
1246/1997 
Dated 30.5.1997 
Mr. Jehanzeb 
Khan Bharwana, 
ASC 
  
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
Islam, AOR a/w 
respondent 
42  
C.P.3173-L/2001 
 
Tasawar Ali Sial Vs. 
UBL and another  
Appeal 
No.1014(L)/1999 
Dated 28.7.2001 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
  
Mr. Shahid Karim, 
ASC a/w Mr. 
Mehmood-ul-Islam, 
AOR 
43  
C.P.3218-L/2001 
 
Shafqat Ali Vs. HBL 
and others  
Appeal 
No.1978(L)/1999 
Dated 2.8.2001 
 
  
 Nemo 
Mr. Muhammad Iqbal 
Khan, ASC 
44  
C.P.3247-L/2001 
& C.P.3248-
L/2001 
Ghulam Muhammad 
Vs. Chief Eng. 
Projects Sui Northern 
Gas Pipelines Ltd. 
and others  
 
Appeal No. 
1845(L)/1998 & 
1898(L)/1998 
Dated 20.6.2001 
 Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
N.R. 
45  
C.P.3274-L/2001 
& C.P.3275-
L/2001 
Maqsood Ahmed 
Farooqi Vs. UBL and 
another  
Appeal 
No.982(L)/1999 & 
986(L)/1999 
Dated 4.8.2001 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
a/w 
 (in 3274/01) 
Rana 
Muhammad 
Sarwar, ASC (in 
3275/01), Mr. 
Faiz-ur-Rehman, 
AOR in both  
  
 
 
Mr. Shahid Karim 
Bhatti, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
Islam, AOR 
46  
C.P.3774-L/2001 
& C.P.3775-
L/2001 
Haroon Abbas 
Shahid Vs. PTCL thr. 
its M.D.and others  
Appeal 
No.1058(L)CS/200
0 & 
1059(L)CS/2000 
Dated 23.10.2001 
 
 Mian Qamar uz 
Zaman, ASC 
N.R 
47  
C.P.3994-L/2001 
 
Abrar Ahmed Khan 
Alamgir Vs. Pakistan 
Television 
Corporation Ltd. thr. 
Chairman / Secy. and 
others  
 
Appeal 
No.871(L)/1999 
Dated 31.10.2001 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
48  
C.P.4026-L/2001 
& C.P.4027-
L/2001 
Tehmina Bashir Vs. 
Chairman PTCL and 
others  
Appeal No. 
234(L)CS/2001 & 
235(L)CS/2001 
Dated 25.10.2001 
 
Ps- In Person  
 in both 
Mr. Gorsi Muhammad 
din Ch. ASC a/w Mr. 
Mehmood-ul-Islam 
49  
C.P.4073-L/2001 
 
Muhammad Aslam 
Vs. The Chairman 
PTCL and others  
Appeal No. 
7(L)CS/2001 
Dated 31.10.2001 
 
Nemo 
N.R. 
50  
C.P.347-K/2001 
& C.P.348-
Trustees of the Port 
of Karachi Vs. 
Appeal Nos. 448 & 
531 (K)CE/2000 
Mr. Hashmat Ali 
Habib, ASC in 
Mr. M.M. Aqil Awan, 
ASC 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
5
K/2001 
Lt.Cdr.(Retd) Abdul 
Narejo and others  
Dated 5.12.2001 
both 
 
 
51  
C.P.1202-L/2002 
 
Abdul Majeed Sh. 
Vs. The Director 
(E&D) A.D.B.P., 
Islamabad and others  
Appeal 
No.18(L)/1999  
Dated 20.2.2002 
Ch. Khalid 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman , AOR 
  
Mr. Shahid Karim, 
ASC a/w Mr. 
Mehmood-ul-Islam, 
AOR 
52  
C.P.1346-L/2002 
 
Abdul Hameed Butt 
Vs. State Life 
Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan and others  
Appeal No. 
1552(L)CE/1998 
Dated 14.3.2002 
 
Nemo 
Mr. Jehanzeb Khan 
Bharwana, ASC 
53  
C.P.1808-L/2002 
 
Nazir Ahmed Nasir 
Vs. State Life 
Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakisan and others  
Appeal No. 
104(L)/1999 
Dated 18.3.2002 
Nemo 
  
Mr. Jehanzeb Khan 
Bharwana, ASC and 
Mr. Sher Zaman Khan, 
ASC a/w Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi, AOR 
54  
C.P.3094-L/2002 
& C.P.3095-
L/2002 
Muhammad Naeem 
Vs. The President 
NBP and others  
Appeal No. 
830(L)CE/1998 
Dated 22.5.2002 
Mr. Abdul 
Rehman 
Siddiquie, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
N.R. 
55  
C.P.3477-L/2002 
 
Muhammad Arshad 
Vs. The President 
UBL and others  
Appeal 
No.1571(L)/1998 
Dated 2.7.2001 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam, AOR  
  
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR 
56  
C.P.3632-L/2002 
 
Muhammad Bashir 
Vs. The President 
HBL and others  
Appeal 
No.667(L)/1997 
Dated 20.8.2002 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
a/w 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
  
Nemo 
57  
C.P.3797-L/2002 
 
Abdul Basit Vs. The 
President N.B.P. and 
others  
Appeal 
No.1529(L)/1998 
Dated 17.9.2002 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
  
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
Islam, AOR 
58  
C.P.3807-L/2002 
 
Ghulam Nabi Vs. 
ADBP  
Appeal No. 
1811(L)/1998 
Dated 21.9.2002 
Ch. Khalid 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
 
 
 
 
 
N.R. 
59  
C.P.4206-L/2002 
 
Zaheer Babar Vs. Sui 
Northern Gas 
Pipelines Ltd. and 
others  
Appeal No. 
323(L)/1999 
Dated 5.11.2002 
 Mr. Mehmood 
A. Sheikh, ASC 
  
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR 
 60 
C.P.57-L/2003 
 
Irshad Ahmed 
Rehmani Vs. M.D. 
PASSCO and two 
others  
Appeal No. 
1764(L)CE/1998 
Dated 10.9.2002 
Ch. Khalid 
Farooq, ASC a/w 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR 
  
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR 
 61 
C.P.180-L/2003 
 
S. Manzoor Hussain 
Shah Vs. Federation 
of Pakistan, etc  
Appeal No. 
1210(L)/1999 
Dated 22.11.2002 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
62  
C.P.215-K/2003 
 
Syed Ahmed Naqvi 
Vs. National 
Engineering Service 
Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. 
and another  
Appeal No. 
843(K)CE/2000 
Dated 21.02.2003 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
 63 
C.P.276-L/2003 
 
PTCL thr. its G.M., 
etc Vs. Ali Ahmed  
Appeal No. 
721(L)/1999 
Dated 12.12.2002 
 
 
Ch. Muhammad 
Sharif, ASC 
N.R. 
64  
C.P.284-K/2003 
 
Khurshid Alam 
Qureshi Vs. H.B.F.C. 
and others  
Appeal No. 
1048(K)/1999 
Dated 6.3.2003 
 Mr. A.S. K. 
Ghori, ASC 
  
Raja Sher Muhammad 
Khan, AOR 
 65 
C.P.293-L/2003 
 
Aftab-ur-Rehman 
Meer Vs. President 
HBL, etc  
Appeal No. 
805(L)/1999 
Dated 12.12.2002 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
 66 
C.P.329-L/2003 
 
Azhar Abbas Bokhari 
Vs. Asst. Engineer, 
etc  
Appeal No. 
431(L)/1999 
Dated 11.12.2002 
 Nemo 
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
6
 
67  
C.P.401-K/2003 
 
Ex-Havaldar 
Tassadaq Hussain Vs. 
Federal Service 
Tribunal and another  
 
Appeal No. 
279(K)CS/2002 
Dated 19.3.2003 
P- In Person  
  
Raja Muhammad 
Irshad, DAG a/w Ch. 
Akhtar Ali, AOR 
68  
C.P.441-L/2003 
&  C.P.442-
L/2003 
Muhammad Akram 
Aftab Vs. Sui 
Northern Gas 
Pipelines Ltd., etc  
Appeal Nos. 
711(L) & 
712(L)/1999 
Dated 23.12.2002 
 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
  
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR 
 69 
C.P.544-L/2003 
 
Mohammad Ismail 
Qureshi Vs. HBL, 
etc  
Appeal No. 
1182(L)/1999 
Dated 20.2.2003 
 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR 
N.R. 
70  
C.P.584-K/2003 
 
Dr.Sahib Khan 
Kheshkhely Vs. 
Federation of 
Pakistan M/O 
Industries and 
Production and 
others  
 
Appeal No. 
118(K)CE/2003 
Dated 29.5.2003 
Nemo 
N.R. 
 71 
C.P.654-L/2003 
 
Gul Nawaz Khan Vs. 
HBL, etc  
Appeal No. 
999(L)/1999 
Dated 16.1.2003 
 
P- In Person  
 
Mian Muhammad 
Saleem, ASC 
 72 
C.P.712-L/2003 
 
Mian Javed Akhtar 
Vs. State Life 
Insurance Corp., etc  
Appeal No. 
38(L)CE/2002 
Dated 11.12.2002 
 
  
Nemo 
Mr. Jehanzeb 
Bharwana, ASC 
 73 
C.P.735-L/2003 
 
Abdul Sattar Vs. 
Passco thr. its M.D., 
etc  
Appeal No. 724-
L/1999 
Dated 23.1.2003 
 
 
 
 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
 74 
C.P.884-L/2003 
 
Muhammad Anwar 
Butt Vs. HBL, etc  
Appeal No. 
208(L)CE/2002 
Dated 17.2.2003 
 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
75  
C.P.911-K/2003 
 
Pakistan Reinsurance 
Co.Ltd. Vs. 
Humayun Zia and 
another  
Appeal No. 
1158(K)/1998 
Dated 16.10.2003 
 
Nemo 
N.R. 
76  
C.P.912/2003 & 
C.P.529-
531/2004 
Gulzar Ahmad 
Soomro Vs.Sui 
Southern Gas 
Co.Ltd.  
Appeal Nos. 
40(R)CE/2003,  
Dated 26.3.2003 
Appeal No. 
1328(K)/1999, 
327(CE)/2001 & 
328(CE)/2001 
Dated 4.11.2003 
Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Farooq, ASC a/w 
petitioner (in 
912/03)  
Malik  
Muhammad 
Qayyum, ASC 
(529-531/04)  
Ejaz Muhammad Khan, 
AOR (in 912/03) 
Khawaja Muhammad 
Farooq, ASC, 
Sheikh,Riaz Ul Haq, 
ASC, Sardar Liaqat Ali, 
Ch. Arshad Ali (in CP 
520-231) 
 
 77 
C.P.982-L/2003 
 
Abdul Malik Vs. 
Vice President & 
Zonal Chief, HBL, 
etc  
 
Appeal No. 
223(L)/1999 
Dated 25.3.2003 
 Nemo 
N.R 
 78 
C.P.1025-L/2003 
 
Muhammad Adnan 
Hanif Vs. PTCL thr. 
its Chairman, etc  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
P- In Person  
N.R 
 79 
C.P.1112-L/2003 
 
Khizer Hayat Vs. 
HBL, etc  
Appeal 
No.69(L)CE/2002 
Dated 26.2.2003 
 
Mr. Muhammad 
Riaz Lone, ASC 
N.R. 
80  
C.P.1166-L/2003 
 
Abdul Majeed 
Siddiqui Vs. The 
President HBL, etc  
Appeal No. 
1595(L)/1998 
Dated 24.2.2003 
 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
81  
C.P.1267/2003 
Pakistan State Oil 
Appeal No. 
Mr. Zafar Iqbal 
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
7
 (D.B) 
Co.Ltd and another 
Vs. Madah Khan 
Mehsud  
177(P)CE/2001 
Dated 29.4.2003 
 
Chaudhry, ASC 
82  
C.P.1271-
1272/2003 
 
State Life Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan and others 
Vs. Muhammad  
Munir Chishti  
 
Appeal Nos. 
1017(R) CE/2001 
& 1018 (R) 
CE/2001 
Dated 23.4.2003 
Mr. Ibadur 
Rehman, ASC  
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan, AOR 
N.R. 
83  
C.P.1282-
1283/2003 
 
United Bank Ltd . 
and others Vs. Khan 
Muhammad Shah  
Appeal Nos. 204 
(P) & 205 (P)/1998 
Dated 5.7.2001 
Mr. Nafees 
Ahmad Siddiqui, 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR  
 
N.R. 
84  
C.P.1288-L/2003 
 
Waqar Ahmed Khan 
Vs. PTC thr. its G.M. 
and others  
Appeal No. 
205(L)/1999 
Dated 21.4.2003 
 
 Nemo 
  
Gorsi Muhammad Din 
Chaudhry, ASC, Ch. 
Muhammad Sharif, 
ASC a/w Mr. 
Mehmood-ul-Islam, 
AOR 
 
85  
C.P.1312/2003 
 
Divisional 
Engineer,Telegraphs,
Batkhela and another 
Vs. Jehani Room  
 
 
 
Appeal No. 
25(P)CE/2002 
Dated 21.4.2003 
Hafiz S.A 
Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik  
  
 
 
Mr. Abdul Rehman 
Siddiqui, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch 
86  
C.P.1314-L/2003 
 
Khalil Ahmed Vs. 
Zonal Head NBP, 
and others  
Appeal No. 
1544(L)/1998 
Dated  17.3.2003 
 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
Islam, AOR 
87  
C.P.1339/2003 
 
Habib Bank Ltd. and 
others Vs. 
Muhammad Yousuf  
Appeal No. 
106(Q)CW/2001 
Dated 30.3.2003 
Mr. Shahid 
Anwar Bajwa, 
ASC 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak, AOR  
 
N.R 
88  
C.P.1415/2003 
 (C.O) 
Syed Tassawar 
Hussain Shah Vs. 
Chairman Pakistan 
Agricultural Research 
Council and others  
Appeal No. 
906(R)CE/2001 
Dated 21.5.2003 
Mr. Abdul 
Rehman 
Siddiqui, ASC 
Ch Muhammad 
Akram  
 
 
Mr. AM. Billal, Sr. 
ASC 
Syed Zafar Abbas 
Naqvi, AOR 
89  
C.P.1432-L/2003 
 
Qamar uz Zaman Vs. 
National Bank of 
Pakistan thr. its 
President and others 
  
Appeal No. 
1769(L)1998 
Dated 2.4.2003 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
  
Mr. Noor Muhammad 
Khan Chandia, ASC 
90  
C.P.1515-
1516/2003 
 
State Bank of 
Pakistan and another 
Vs. Shams-ul-Islam  
Appeal 
No.476(R)CE & 
518(R)CE/2002 
Dated 23.4.2003 
Mr. Khalid 
Anwar, Sr. ASC 
Raja Abdul 
Ghafoor, AOR  
R-In person 
91  
C.P.1611/2003 
 
The Regional Chief 
H.B.L. Regional 
Office Quetta and 
others. Vs. 
Muhammad Musa 
Khan. 
  
 
 
Appeal No. 
39(Q)CE/2000 
Dated 30.3.2003 
Mr. Shahid 
Anwar Bajwa, 
ASC 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak, AOR  
N.R. 
92  
C.P.1645-
1648/2003& 
1657-1658/2003 
National Bank of 
Pakistan thr.its 
President and others 
Vs. Sohail Ahmad  
Appeal Nos. 1170, 
1171, 1172, 1173, 
1174, 1175 
(R)CW/2002 
Dated 2.6.2003 
Mian 
Muhammad 
Qamaruz Zaman, 
ASC 
Raja Abdul 
Ghafoor, AOR  
 
N.R. 
93  
C.P.1674-L/2003 
 
Executive Board of 
Director thr. its 
President HBL and 
Appeal No. 
71(L)CE/2000 
Dated 2.5.2003 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam , AOR 
 
Nemo 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
8
another Vs. 
Muhammad Arshad 
Mehmood Cheema  
 
94  
C.P.1788-L/2003 
 
Ishtiaq Ahmed Sipra 
Vs. State Life 
Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan and another 
  
Appeal No. 
73(L)CE/2000 
Dated 14.5.2003 
 
 Nemo 
Mr. Muhammad 
Jehanzeb Khan 
Bharwana, ASC 
95  
C.P.1857/2003 
 
Shahid Amin Vs. M/s 
P.T.C.L., and 
another  
Appeal 
No.33(R)Cs/2001 
Dated 28.6.2003 
Agha Tariq 
Mehmood, ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, 
AOR  
 
N.R. 
96  
C.P.1899-
1900/2003 
  
Ahmed Gul Vs 
National Bank of 
Pakistan  
Appeal No. 
697(L)1997 & 
1879(L)/1998 
Dated 18.7.2003 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi, AOR 
(in CP1899/03) 
Mr. Faizur 
Rehman, AOR 
(in CP 1900/03)  
  
 
Nemo in 1899/03 
N.R. in 1900/03 
97  
C.P.2003/2003 
 
Hussain Ahmed 
Siddiqi Vs. State 
Engineering Corp. & 
others  
Appeal No. 
1139(R)CE/2001 
Dated 22.7.2003 
Shah Abdul 
Rashid, Sr. ASC  
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik  
 
Ms. Naheeda Mehboob 
Elahi, DAG 
Mr. Nadeem Afzal 
Lone, ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR  
 
98  
C.P.2013/2003. 
 
Manzoor Hussain Vs. 
H.B.L. & others  
Appeal No. 
1031(R)CE/2001 
Dated 13.8.2003 
Mr. Saadat 
Muhammad 
Waraich, ASC 
 
Mian Abdul Rauf, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR 
99  
C.P.2134-L/2003 
 
Hassan Tariz Qadri 
Vs. Sui Northern Gas 
Pipe Lines Ltd., etc  
Appeal No. 
231(L)CE/2002 
Dated 10.6.2003 
 
Mr. Zahid Farani 
Sheikh, ASC  
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR  
100  
C.P.2139-L/2003 
& C.P.2140-
2141-l/2003 
 
Shaukat Hayat Vs. 
PTV. Ltd, etc  
Appeal No. 98, 99 
& 101 (L)CE/2002 
Dated 3.6.2003 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi, AOR  
N.R. 
101  
C.P.2146-L/2003 
 
Muhammad Jameel 
Khan Vs. Chairman 
ADBP, etc  
Appeal No. 
187(L)/1999 
Dated 12.6.2003 
 
  
 Nemo 
Mr. Muhammad Afzal 
Sidhu, ASC 
102  
C.P.2211-L/2003 
 
Muhammad Iqbal 
Javed Vs. D.G. 
Pakistan 
Broadcasting Corp. 
Islamabad, etc  
 
Appeal No. 
1788(L)/1998 
Dated 16.7.2003 
Nemo 
N.R. 
103  
C.P.2254-L/2003 
 
Ranvir Ahmad 
Siddiqui Vs. National 
Bank of Pakistan, etc  
Appeal No. 
1243(L)/1999 
Dated 28.6.2003 
 Mr. Ali Akbar 
Qureshi, ASC 
Dr. Sohail 
Akhtar, ASC 
 
N.R. 
104  
C.P.2299-L/2003 
 
Habib Bank Ltd. and 
others Vs. Malik 
Muhammad Bashir 
Awan and another  
 
 
 
Appeal 
No.650(L)/1997 
Dated 3.7.2003 
 Mian Abdul 
Rashid, ASC 
N.R. 
105  
C.P.2363-L/2003 
 
Muhammad Maqsood 
Elahi Vs. National 
Bank of Pakistan  
Appeal 
No.330(L)CE/2000 
Dated 14.7.2000 
 
Nemo 
 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
Islam, AOR 
106  
C.P.2434/2003 
 
Masood Ahmed Vs. 
Fed. of Pakistan thr. 
Secy. M/o 
Information Media 
Development, 
Islamabad & others  
 
Appeal 
No.111(Q)CE/2001 
Dated 4.6.2003 
 Nemo 
N.R. 
107  
C.P.2565/2003 
Muhammad Khurshid 
Appeal No. 
Ch Muhammad 
Raja Muhammad 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
9
 
Vs. Allama Iqbal 
Open University  
1226(R)CE/2001 
Dated 15.8.2003 
Akram, AOR  
 
Ibrahim Satti, ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR 
 
108  
C.P.2566-L/2003 
 
Manzoor ul Hassan 
Vs. National Bank of 
Pakistan and another  
 
Appeal 
No.78(L)/1999 
Dated 17.2.1999 
 
 Nemo 
Nemo 
109  
C.P.2568-
2569/2003 & 
2579, 2604/03 & 
C.P.515/2004 
 
Chairman National 
Highway Authority 
Vs. Munir Ahmed 
Memon  
Appeal No. 
1081(R)CE/2002, 
Dated 5.8.2003 
Appeal 
No.1138(R)CE/200
2 
Dated 10.6.2003 
Appeal 
No.1081(R)CE/200
2 dated 5.8.2003 
Appeal No. 
175(K)CS/2001 
Dated 10.7.2003 
Appeal No. 
492(R)CS/2002 
 
Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman, Sr. 
ASC a/w 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik, AOR (in 
CPS 2568-69 &  
2604/03 
Sheikh Riaz Ul 
Haq, ASC a/w 
Ch. Muhammad 
Akram(in 
CPs2579/03) 
Nemo (515/04)  
 
Sheikh Riaz Ul Haq, 
ASC a/w Mr. M.A. 
Zaidi, AOR (in 2568-
2569, 2604/03 & 
515/04) 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Sr. 
ASC (in CP 2579/03) 
110  
C.P.2017-
2020/2003 & 
2576/2003 
G.M. NTR. PTC,L 
etc. & another Vs. 
Naseer Muhammad 
& others  
Appeal No.212(P), 
213(P), 215(P), 
217(P)/1998 
Dated 3.7.2003 
Ch. Khalid 
Farooq, ASC a/w 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR 
(2017-2020/03) 
Mr. Abdul 
Rehman 
Siddiqui, ASC 
a/w Ch. 
Muhammad 
Akram, AOr 
(2576/03)  
 
Mr. Abdul Rehman 
Siddiqui, ASC a/w 
Arshad Ali Chaudhry, 
AOR (in 2017-2020/03) 
Nemo in CP 2576/03  
111  
C.P.2627/2003 
 
Manager H.B.L. & 
another Vs. Jehanzeb 
& another  
Appeal No. 
16(P)CW/2001 
Dated 15.8.2003 
Khawaj 
Muhammad 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR  
 
R- In Person 
112  
C.P.2748-L/2003 
 
The Regional / Zonal 
Chief NBP and others 
Vs. Ghulam Abbas 
Ali Khan  
 
Appeal 
No.1128(L)/1999 
Dated 10.9.2003 
 Mian Qamar Uz 
Zaman, ASC 
N.R. 
113  
C.P.2752-L/2003 
 
Zulfiqar Ali Vs. The 
M.D. SBFC, 
Islamabad.  
Appeal 
No.1081(L)/1999 
Dated 2.10.2003 
 Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, ASC 
a/w Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad Khan, 
AOR 
 
114  
C.P.2773-L/2003 
 
Muhammad Rafique 
Vs. Chairman State 
Engg. Corporation 
and another  
 
Appeal 
No.235(L)CE/2002 
Dated 7.10.2003 
In person 
 
Dr. Sohail Akhtar, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR 
115  
C.P.2774-L/2003 
 
Ghulam Abbas Ali 
Khan Vs. The Zonal 
Chief NBP and 
others  
Appeal 
No.1128(L)/1999 
Dated 10.9.2003 
 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
 
Mian Muhammad 
Qamar Uz Zaman, ASC 
116  
C.P.2792-2793-
L/2003 
 
Niaz Ahmed Sh. Vs. 
The President HBL 
and others  
Appeal 
No.175(L)CE & 
176(L)CE/2000 
Dated 15.10.2003 
 Mr. Hanif 
Ahmad Dogar, 
ASC 
 
N.R. 
117  
C.P.2805-L/2003 
 
Muhammad Yasin 
Vs. Secy. Evacuee 
Trust Property Board 
Lahore and others 
 
Appeal 
No.165(L)CS/2003 
Dated 1.10.2003 
 Mr. Zahid 
Hussain, ASC 
 
Mian Muhammad 
Qamar Uz Zaman, ASC 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor 
118  
C.P.2825-L/2003 
 
Muhammad Alam 
Vs. General Manager 
Telecommunication 
Region South-II 
Egerton Road Lahore 
Appeal 
No.77(L)CS/2003 
Dated 19.9.2003 
 Ch. Muhammad 
Sharif, ASC 
 
Gorsi Muhammad Din 
Chaudhry, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
Islam, AOR 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
10
and another  
 
119  
C.P.2836-L/2003 
 
Raja Hassan Shehbaz 
Vs. Pakistan Atomic 
Energy Commission 
and another 
  
 
 
Appeal No. 
717(L)2003 
Dated 12.5.2003 
 Nemo 
N.R. 
120  
C.P.2881-L/2003 
 
The President Habib 
Bank Ltd. and others 
Vs. Muhammad 
Younus Shah 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal 
No.119(L)/1998 
Dated 24.9.2003 
Mian 
Muhammad 
Saleem, ASC 
Agha Tariq Mehmood, 
ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
121  
C.P.3001/2003 
 
Ch. Khan Mirza Vs. 
State Life Insurance  
Appeal No. 
246(R)/2003 
Dated 10.9.2003 
Rao Fazal 
Akhtar, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan, AOR  
 
Agha Tariq Mehmood, 
ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
122  
C.P.3011/2003 
 
Habib Bank Ltd. & 
another Vs. 
Muntazim Khan & 
others  
Appeal No. 
233(P)CS/2002 
Dated 17.9.2003 
Khawaja 
Muhamamd 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR  
 
N.R 
123  
C.P.3074-L/2003 
 
Muhammad Akbar 
Vs. HBL thr. its 
President and others  
Appeal No. 
137(L)CE/2003 
Dated 22.10.2003 
 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
N.R. 
124  
C.P.3076/2003 
 
Muhammad Aslam 
Vs. G.M. Western 
Telephone Region-III 
and others  
 
Appeal 
No.1937(L)/1998 
Dated 22.9.2003 
Mr. Jamal Khan, 
Mando Khel, 
ASC 
Nemo 
125  
C.P.3088/2003 
 
SME Bank Ltd., etc. 
Vs. Irfan Walayat 
and others  
Appeal No. 
67(R)CE/2003 
Dated 1.10.2003 
Mr. Muhammad 
Akram Sheikh, 
Sr. ASC & Hafiz 
S.A. Rehman, 
a/w 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik, AOR 
 
Mr. Abdul Rehman 
Siddiqui, ASC a/w Ch. 
Muhammad Akram, 
AOR  
126  
C.P.3134/2003 
 
Dildar Khan Vs. The 
Chairman, State Life 
Insurance 
Corporation, Karachi 
& others 
  
Appeal 
No.1072(R)CE/200
1 
Dated 4.9.2003 
Rao Fazal 
Akhtar, ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali  
 
Agha Tariq Mehmood, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan 
127  
C.P.3175/2003 
 
State Life Insurance 
Corporation and 
another Vs. Dadan 
Khan Jadoon  
Appeal 
No.80(P)CE/2000 
Dated 6.10.2003 
Mr. Ibadur 
Rehman Lodhi, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan, AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
N.R. 
128  
C.P.3182/2003 
 
M/s Sui Southern Gas 
Company Ltd. Vs. 
Abdullah Nohri  
Appeal 
No.1805(K)/1998 
Dated 5.6.2003 
 
 
 
 
 
Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak, AOR 
  
 
 
 
 
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
11
 
 
129  
C.P.3238-L/2003 
 
M.D. Sui Northern 
Gas Pipelines Ltd. 
Lahore and others 
Vs. M. Naeem and 
another  
 
Appeal 
No.1806(L)/1998 
Dated 17.11.2003 
Mahmood A. 
Qureshi, AOR  
N.R 
130  
C.P.3288-L/2003 
 
Muhammad Siddiq 
Naseem Vs. PIA 
Corporation thr. its 
Chairman and 
another 
  
Appeal 
No.54(L)/1999 
Dated 28.10.2003 
Sh. Masood 
Akhtar, 
AOR/ASC  
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch, 
AOR a/w Mr. 
Asmatullah Khan, 
Manager legal PIA 
131  
C.P.3369-
3381/2003 
 
Muhammad Mukhtar 
Khan Vs A.D.B.P 
through its chairman 
etc.  
Appeal 
No.4(R)CE/2003, 
1293(R)CE, 
1294(R)CE, 
1295(R)CE, 
1297(R)CE, 
1299(R)\CE, 
1300(R)CE, 
1311(R)CE, 
1312(R)CE, 
1398(R)CE, 
1399(R)CE, 
1400(R)CE, 
1403(R)CE/2002 
Dated 18.10.2003 
 
Mr. Attaur 
Rehman, ASC 
a/w 
Raja Abdul 
Ghafoor, AOR  
 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Sr. 
ASC, Mr. Muhamamd 
Naeem Sheikh, ASC 
a/w Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR 
132  
C.P.3386/2003 
 
State Life Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan and another 
Vs. Khalil A. Sheikh  
Appeal 
No.1156(R)CE/200
2 
Dated 3.10.2003 
Mr. Ibadur 
Rehman Lodhi, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan, AOR  
 
N.R. 
133  
C.P.3387/2003 
 
President HBL, Ltd. 
& others Vs. Javaid 
Iqbal Qureshi & 
another  
Appeal 
No.348(R)CE/2000 
Dated 15.8.2003 
Rai Muhammad 
Nawaz Kharral, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan, AOR 
 
R- In Person 
134  
C.P.52/2004 
 
Arman ul Haq 
Siddqui Vs. United 
Bank Ltd. and 
another  
Appeal No. 
1398(K)/1997 
Dated 10.11.2003 
 
 Mr. Asmat 
Kamal, ASC 
N.R. 
135  
C.P.74/2004 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan, Karachi and 
another Vs. Khalid 
Mehmood Yousaf  
Appeal No. 
962(R)CE/2001 
Dated 8.11.2003 
Khawaj 
Muhammad 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. Muhammad 
Aslam Uns, ASC 
a/w 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi 
AOR 
 
N.R. 
136  
C.P.106-L/2004 
 
Muhammad Younus 
Vs. ADBP thr. its 
Chairman and others  
Appeal 
No.31(L)CE/2003 
Dated 12.11.2003  
 Ch. Muhammad 
Ibrahim, ASC 
 
Mr. Muhammad Afzal 
Sidhu, ASC a/w Mr. 
M.A. Qureshi, AOR 
 
137  
C.P.109-L/2004 
 
Muhammad Rashid 
Vs. Regional Chief 
N.B.P. of Ltd.  
Appeal 
No.242(L)/1999 
Dated 23.9.2003 
 
 
 
 
 
 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
138  
C.P.136-L/2004 
 
Riaz Hussain Shah 
Vs. Chief Engg. 
(EHV) North, 
National 
Transmission and 
Appeal No. 
643(L)CS/2002 
Dated 7.11.2003 
 
 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
12
Despatch Company 
Ltd. and others  
 
 
 
 
 
 
139  
C.P.192/2004 
 
P.T.C.L. and another 
Vs. Ghulam Farooq, 
Deputy Director 
(Internal Audit) and 
others 
  
 
Appeal 
No.594(R)CS/2002 
Dated 3.11.2003 
Mr. Naheem 
Bukhari, ASC 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik  
 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, 
ARO 
140  
C.P.193/2004 
 
M.D. Oil Gas 
Development 
Corpration Ltd. and 
another Vs. Dr. Zahid 
Aleem Malik and 
others 
  
Appeal 
No.1556(R)CE/200
2 
Dated 4.11.2003 
Rai Muhammad 
Nawaz Kharal, 
ASC a/w 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak, AOR  
N.R. 
141  
C.P.235-L/2004 
 
Ghulam Samdani 
Hashmi Vs. 
Managing Director, 
NESPAK and 
another 
  
Appeal 
No.176(L)/2003 
Dated 20.12.2003 
 Nemo 
N.R. 
142  
C.P.265/2004 
 
Fayyaz ur Rehman 
Vs. F.S.T. Islamabad 
and another 
  
Appeal 
No.140(R)CE/2002 
Dated 4.11.2003 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
143  
C.P.294-L/2004 
 
Kh. Muzammil 
Hussain Vs. Habib 
Bank Ltd. and others  
Appeal 
No.418(L)CE/2000 
Dated 19.12.2003 
Nemo  
N.R. 
144  
C.P.329/2004 
 
Malik Dad and 
another Vs. Karrar 
Khalid and another  
Appeal 
No.1397(R)CE/200
2 
Dated 23.12.2003 
 
Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak, AOR  
 
N.R. 
145  
C.P.337-L/2004 
 
Masud Akhtar Khan 
Vs. IDBP and others  
Appeal 
No.710(L)CE/2000 
Dated 13.11.2003 
 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
 
N.R. 
146  
C.P.359-K/2004 
 
Mukhtar Ahmed 
Brohi Vs. Govt.of 
Pakistan thr.its 
Secy.M/O Finance 
and others  
 
Appeal 
No.413(K)CE/2001 
Dated 7.2.2004 
Mr. N.C.Motiani 
ASC/AOR  
 
Raja Sher Muhammad 
Khan, ASC/AOR 
147  
C.P.349-
353/2004 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan, thr. 
Attorney and others 
Vs. Abdul Aziz  
Appeal No.440(L), 
636(L)/1998  
Dated 11.12.2003 
Appeal No. 
698(L)/1998 
Dated 4.12.2003 
Appeal No. 
1079(L)/1998 
Dated 11.12.2003 
Appeal No. 
1340(L)/1998 
Dated 4.12.2003 
 
 
 
Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Farooq, ASC aw/ 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR 
N.R. 
148  
C.P.365-L/2004 
 
The Regional Head 
NBP Ltd. and others 
Vs. Gulzar Ahmed  
Appeal No. 
697(L)/1998 
Dated 4.12.2003 
 
 
 
 
Nemo 
N.R. 
149  
C.P.380-381-
K/2004 
 
Rasheed Ahemd 
Bhutto Vs. Ministry 
of Industries and 
Production and 
another  
Appeal No.5 & 6 
(K)CE/2000 
Dated 20.2.2004 
Nemo 
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
13
 
150  
C.P.386-K/2004 
 
Muhammad Aslam 
Khan Vs. Civil 
Aviation Authority 
and others 
  
 
 
Appeal 
No.356(K)CE/2001 
Dated 4.3.2004 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
151  
C.P.391-
392/2004 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan Ltd. Vs. 
Qurban Ali Channa 
and others 
  
Appeal No.1962 & 
1964(K)/1998 
Dated 18.7.2003 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam  
N.R. 
152  
C.P.416-L/2004 
 
Malik Muhammad 
Noor Vs. Chairman 
State Cement 
Corporation of 
Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. 
  
Appeal 
No.4(L)CE/2003 
Dated 9.12.2003 
Nemo 
N.R. 
153  
C.P.418-L/2004 
 
Rana Muhammad 
Khalil Vs. National 
Bank of Pakistan thr. 
its President and 
others 
  
Appeal 
No.556(L)CE/2000 
Dated 10.12.2003 
P- In Person  
 
Noor Muhammad 
Chandia, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
Islam, AOR 
154  
C.P.419/2004 
 
Pakistan International 
Airlines Corporation 
thr.M.D. and another 
Vs. Sohail Rashid  
Appeal 
No.435(K)CE/2002 
Dated 11.12.2002 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Chaudhry, AOR 
a/w Asmatullah 
Khan, Legal 
Manager PIA 
 
N.R. 
155  
C.P.421-L/2004 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan thr. its 
President and others 
Vs. Akhtar Hussain 
Khalid  
 
 
Nemo 
 
Muhammad Aslam 
Uns, ASC  
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR 
156  
C.P.419-424-
K/2004 
 
Talatul Wahid and 
another Vs. 
Aurangzeb and 
others  
Appeal No. 853 to 
856, 858 & 
859(K)CE/2000 
Dated 9.3.2004 
Raja Sher 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik 
AOR in CP 419-K/04 
 
157  
C.P.425-K/2004 
 
Fazil Umer Vs. 
federation of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan 
and another  
 
Appeal 
No.59(K)CE/2000 
Dated 8.3.2004 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
158  
C.P.499/2004 
 
P.I.A. Corporation, 
thr. its Chairman Vs. 
Imran Ahmed Khan 
and another  
Appeal No. 
91(K)CE/2004 
Dated 26.2.2004 
Mr. Javed Altaf, 
ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, 
AOR 
159  
C.P.425-L/2004 
 
Noor Ahmed Captain 
Vs. The Manager 
ADBP and others 
  
 
 
Zahid Hussain 
Khan, ASC  
N.R. 
160  
C.P.464-K/2004 
 
Shoukat Ali Khan 
Vs. The Director 
General Pakistan 
Broadcasting 
Corporation and 
others 
  
Appeal 
No.1507(K)CE/200
1 
Dated 29.3.2004 
Mr. Niaz Ahmad 
Khan, ASC 
N.R. 
161  
C.P.466-K/2004 
 
Ghulam Abbas 
Memon Vs. The 
Secy.M/O Industries 
and Production and 
others 
  
 
Appeal No. 
873(K)CE/2002 
Dated 31.3.2004 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
162  
C.P.527/2004 
 
Munawar Hussain 
Vs. Chairman Dr. 
Abdul Qadeer Khan 
Research 
Laboratories (KRL) 
Appeal No. 
1210(R)CE/2003 
Dated 24.12.2003 
P- In Person  
 
Muhammad Aslam 
Uns, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
14
and another 
  
 
163  
C.P.562/2004 
 
Tariq Waheed Khan 
Vs. The President 
N.B.P. of Pakistan 
and others  
Appeal 
No.35(Q)/1999 
Dated 15.12.2003 
 Petition in 
person 
 
Mr. Muhammad 
Rasheed Qamar, ASC 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, 
AOR 
 
164  
C.P.514-515-
K/2004 
  
Salahuddin Vs. 
Minister for 
Agriculture/Chairma
n and others  
Appeal No. 
27/1998 
Dated 31.3.2000 
Appeal No. 
202/2002 
Dated 13.4.2004 
 
 
Nemo 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, 
AOR 
165  
C.P.545-K/2004 
  
Liaquat Ali 
Khanzada Vs. The 
Minister for 
Agriculture Chairman 
and others  
 
Appeal No. 
202/2002 
Dated 29.4.2004 
 
Nemo 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, 
AOR 
166  
C.P.627-
629/2004 
 
Nazar Shah Khattak 
Vs. The Chairman, 
Pakistan 
Telecomunication 
and others  
Appeal No. 
416(L)CS/2001, 
151 & 
155(L)CS/2002  
Dated 23.1.2004 
 
 Nemo 
N.R. 
167  
C.P.657-K,659-
K/2004 
  
Bashir Ahmed Vs. 
Pakistan Steel Mills 
& another  
Appeal No. 
9(K)CE/2001 
Dated 18.6.2004 
Nemo 
 
Mr. M.G. Dastagir, 
ASC 
Raja Sher Muhammad 
Khan, AOR 
 
168  
C.P.671-K/2004 
Dr.Mushtaq Ahmed 
Sheikh Vs. Pakistan 
Steel and others  
Appeal No. 
1511(K)CE/2001 
Dated 10.7.2004 
 Nemo 
Mr. M.G. Dastagir, 
ASC 
Raja Sher Muhammad 
Khan, AOR 
 169 
C.P.703/2004 
 
Agricultural 
Development Bank 
of Pakistan (Now 
Z.T.B. L.) thr. its 
Chairman Vs. Ijaz 
Akhtar  
Appeal No. 
1208(R)CE/2002 
Dated 5.12.2003 
Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik, AOR 
  
N.R. 
170  
C.P.802-K, 812-
K/2004 
  
Muhammad Akbar 
Tariq Vs. M/s 
Pakistan Steel Mills 
Corp. and others  
Appeal 
No.757(K)CE/2000 
Dated 16.9.2004 
Nemo in CP 
802-K/04 
Mr. M.G. 
Dastagir, ASC in 
CP812-K/04 
 
 
Mr. M.G. Dastagir, 
ASC in CP802-K/04 
Nemo in CP 812-K/04 
171  
C.P.889/2004 
 
M.D. Pakistan 
Agricultural Storage 
& Services 
Corporation Ltd. and 
others Vs. Rana 
Abdur Raoof  
 
Appeal No. 
638(L)CE/2000 
Dated 5.3.2004 
Muhamamd 
Akram Khawaja, 
ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam AOR 
 
N.R. 
172  
C.P.905/2004 
 
Chairman N.H.A., 
Islamabad Vs. 
Muhammad Imtiaz 
Khan and another  
Appeal No. 
14(Q)CE/2003 
Dated 9.2.2004 
Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik, AOR 
  
N.R. 
173  
C.P.914/2004 
 
S.M.E. Bank Limited 
Vs. Muhammad 
Saleem Javed and 
others  
Appeal No. 
740(L)/1999 
Dated 30.1.2004 
Mr. U.K. Butt, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan AOR 
 
Mr. Almas Haider 
Kazmi, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. 
AOR 
174  
C.P.927/2004 
 (Ch.O) 
Munawar Ahmad 
CHASNUPP Site 
Kundian Vs. 
Chairman Pakistan 
Atomic Energy 
Commission 
Islamabad.  
Appeal 
No.566(R)CE/2002 
Dated 4.3.2004 
P- In Person  
 
Raja Muhammad 
Ibrahim Satti, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan, AOR 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
15
 
175  
C.P.1006/2004 
 
Cantonment Board 
Wah Cantt. thr. its 
Executive Officer 
and another Vs. 
Ghulam Rabbani 
  
Appeal No. 
517(R)CS/2003 
Dated  24.2.2004 
Agha Tariq 
Mehmood, ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali. 
AOR 
N.R. 
176  
C.P.1007/2004 
 
Zari Taraqiati Bank 
Ltd. through its 
Chairman and others 
Vs. Muhammad 
Samin Jan  
Appeal No. 
113(P)CE/2002 
Dated 26.2.2004 
Mr. Muhammad 
Rasheed Qamar, 
ASC 
Raja Abdul 
Ghafoor AOR 
 
Sh. Riaz Ul Haq, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.,AOR 
177  
C.P.1021/2004 
 
P.S.O. Company Ltd. 
thr. its M.D. PSO 
House and another 
Vs. Ansar Iqbal Zafar 
  
Appeal No. 
956(K)CE/2002 
Dated 26.4.2004 
Mr. Zafar Iqbal 
Ch. ASC 
 
R- In Person 
178  
C.P.1022/2004 
 
Abdul Majeed Sial 
Vs. A.D.B.P. Ltd. thr. 
its Chairman and 
another  
Appeal No. 
1298(R)CE/2002 
Dated 20.2.2004 
 Nusrat Javed 
Bajva, ASC 
 
Mr. Muhammad Afzal 
Sindu, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
Islam, AOR 
 
179  
C.P.1048-L/2004 
 
Gulzaib Hussain Vs. 
Sui Northern Gas 
Pipelines Ltd. and 
others  
 
Appeal No. 
674(L)/1997 
Dated 10.1.2004 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR 
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR 
180  
C.P.1074-L/2004 
 
Intizar Hussain Vs. 
M.D. HBFC, Karachi 
and others  
Appeal No. 
79(L)CE/2000 
Dated 6.1.2004 
 
 
 Nemo 
Nemo 
181  
C.P.1112-L/2004 
 
Muhammad Saleem 
Malik Vs. The ADBP 
and others  
Appeal 
No.1451(L)/1999 
Dated 10.2.2004 
Nemo 
 
Muhammad Afzal 
Sindu, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-Islam 
 
182  
C.P.1125/2004 
 
Zafar ul Haq Vs. Sui 
Northern Gas 
Pipelines Ltd. and 
another  
 
 
Appeal No. 
405(L)CE/2000 
Dated 9.4.2004 
 
P- In Person  
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR 
183  
C.P.1127/2004 
 
SME Bank Ltd. Vs. 
Syed Husnain Tariq  
Appeal No. 390 & 
374(R)CE/2001 
Dated 28.2.2004 
Tariq Aziz, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan, AOR  
 
R- In Person 
184  
C.P.1142-L/2004 
 
Faisal Hameed Khan 
Vs. Chairman PTCL 
and others  
Appeal No. 
876(L)CS/2000 
Dated 28.1.2004 
 Nemo 
 
Gorsi Muhammad Din 
Ch. ASC 
185  
C.P.1145-L/2004 
 
Allah Bakhsh Vs. 
Coordinator 
(Operations) Zarai 
Taraqiati Bank Ltd 
Islamabad and others  
 
Appeal No. 
1145(L)CE/2003 
Dated 21.1.2004 
 Nemo 
 
Muhammad Afzal 
Sindu, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
Islam, AOR 
186  
C.P.1146/2004 
 
Nadeem Asghar Vs. 
P.I.A. Corporation, 
thr. its Chairman, 
Karachi and others 
 
Appeal No. 
160(L)CE/2002 
Dated 15.3.2001 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
Ch. Muhammad 
Ashraf, ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR 
187  
C.P.1188-L/2004 
 
The Chief Manager, 
State Bank of 
Pakistan and another 
Vs. Muhammad Shafi 
  
 
Appeal No. 
421(L)CE/2000 
Dated 19.1.2004 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam, AOR  
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR 
188  
C.P.1343-
1448/2004 
 
Cotton Trading, 
Corporation of 
Pakistan (Pvt), Ltd. 
and anohter Vs. 
Muhammad Afzal 
and another 
  
Appeal No. 89, 150 
to 153(L)CE/2002 
& 252(L)CS/2002 
Dated 5.4.2004 
Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi 
AOR in all 
In person in CP1344/04 
189  
C.P.1413/2004 
Sagheer Ahmed ul 
Appeal No. 717(L)
Raja Muhammad 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
16
 
Hassan Asif Vs. 
PASSCO thr. its 
Executive 
Committee/Board of 
Director PASSCO 
and another 
  
CE/2000 
Dated 19.4.2004 
Asghar ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR  
 
Islam, AOR 
190  
C.P.796-K/2005 
 
Abdul Fateh Langah 
Vs. M/s Pakistan 
Steel Mills  
 
Appeal No. 
950(K)CE/2003 
Dated 15.9.2005 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
191  
C.P.1492/2004 
 
Mukhtar Hussain 
Kharal Vs. President 
of SME Bank, 
Islamabad and others 
  
Appeal No. 117(R) 
CE/2003 
Dated 30.4.2004 
Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
N.R. 
 192 
C.P.1598-L/2004 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan Vs. 
Muhammad Irshad.  
Appeal No. 
572(L)CE/2000 
Dated 11.3.2004 
Mian Qamar-uz 
Zaman, ASC 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi  
 
N.R. 
193  
C.P.1610/2004 
 
Younus Masih Vs. 
A.Q. Khan Research 
Laboratories thr. its 
Chairman  
 
Appeal No. 
1139(R)CE/2002 
Dated 17.3.2004 
Ch Muhammad 
Akram AOR 
N.R. 
194  
C.P.1625/2004 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan, thr. its 
Attorney and others 
Vs. Muhammad 
Anwar  
Appeal 
No.1043(R)CE/200
1 
Dated 27.4.2004 
Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR 
 
 
 
 
N.R. 
195  
C.P.1637-1638-
L/2004 
 
Dr. Muhammad 
Rashid Ch. Vs. 
Chairman & Dean 
Sh. Zayed Hospital & 
Post Graduate 
Institute, etc.  
 
Appeal No. 
723(L)CS/2001 & 
691(L)CE/2000 
Dated 22.4.2004 
Nemo in both 
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi in 
CP 1638-L/04 
 196 
C.P.1668-L/2004 
 
Khalid Mehmood 
Shahid Vs. National 
Bank of Pakistan, 
etc.  
Appeal No. 
869(L)/1999 
Dated 3.4.2004 
 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
197  
C.P.1671/2004 
 
Iftikhar Ahmed Vs. 
United Bank Limited, 
Karachi and others  
Appeal No. 
130(P)/1999 
Dated 16.4.2004 
Ch. Muhammad 
Abdul Saleem, 
ASC 
Mr. Muhammad 
Zahoor Qureshi, 
AOR 
N.R. 
198  
C.P.1683-
1685/2004 
 
M/s Pakistan State 
Oil Company Ltd. 
thr. Its M.D. and 
another Vs. Saleem 
Ahmed Sheikh  
 
Appeal No. 397 to 
399(K)CE/2002 
Dated 20.6.2004 
Mr. Zafar Iqbal 
Ch. ASC in all.  
Mr. Abdul Hafeez 
Pirzada, Sr. ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch, 
AOR 
 
199  
C.P.1705/2004 
 
Saeed Ahmed Sheikh 
Vs. Federation of 
Pakistan thr. Secy. 
M/o Finance, 
Islamabad and 
another  
 
Appeal No. 
213(R)CE/2001 
Dated 4.5.2004 
Mr. Abdul 
Karim Khan 
Kundi, ASC 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak, AOR 
 
Khawaj Muhammad 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan, AOR 
200  
C.P.1711/2004 
 
Mumtaz Khan Vs. 
P.I.A. Corporation, 
Karachi, M.D. thr. 
Director Admn. 
PIAC and another  
 
Appeal No. 
1153(R)CE/2002 
Dated 30.4.2004 
Sardar Liaqat 
Ali, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR  
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. a/w 
Asmatullah Khan 
Manager  Legal PIA 
201  
C.P.1743/2004 
 
M.D.Utility Stores 
Corporation & others 
Vs. Amin Ahsan Gill  
Appeal No. 
473(R)CE/2001 
Dated 14.4.2004 
Muhammad 
Jaffar Hashmi, 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
17
AOR  
 
202  
C.P.1749/2004 
 
Saeed ur Rehman Vs. 
Secy. M/o Industries 
and Production, 
Islamabad and others  
Appeal No. 
452(R)CE/2004 
Dated 23.4.2004 
Ch. Muhammad 
Sadiq Warraich, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan AOR  
 
Muhammad Jaffar 
Hashmi, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR 
203  
C.P.1773/2004 
 
Aminullah Ghazi Vs. 
Cantonment 
Executive Office, 
Peshawar, etc.  
Appeal No. 
185(P)CE/2003 
Dated 31.5.2004 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch., AOR  
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
204  
C.P.1779/2004 
 
Capt. Javed Afzal Vs. 
M.D.Pakistan 
International Airlines 
Corporation (PIAC), 
etc.  
 
Appeal No. 
1432(R)CE/2002 
Dated 24.4.2004 
Sh. Riaz ul Haq, 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR  
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch.  
205  
C.P.1780-
1788/2004 
 
Waheed Ahmed Vs. 
Habib Bank Ltd. and 
others  
Appeal Nos. 22 to 
30(P)/CE/2001 
Dated 17.4.2004 
Mr. Khalid 
Khan, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR 
 
 
 
 
 
Mian Abdul Rauf, ASC 
206  
C.P.1798/2004 
 
Chairman C.D.A. 
Islamabad Vs. Dr. 
Nighat Anwar and 
others  
Appeal No. 
351(R)CE/2002 
Dated 16.4.2004 
Rai Muhammad 
Nawaz Kharal, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan AOR 
 
N.R. 
207  
C.P.1811/2004 
 
G.M. (Admn.) 
PASSCO, Lahore and 
another Vs. 
Muhammad Zubair  
Appeal No. 
813(R)CE/2003 
Dated 7.6.2004 
Mr. Muhammad 
Akram Khawaja, 
ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam AOR 
 
N.R 
208  
C.P.1827-
1828,1915-
1916/2004 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan thr. its 
President Vs. Awal 
Shah Afridi  
Appeal Nos.43, 
44(L)CE/2001 
Dated 26.5.2004 
  
Mr. Muhammad 
Rasheed Qamar, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan AOR In 
CP 1827-28/04 
For Fed:Nasir 
Saeed Sheikh, 
DAG 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, 
AOR 
Muhammad 
Munir Peracha, 
in CP 1916/04  
N.R. in both 
209  
C.P.1829/2004 
 
General Manager 
(Admn) PASSCO 
and another Vs. 
Ghulam Sarwar  
Appeal No. 
596(R)CS/2002 
Dated 16.6.2004 
Muhammad 
Akram Khawaja, 
ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam AOR 
 
N.R. 
210  
C.P.1834/2004 
 
Federation of 
Pakistan thr. Secy. 
M/o Defence and 
another Vs. Jehanzeb 
Khan  
 
Appeal No. 
8(P)CE/2001 
Dated 26.4.2004 
Ch. Akhtar Ali  
N.R 
211  
C.P.1836/2004 
 
Shabbir Ahmed Vs. 
PIAC, thr. its 
Chairman and others  
Appeal No. 
822(R)CE/2003 
Dated 17.5.2004 
Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik AOR 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. 
A/w Asmatullah Khan, 
Manager Legal PIA 
212  
C.P.1850-L-
Ijaz Ali Vs. The 
Appeal No. 545, 
Nemo 
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
18
1852-L/2004 
 
Managing Director< 
National Engineering 
Services Pakistan 
Pvt. Ltd. & another.  
 
557 & 561(L)/1999 
Dated 8.11.2003 
213  
C.P.1869/2004 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan, thr. its 
Attorney and another 
Vs. Zawar Hussain  
Appeal No. 
1234(R)CE/2003 
Dated 29.5.2004 
Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR  
 
Mr. Abdul Rehman 
Siddiqui, ASC 
Ch Muhammad Akram, 
AOR 
214  
C.P.1876/2004 
 (Ch.O) 
Syed Muhammad 
Asim Vs. Pak. 
Telecommunication 
Company Ltd. and 
another  
Appeal No. 
1162(R)/2003 
Dated 4.6.2004 
P- In Person  
 
Ch Muhammad Akram 
, AOR 
Ms. Naeeda Mehboob 
Elahi, , Raja 
Muhammad Irshad, 
Deputy Attorney 
Generals 
 
 
 
215  
C.P.1889/2004 
 
Mian Abdur Rashid 
Vs. Managing 
Director, OGDCL  
Appeal No. 
775(R)CE/2003 
Dated 19.5.2004 
Mr. Zulfiqar 
Ahmad Bhutta, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan AOR 
 
Mr. Arif Chaudhry, 
ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR 
216  
C.P.1909-L/2004 
 
Muhammad Aslam 
Saifi Vs. National 
Bank of Pakistan thr. 
its President and 
others  
Appeal No. 
256(L)CE/2003 
Dated 17.4.2004 
Mr. Ehsan ul 
Haq, Ch. ASC 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi , AOR  
Mian Qamar uz Zaman, 
ASC 
217  
C.P.1924-
1925/2004 
 
Oil and Gas 
Development 
Company Ltd. thr. 
M.D. and another Vs. 
Akhtar Hussain  
 
Appeal No. 1306 & 
1307(R)CE/2002 
Dated 12.6.2004 
Mr. Arif 
Chaudhry, ASC 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak, AOR  
N.R. 
218  
C.P.1937/2004 
 
Executive Director, 
P.M.D.C., Islamabad 
Vs. Muhammad 
Ashraf Khan and 
another 
  
Appeal No. 
827(L)CS/2002 
Dated 28.6.2004 
Raja Muhammad 
Bashir, ASC 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak, AOR  
N.R. 
219  
C.P.1939/2004 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan thr. 
Regional Operations 
Vs. Sajjad Hussain 
and others  
 
Appeal No. 
922(K)/1998 
Dated 22.2.2003 
Syed Haider Ali 
Pirzada, Sr. ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR 
N.R. 
220  
C.P.1942/2004 
 
Utility Stores 
Corporation thr. its 
M.D. and others Vs. 
Muhammad Karim  
 
 
Appeal No. 
292(L)CE/2001 
Dated 16.6.2004 
Mr. Muhammad 
Jaffar Hashmi, 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR 
 
Ch. Muhammad Sadiq 
Warraich, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan, AOR 
221  
C.P.1950/2004 
 
Muhammad Akram 
Vs. Secy. to 
Governor, NWFP, 
FATA, Peshawar and 
others  
 
Appeal No. 
234(P)CE/2003 
Dated 10.7.2004 
Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Nemo 
222  
C.P.1960/2004 
 
Chairman Capital 
Development 
Authority, Islamabad 
Vs. Muhammad Shafi 
Soomro  
Appeal No. 
878(R)CE/2003 
Dated 8.6.2004 
Rai Muhammad 
Nawaz Kharal, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan AOR 
 
N.R. 
223  
C.P.1974/2004 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan thr. 
Regional Operation 
Chief, Quetta Vs. 
Allah Ditta Zahid and 
Appeal No. 
19(Q)CE/2003 
Dated 9.6.2004 
Mr. Muhammad 
Rashid Qamar, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Rana Manzoor Ahmad, 
ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
19
another  
Khan AOR 
 
224  
C.P.1989/2004 
 
Chairman Pakistan 
Telecommunication 
Ltd. thr. Chairman 
and others Vs. Khitab 
Gul  
 
Appeal No. 
145(P)CE/2003 
Dated 28.6.2004 
Mr.. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR  
N.R. 
225  
C.P.1990-L/2004 
 
State Bank of 
Pakistan and another 
Vs. Ghulam Shabbir  
Appeal 
No.1807(L)/1998 
Dated 19.4.2004 
Mr. Noor 
Muhamamd 
Khan Chandia, 
ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam  AOR 
 
R- In Person 
226  
C.P.1993/2004 
 
Pakistan 
Telecommunication 
Company thr. its Dy. 
G.M., Rawalpindi 
Vs. Miram Shah 
  
Appeal No. 
209(P)CS/2002 
Dated 22.5.2004 
Mr. Muhammad 
Aslam Uns, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
N.R. 
227  
C.P.2001/2004 
 
Abdul Sattar Vs. 
Federation of 
Pakistan thr. Secy. 
M/o Finance, 
Islamabad and others  
Appeal No. 
1004(R)CE/2001 
Dated 10.7.2004 
Dr. Babar Awan, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan, AOR 
 
Ch Muhammad Akram, 
AOR 
228  
C.P.2004-
2009/2004 
 
Ali Ahsan Dar Vs. 
P.T.C. Ltd. thr. its 
Chairman and others  
Appeal No. 545, 
541, 542 , 544 & 
540(R)CS/2002 
Dated 19.6.2004 
Appeal No. 
12(P)CE/2003 
Dated 19.6.2004 
 
Mr. Tariq Bilal, 
ASC 
Ch Muhammad 
Akram AOR 
N.R. 
229  
C.P.2054-
2059/2004 
 
Sharif Ullah Vs. 
Govt. of Pakistan thr. 
Secy. State and 
Frontier Region and 
others  
Appeal No. 467, 
468, 470, 471, 
469(P)CE/2001, 
1(P)CE/2002 
Dated 3.7.2004 
Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR  
 
Nemo 
230  
C.P.2091/2004 
 
S. Jamil Akhtar Vs. 
Pakistan 
Telecommunication 
Company Ltd thr. its 
President and others 
  
Appeal No. 
987(R)CE/2004 
Dated 19.8.2004 
Sheikh Riaz Ul 
Haq, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch, AOR.  
N.R. 
231  
C.P.2093-
2094/2004 
 
Oil and Gas 
Development 
Company Ltd. thr. 
M.D. and others Vs. 
Ishaque Rasheed 
Roomi  
 
Appeal 
Nos.1496(R)CE/20
02 & 
286(R)CE/2003 
Dated 24.8.2004 
Mr. Arif 
Chaudhry, ASC 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak, AOR  
 
Mr. Zulfiqa Abbas 
Naqvi, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR 
232  
C.P.2091-L/2004 
 
The Chairman 
Pakistan Model 
Education Institution 
Vs. Syeda Farhat 
Rizvi 
  
Appeal No. 
1859(L)/1998 
Dated 19.4.2004 
 Mian Qamar uz 
Zaman, ASC 
 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-Islam 
AOR 
233  
C.P.2095/2004 
 
M.D. National 
Fertilizers Marketing 
Ltd. and another Vs. 
Hidayat Hussain  
 
Appeal No. 
16(P)CE/2003 
Dated 21.9.2004 
Mr. Alamgir, 
ASC 
Mahmud-ul-
Islam AOR 
N.R. 
234  
C.P.2128/2004 
 
Chairman, Pakistan 
International Airlines 
Corp. (PIAC) and 
another Vs. Nuzhat 
Shaheen  
 
Appeal No. 
89(R)CE/2003 
Dated 12.8.2004 
Sheikh Riaz ul 
Haq, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
N.R. 
235  
C.P.2134/2004 
 
Amjad Ali Khan 
Niazi Vs. SME Bank 
thr. its Chairman and 
others  
Appeal No. 
130(L)CE/2001 
Dated 30.8.2004 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
20
 
236  
C.P.2137-
2144/2004 
 
Mira Jan Vs. Govt. of 
Pakistan thr. Secy. 
SAFRON and 
KANA, Islamabad 
and another  
 
Appeal No. 58, 62, 
63, 73, 87, 88, 111, 
115(P)CE/2003 
Dated 9.8.2004 
Mr. Abdul 
Qayyum Sarwar, 
AOR/ASC  
 
N.R. 
237  
C.P.2164/2004 
 
The Managing 
Director, Investment 
Corporation of 
Pakistan Vs. Rehmat 
Ullah and others  
Appeal 
No.179(P)CE/2001 
Dated 13.9.2004 
Mr. Anwar 
Sipra, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan, AOR  
 
N.R. 
238  
C.P.2179/2004 
 (C.O) 
Dilawar Shah Vs. 
Federation of 
Pakistan thr. Secy. 
M/o Petroleum and 
Natural Resource, 
Islamabad and others  
 
Appeal No. 
1469(R)CE/2002 
Dated 2.9.2004 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik,  AOR  
 
Mr. Arif Chaudhry, 
ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR 
239  
C.P.2181-
2182/2004 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan thr. its 
President and others 
Vs. Latif Ahmed 
Qureshi and others  
 
Appeal No. 
1302(L)/1999 
Dated 3.9.2004 
Khawaja 
Muhamamd 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
AOR  
 
 
 
 
N.R. 
240  
C.P.2186/2004 
 
SME Bank Limited 
thr. its M.D. Vs. 
Abdul Sattar and 
others  
Appeal No. 
1004(R)CS/2001 
Dated 10.7.2004 
Mr. F.K. Butt, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan, ASC  
 
N.R. 
241  
C.P.2189/2004 
 
Rana Habibullah 
Khan Vs. Quaid-e-
Azam University, 
Islamabad thr. its 
Registrar and 
another  
Appeal No. 
391(R)CE/2001 
Dated 21.8.2004 
Mr. Muhammad 
Aslam Uns, ASC 
a/w 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch. AOR 
  
N.R. 
242  
C.P.2308-L/2004 
 
Muhammad Mansoor 
Dilawar Vs. Pakistan 
State Life Insurance 
Corporation and 
others  
Appeal No. 
2381(L)/1999 
Dated 7.5.2004 
Mr. Muhammad 
Akram Khawaja, 
ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman, AOR  
 
Mr. Jehanzeb Khan 
Bharwana, ASC 
 243 
C.P.2317-L/2004 
 
Abdul Hameed Vs. 
The President 
Institute of Chartered 
Accountants of 
Pakistan,etc.  
 
 
Appeal No. 
837(L)/1999 
Dated 4.5.2004 
Malik Ghulam 
Rasool, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam  AOR 
 
N.R. 
 244 
C.P.2342-L/2004 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan,etc. Vs. 
Muhamad Sarwar 
Minhas  
Appeal No. 
827(L)/1999 
Dated 26.5.2004 
Mr. Noor 
Muhammad 
Khan Chandio, 
ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam AOR 
 
  
Ghulam Nabi Bhatti, 
ASC  
 245 
C.P.2349-L-
2352-L/2004 & 
2347-2348-
L/2004 
 
Naveed Ahmed 
Irshad Vs. State Life 
Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan and another  
Appeal No. 91, 93, 
95, 96, 97 & 
98(L)CE/2003 
Dated 14.5.2004 
Mr. Noor 
Muhammad 
Khan Chandio, 
ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam AOR 
 
N.R. 
246  
C.P.2377/2004 
 
Pakistan 
Telecommunication 
Company Ltd. thr. 
Chairman and others 
Vs. Nasir Khan  
 
Appeal No. 
1018(R)CS/2002 
Dated 6.7.2004 
Ch. Muhammad 
Sharif, ASC 
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
21
 247 
C.P.2381-L/2004 
 
Bashir Ahmed Vs. 
Sheikh Zayed 
Hospital Lahore,etc 
  
Appeal No. 
569(L)CE/2000 
Dated 25.5.2004 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik  
N.R. 
 248 
C.P.2387-L/2004 
 
Muhammad Aslam 
Vs. P.T.C.L. etc.  
Appeal No. 
647(L)CS/2002 
Dated 17.5.2004 
 
P- In Person  
 
Gorsi Muhamamd Din 
Chaudhry, ASC 
249  
C.P.2407/2004 
 (C.O) 
Noor Ellahi Khan Vs. 
Chairman 
Agricultural 
Development Bank 
of Pakistan and 
another 
  
Appeal No. 
42(R)CE/2001 
Dated 7.8.2004 
Raja Muhamamd 
Asghar, ASC  
 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR 
250  
C.P.2411/2004 
 
Safirullah Vs. 
National Bank of 
Pakistan and others  
 
 
Mr. Abdul 
Rasheed Awan, 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
 
 
N.R. 
251  
C.P.2412/2004 
 
Nadeem Hussain 
Mughal Vs. M.D., 
PIAC Head Office, 
Karachi Airport, 
Karachi and another  
Appeal 
No.497(R)CS/2004 
Dated 18.6.2004 
Sardar Liaqat 
Ali, ASC  
Ijaz Muhamamd 
Khan, AOR 
 
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch.  
252  
C.P.2419/2004 
 
Ihsan Ullah Vs. State 
Life Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan thr. its 
Chairman and 
another  
 
Appeal No. 
116(P)CE/2002 
Dated 2.8.2004 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
253  
C.P.2431/2004 
 
Pervaiz Sher Lodhi 
Vs. ZTBL, Islamabad 
thr. its President and 
another  
Appeal No. 
119(R)CE/2003 
Dated 2.8.2004 
Mr. Abdul 
Rehman 
Siddiqui, ASC 
Ch Muhammad 
Akram  AOR 
 
Mr. S.M. Abdul 
Wahab, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR 
254  
C.P.2463/2004 
 
Muhammad Qayyum 
Vs. State Life 
Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan thr. its 
Chairman, 
Rawalpindi and 
others 
 
 
 
  
Appeal No. 
11(R)CE/2002 
Dated 12.8.2004 
P- In Person  
N.R 
255  
C.P.2464/2004 
 
Iftikhar Ali Butt Vs. 
Chairman Pakistan 
Telecummunication 
Company Ltd. and 
others 
  
Appeal No. 
563(R)CE/2004 
Dated 26.7.2004 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
 
Ch Muhammad Akram, 
AOR 
256  
C.P.2478/2004 
 
Ghulam Husnain Vs. 
Chairman Capital 
Development 
Authority (CDA), 
Islamabad and others 
  
Appeal No. 
358(R)CE/2000 
Dated 18.8.2004 
Mr. F.K. Butt, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
N.R. 
 257 
C.P.2506-L/2004 
(Servie) 
Abdul Qayyum 
Chaudhry Vs. 
Chairman Board of 
Director,etc. 
  
Appeal 
No.712(L)CE/2000 
Dated 11.6.2004 
 
Nemo 
Mr. Jehanzeb Khan 
Bharwana 
258  
C.P.2522-L/2004 
 
Abu Saeed Ahsan 
Islahi Vs. Federation 
of Pakistan and 
others 
  
Appeal No. 
197(L)CE/2002 
Dated 3.7.2004 
Nemo 
 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-Islam 
259  
C.P.2533/2004 
Zahid Inayat Vs. The 
Appeal No. 
Mr. Hifzur 
Mr. Hashmat Ali 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
22
 
Executive Director 
(Personal), ADBP, 
Islamabad and others  
 
584(L)CE/2001 
Dated 5.8.2004 
Rehman, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
 
Habib, ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak 
260  
C.P.2536/2004 
 
Federal Bank of 
Cooperative Vs. Noor 
Ellahi Khan and 
others 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal No. 
970(R)CE/2001 
Dated 232.8.2004 
Ch Muhammad 
Akram  
 
Mr. Hashmat Ali 
Habib, ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak 
261  
C.P.2539/2004 
 
Hanifullah Vs. 
Agricultural 
Development Bank 
of Pakistan, 
Islamabad thr. its 
Chairman and 
another  
 
Appeal No. 
66(P)CE/2002 
Dated 19.8.2004 
Muhammad 
Aslam Uns,  
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
 
Mr. Hashmat Ali 
Habib, ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak 
262  
C.P.2561/2004 
 
Muhammad Ilyas Vs. 
National Bank of 
Pakistan  
Appeal No. 
69(P)CE/2002 
Dated 2.9.2004 
Mr. Abdul 
Rehman 
Siddiqui, ASC 
Ch. Muhammad 
Akram  
 
Muhammad Rasheed 
Qamar, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan 
263  
C.P.2626/2004 
 
P.I.A. Corporation 
thr. its M.D. Vs. Ms. 
Azra Sahi  
Appeal No. 
888(R)CE/2003 
Dated 17.9.2004 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
 
Muhammad Munir 
Peracha, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan, 
 
264  
C.P.2631/2004 
 
Muhammad Aslam 
Vs. Executive 
Engineer, Multan 
Electric and Power 
Supply Company and 
another 
  
Appeal No. 
680(L)CS/2000 
Dated 21.9.2004  
Ch Muhammad 
Akram  
  
Mr. Murtaza Ali Zaidi, 
ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, 
265  
C.P.2634/2004 
 
Hafeez ur Rehman 
Vs. Pakistan 
Telecommunication 
Corporation Ltd. and 
others  
 
Appeal No. 
38(R)CS/2002 
Dated 23.9.2004 
Syed Ishtiaq 
Haider, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan AOR 
NR 
266  
C.P.2707/2004 
 
Mrs. Abida Akhtar 
Vs. Chairman 
Pakistan Agriculture 
Research Council, 
Islamabad and others  
 
Appeal No. 
739(R)CE/2003 
Dated 24.9.2004 
Syed Ishtiaq 
Haider, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
 
 
N.R. 
267  
C.P.2714/2004 
 
Muhammad Anwar 
Vs. Chairman, 
Defence Housing 
Authority Phase-III, 
'Y' Block, Lahore  
 
Appeal No. 
666(R)CS/2003 
Dated 23.7.2004 
Mahmud-ul-
Islam  
N.R. 
268  
C.P.2723/2004 
 
Raja Muhammad 
Farooq Vs. House 
Building Finance 
Corporation thr. its 
M.D. 
  
Appeal No. 
1196(R)CE/2001 
Dated 29.9.2004 
P- In Person  
 
Rana Manzoor Ahmad, 
ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
269  
C.P.2726/2004 
 
Dr. Muhammad 
Amin Deputy 
Director Zarai 
Taraqiati Bank Ltd. 
Vs. The President, 
Zarai Taraqiati Bank 
Ltd, Islamabad 
  
Appeal No. 
439(L)/1999 
Dated 20.9.2004 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman,Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
23
270  
C.P.2747-L/2004 
 
Dr. Muhammad 
Javaid Asif Vs. 
Chairman & Dean, 
(FPGMI) and others 
  
 
 
 
 
Appeal No. 
653(L)CS/2000 
Dated 25.6.2004 
 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam  
N.R. 
271  
C.P.2748/2004 
 
Munawar Ahmed 
CHASNUPP Site 
Kundian Vs. Director 
Admin PAEC 
Headquarter  
 
Appeal No. 
233(R)CE/2003 
Dated 23.10.2004 
P- In Person  
 
Raja Ibrahim Satti, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan 
272  
C.P.2752-
2753/2004 
 (Ch.O) 
National Bank of 
Pakistan and another 
Vs. Muhammad 
Arshad and another 
  
Appeal No. 
1235(L)/1999 & 
3(L)CE/2000 
Dated 15.10.2004 
Khawaja 
Muhamamd 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain in CP 2753/04 
273  
C.P.2757-L/2004 
 
Muhammad Ikram 
Hussain Vs. 
Chairman Atomic 
Energy Commission 
& another.  
 
Appeal No. 
1337(L)1999 
Dated 17.7.2004 
 Mr. Rafiq Javed 
Butt 
N.R. 
274  
C.P.2758-
2759/2004 
 
SME Bank Limited, 
Islamabad thr. its 
Chief Executive Vs. 
Muhammad Afzal 
and another  
 
Appeal No. 968 & 
969 (R)CE/2001 
Dated 7.10.2004 
Mr. F.K. Butt 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
N.R. 
 275 
C.P.2760-L/2004 
 
State Life Insurance 
Corp. of Pakistan & 
another Vs. 
Zakaullah Malik 
.  
Appeal No. 
18(L)CE/2004 
Dated 30.6.2004 
Mr. Jehanzeb 
Khan Bharwana, 
ASC 
N.R. 
276  
C.P.2761/2004 
 
Joint Director, E & D 
Dept., Zarai Taraqiati 
Bank Ltd. and 
another Vs. Ghulam 
Rasool Shahid  
 
Appeal No. 
140(L)CE/2000 
Dated 4.9.2004 
Muhamamd 
Rashid Qamar, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. 
277  
C.P.2762/2004 
 
Zarai Taraqiati Bank 
Ltd. thr. Chairman 
and another Vs. 
Muhammad Hussain 
Raza  
Appeal No. 
113(R)CE/2003 
Dated 23.9.2004 
Muhamamd 
Rashid Qamar, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
 
 
 
N.R. 
 278 
C.P.2821-L/2004 
 
Muhammad Iqbal Vs. 
National Bank of 
Pakistan, and 
another  
Appeal No. 
718(L)CE/2000 
Dated 22.7.2004 
 
  
 Nemo 
Mian Qamar uz Zaman, 
ASC 
 279 
C.P.2881-L/2004 
 
Maqbool Qadir Vs. 
The State Bank of 
Pakistan, etc.  
Appeal No. 
5(L)CE/2004 
Dated 21.7.2004 
 
 Nemo 
N.R. 
280  
C.P.2890/2004 
 (Ch.O) 
Zahoor Ahmed Jaffar 
Vs. Secretary 
Ministry of 
Petroleum and 
Natural Resources, 
Govt. of Pakistan, 
Islamabad 
  
Appeal No. 
8(Q)CE/2004 
Dated 14.10.l2004 
Shah Abdul 
Rasheed, Sr. 
ASC 
Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan 
Mr. Zafar Iqbal 
Chaudhry, ASC 
 281 
C.P.2896-L/2004 
 
Zia ur Rehman Vs. 
Pakistan International 
Airlines Corporation, 
etc.  
 
Appeal No. 
51(L)CE/2003 
Dated 7.6.2004 
 Mr. Farooq 
Zaman Qureshi, 
ASC 
Arshad Ali Chaudhry, 
ASC 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
24
 282 
C.P.2897-L/2004 
(Servie) 
Mehboob Ahmed Vs. 
Vice President 
National Bank,etc.  
 
 
 
Appeal No. 
18(L)CE/2001 
Dated 12.7.2001 
Nemo 
N,.R. 
 283 
C.P.2985-L/2004 
 
Shoukat Ali Vs. The 
Chairman Post 
Graduate Medical 
Institute Sh.Said 
Hospital,Lahore.etc  
Appeal No. 
712(L)CS/2003 
Dated 27.7.2004 
Mr. Farooq 
Zaman Qureshi, 
ASC 
N.R. 
 284 
C.P.3085-L/2004 
 
Anjum Rehman Vs. 
P.T.C.L. etc.  
Appeal No. 
654(L)CS/2002 
Dated 4.9.2004 
 
P- In Person  
 
Gorsi Muhammad Din 
Chaudhry, ASC 
 285 
C.P.3107-L/2004 
 
Syed Saadat Ali Vs. 
Chairman State Life 
Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan,etc.  
 
  
Syed Misbahul 
Hassan Abdi, 
ASC 
 
Mr. Jehanzeb Khan 
Bharwana, ASC 
 286 
C.P.3113-L/2004 
 
M.D. PASSCO Ltd. 
Lahore,etc Vs. 
Muhamad Nawaz 
Jappa,etc.  
 
Appeal No. 
596(L)CE/2000 
Dated 22.9.2004 
Mr. Muhammad 
Akram Khawaja, 
ASC 
 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-
Islam, AOR 
287  
C.P.3136-3137-
L/2004 
(Service 
Muhammad Akram 
Shah Vs. Sui 
Northern Gas 
Pipelines Ltd.thr.its 
M.D.etc. 
  
Appeal No. 357 & 
358(L)CE/2003 
Dated 1.4.2004 
Malik Abdul 
Sattar Chughtai, 
ASC  
N.R. 
 288 
C.P.3138-L/2004 
 
Latif Ahmad Qureshi 
Vs. National Bank of 
Pakistan,etc.  
Appeal No. 
1301(L)/1999 
Dated 3.9.2004 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi  
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam  
 
 
 289 
C.P.3139-L/2004 
 
Latif Ahmad Qureshi 
Vs. National Bank of 
Pakistan,etc.  
Appeal No. 
1302(L)/1999 
Dated 3.9.2004 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi  
 
 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-Islam 
 290 
C.P.3239-L/2004 
 
Dr.Muhammad Javed 
Asif Vs. Chairman & 
Dean Shaikh Zayed 
Federal Postgraduate 
Medical Insitute,etc..  
 
 
Appeal No. 
653(L)CS/2000 
Dated 28.9.2004 
 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam  
 
 
 
N.R. 
291  
C.P.3243-L/2004 
 
The M.D. Sui 
Northern Gas 
Pipelines Ltd. and 
another Vs. 
Muhammad Waheed 
Butt  
Appeal No. 
469(L)1998 
Dated 2.10.2004 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi  
 
 
 
N.R. 
292  
C.P.3277-L/2004 
 
Muhammad Waheed 
Butt Vs. M.D. Sui 
Northern Gas 
Pipelines Ltd. and 
others  
Appeal 
No.469(L)/1998 
Dated 2.10.2004 
 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam  
 
 
 
N.R. 
293  
C.P.3308-L004 
 
Muhammad Nawaz 
Jappa Vs. M/s 
PASSCO thr. M.D. 
Head Office Lahore 
and others  
 
Appeal No. 
596(L)CE/2000 
Dated 22.9.2004 
Nemo 
 
Muhammad Akram 
Khawaja, ASC 
Mehmood ul Islam, 
AOR 
294  
C.P.3329-L/2004 
 
Sajid Saeed Chowhan 
Vs. State Life 
Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan and others  
 
Appeal No. 
497(L)CE/2001 
Dated 24.11.2004 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam  
N.R. 
295  
C.P.3361-L/2004 
 
Abdul Rashid Vs. 
The M.D. National 
Engg. Services Pak. 
(Pvt.) Ltd. Lahore 
and others  
Appeal No. 
560(L)/1999 
Dated 8.11.2003 
Nemo 
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
25
 
296  
C.P.3376-L/2004 
 
Shabbir Ahmed Vs. 
Sui Northern Gas 
Pipelines Ltd. Lahore 
and others  
 
Appeal No. 
290(L)CE/2000 
Dated 14.10.2004 
 Malik Abdul 
Sattar Chughtai, 
ASC 
N.R. 
297  
C.P.33773379-
L/2004 
 
Muhammad Mushtaq 
Vs. Sui Northern Gas 
Pipelines Ltd. Lahore 
and others  
 
Appeal No. 108, 
110 & 
115(L)CE/2000 
Dated 11.11.2004 
 Malik Abdul 
Sattar Chughtai, 
ASC 
N.R. 
 298 
C.P.3380-L/2004 
 
Basharat Butt Vs. Sui 
Northern Gas 
Pipelines Ltd. Lahore 
and others  
Appeal No. 
180(L)CE/2000 
Dated 19.10.2004 
 Malik Abdul 
Sattar Chughtai, 
ASC 
N.R. 
299  
C.P.3388-L/2004 
 
Chairman Evacuee 
Trust Property Board 
and another Vs. 
Mukhtar Ahmed  
 
Appeal No. 
459(L)CS/2000 
Dated 14.10.2004 
Mian Qamar 
Zaman, ASC  
 
Mr. Faiz-ur-Rehman 
300  
C.P.3417-L/2004 
 
President National 
Bank Of Pakistan 
Ltd. and others Vs. 
Shakeel Ahmed  
 
Appeal No. 
546(L)CE/2000 
Dated 19.10.2004 
Mian Qamar uz 
Zaman, ASC  
 
Nemo 
301  
C.P.2/2005 
 
Zarai Taraqiati Bank 
Ltd thr. its Chairman 
and others Vs. Abrar 
Ahmed  
 
Appeal No. 
1406(R)CE/2002 
Dated 22.10.2004 
Mr. S.M. Abdul 
Wahab, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
N.R. 
 302 
C.P.5-L/2005 
 
Muhammad Nawaz 
Siraj Vs. G.M. Ptv, 
Lhr., etc  
 
 
Appeal No. 
406(L)CE/2000 
Dated 2.11.2004 
Mr. Ali Akram 
Qurishi, ASC 
 
Dr. Sohail Akhtar, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-ul-Islam 
 303 
C.P.2-L/2005 
 
PIA thr. its M.D. Vs. 
Amin Shah  
Appeal No. 
338(L)CE/2000 
Dated 3.11.2004 
Mr. M.S. Babar, 
ASC 
Sh. Masood 
Akhtar  
 
 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
R- In Person 
304  
C.P.3/2005 
 
Pakistan International 
Airlines Corporation 
thr. its M.D. Vs. 
Tasneem Kausar  
Appeal No. 
292(R)CE/2003 
Dated 24.10.2004 
Sheikh Riaz Ul 
Haq, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, AOR 
 305 
C.P.14-L/2005 
 
Haji Ghulam Qadir 
Vs. State Life 
Insurance Corp. thr. 
its Chairman, etc  
 
Appeal No. 
310(L)CE/2001 
Dated 12.11.2004 
P- In Person  
 
 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
Mr. Jehanzeb Khan 
Bharwana, ASC 
306  
C.P.25/2005 
 
Muazzam Hussain 
Shah Vs. M.D. 
Member (Power), 
WAPDA, Wapda 
House, Lahore and 
others  
 
 
Mr. Jaffar 
Hashmi, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
N.R. 
307  
C.P.27-28/2005 
 
Khalid Nawaz Vs. 
Govt. of Pakistan thr. 
Secy. M/o Petroleum 
and Natural 
Resources, Islamabad 
and others  
 
Appeal No. 410 & 
411(L)CS/2000 
Dated 29.11.2004 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
N..R 
 308 
C.P.41-L/2005 
 
President NBP, etc 
Vs. Syed Mohsin 
Raza Qazmi  
 
 
Appeal No. 
23(L0CE/2004 
Dated 28.10.2004 
 Mian Qamar 
Zaman, ASC 
N.R. 
 309 
C.P.55-L/2005 
 
Mohammad Aslam 
Vs. State Life 
Insurance Corp. of 
Pakistan thr. its 
Chairman, etc  
Appeal No. 
84(L)CE/2004 
Dated 12.11.2004 
Nemo 
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
26
 
310  
C.P.63/2005 
 (C.O) 
The Managing 
Director, Small 
Business Finance 
Corporation, Now 
SME Bank Ltd. and 
another Vs. Ibraz 
Mehmood Butt and 
another  
 
Appeal No. 
1196(R)CE/2001 
Dated 13.11.2004 
Muhammad 
Akram Sheikh, 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
Mr. Abdul Rehman 
Siddiqui, ASC 
Ch. Muhammad 
Akram, 
311  
C.P.64/2005 
 
President, SME Bank 
Ltd. Vs. Iftikhar 
Ahmed Jogazai and 
another  
Appeal No. 
1085(R)CE/2004 
Dated 22.11.2004 
Muhammad 
Akram Sheikh, 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
 
Mr. Abdul Karim 
Kundi, ASC 
Ch Muhammad Akram 
312  
C.P.69/2005 
 
Muhammad Sabir Vs. 
Member of 
Production, POF 
Wah Cantt.  
Appeal No. 
131(R)CS/2004 
Dated 17.5.2004 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
313  
C.P.70-71/2005 
 
Chairman, Pakistan 
Telecommunication 
Company Ltd. and 
others Vs. 
Muhammad Yasin 
Rashid  
 
Appeal No. 730 & 
731(L)/1998 
Dated 22.11.2004 
Mr. Naeem 
Bukhari, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
 
Mr. Faiz-ur-Rehman 
314  
C.P.3105-L/2004 
& C.P.113-
L/2005 
 
 
 
 
Muhammad Rafiq 
Bhatti Vs. The 
President N.B.P.etc.  
Appeal No. 154 & 
417 (L)CE/2000 
Dated 1.9.2004 
 Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
Mian Qamar uz Zaman, 
ASC 
315  
C.P.129/2005 
 
Ibraz Mehmood Butt 
Vs. The Secy. M/o 
Finance, Govt. of 
Pakistan and others  
Appeal No. 
1196®CE/2001 
Dated 13.11.2004 
Mr. Abdul 
Rehman 
Siddiqui, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
 
Mr. Muhammad Akram 
Sheikh, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi 
316  
C.P.130/2005 
 
Zarai Taraqiati Bank 
thr. its President Vs. 
Faiz Ahmed Khan  
Appeal No. 
935(R)CE/2003 
Dated 20.11.2004 
Mr. Manzoor 
Ahmad Rana, 
ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali  
 
Ch Muhammad Akram 
317  
C.P.135-
136/2005 
 
M/s Utility Stores 
Corporation of 
Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd 
and another Vs. 
Nadeemullah  
 
Appeal No. 289 & 
360(L)CE/2001 
Dated 24.11.2004 
Muhammad 
Jaffar Hashmi, 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
N.R. 
318  
C.P.139-
140/2005 
 
Hasnat Ahmed Khan 
Saeed Vs. Air 
Weapons thr. Its D.G. 
and another  
 Appeal No. 1466 
& 1467(R)CE/2004 
Dated 1.12.2004 
Shah Abdul 
Rashid, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
Raja Muhammad 
Bashir, ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR 
319  
C.P.141-
143/2005 
 
Muhammad Tariq 
Vs. Zarai Taraqiati 
Bank Ltd. thr. its 
Chairman  
 
 
 
Appeal No. 183 & 
455(P)CE/2001 & 
39(P)CE/2002 
Dated 6.6.2002 
Mr. Abdul 
Rehman 
Siddiqui, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR 
 320 
C.P.165-L/2005 
 
Chairman Evacuee 
Trust Property Board 
Lahore, etc Vs. 
Bashir Shahid, etc  
 
Appeal No. 
455(L)/1999 
Dated 23.11.2004 
 Mian Qamar 
Zaman,  
 
N.R. 
321  
C.P.153-K/2005 
(Service Laws 
Matters / S.2A) 
Shakeel Ahmed Vs. 
Federal Service 
Tribunal & others.  
 
Appeal 
No.6(K)CE/2002 
Dated 11.11.2004 
Nemo 
N.R. 
 322 
C.P.172-L/2005 
 
Chairman Pakistan 
Red Crescent Society 
Vs. Zia Ullah Khan 
Appeal No. 
54(L)CE/2003 
Dated 7.1.2005 
Ch. Mushtaq 
Ahmad, Sr. ASC 
Sh. Masood 
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
27
Niazi, Lahore, etc.  
 
Akhtar  
323  
C.P.3325-
3326/2003 
 & 3333-
3337/2003 
Mehoodul Hussan 
Khalil Vs. Govt. of 
Pakistan thr. Secy. 
Finance  
 
 
Nemo 
 
Dr.Hussain Khan, ASC 
 324 
C.P.216-L/2005 
 
Muhammad Aslam 
Nadeem Vs. State 
Life Insurance of 
Pakistan thr. its 
Chairman, etc  
 
Appeal No. 
264(L)CE/2003 
Dated 3.4.2004 
Nemo 
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi 
325  
C.P.222-L/2005 
 
Muhammad Akbar 
Shahid Vs. Deputy 
Post Master General, 
Central Region and 
another  
 
Appeal No. 
101(L)CS/2004 
Dated 7.12.2004 
 Nemo 
N.R. 
326  
C.P.225-K, 232-
K/2005 
 
Pakistan State Mills 
Corporation Vs. 
Abdul Sattar Butt  
Appeal No. 
867(C)CE/2002 
Dated 3.1.2005 
Mr. M.G. 
Dastagir, ASC 
Raja Sher 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, 
327  
C.P.265-K/2005 
 This case relates 
to the Section 2-
A Cases 
M/s National 
Engineering Services 
Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd 
and others Vs. 
Engineer Musthaq 
Ahmed Khan  
 
Appeal No. 
12(K)CE/2001 
Dated 17.1.2005 
Mr. M.G. 
Dastagir, ASC 
Mr. A.A. 
Siddiqui  
 
Nemo 
328  
C.P.268-K, 271-
K/2005 
 
M/s Pakistan Steel 
Mills Corporation 
and others Vs. Zaheer 
Ahmed  
 
 
 
Appeal No. 
377(K)CE/2002 
Dated 26.1.2005 
Mr. M.G. 
Dastagir, ASC 
Raja Sher 
Muhammad 
Khan, in CP 271-
K of 2005  
Nemo 
329  
C.P.269-K/2005 
 
The Chairman 
Pakistan Steel Mills 
and another Vs. 
Ghulam Fareed  
 
 
 
Appeal No. 
515(K)CE/2000 
Dated 6.1.2004 
Mr. M.G. 
Dastagir, ASC 
Raja Sher 
Muhammad 
Khan  
Nemo 
 330 
C.P.290-L/2005 
 
P.I.A. Corporation 
thr. its Chairman, etc 
Vs. Muqaddas Anwar 
Butt  
 
Appeal No. 
312(L)/1998 
Dated 6.12.2004 
Ch. Muhammad 
Sharif, ASC 
N.R. 
331  
C.P.298-299-
K/2005 
 
General Manager, 
PTCL, STR-I & 
another Vs. Abdul 
Hafeez  
 
Appeal Nos. 1708 
& 1709(K)/1998 
Dated 31.1.2005 
 Mr. S.K. Ghori,  
N.R. 
332  
C.P.343/2005 
 
SME Bank Ltd., 
Islamabad Vs. 
Muhammad Iqbal 
Khan  
Appeal No. 
2(L)CE/2001 
Dated 11.12.2004 
Mr. F.K. Butt, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
  
Nemo 
 333 
C.P.497-L/2005 
 
Junaid Hassan Vs. 
M.D. Sui Northern 
Gas, etc  
 
Appeal No. 
109(L)CE/2003 
Dated 11.11.2004 
 Mr. Abdul 
Sattar Chughtai,  
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi, 
AOR 
334  
C.P.526-K/2005 
 
Ikram Fayaz Vs. 
National Refinery 
(Ltd.) and others  
 
Appeal No. 
982(K)/1998 
Dated 24.5.2005 
P- In Person  
 
Ali Sibtain Fazli,  
 335 
C.P.530-L/2005 
 
Mohammad Rashid 
Vs. Dy. Post Master 
General, etc.  
 
Appeal No. 
753(L)CS/2004 
Dated 27.1.2005 
 Nemo 
 N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
28
336  
C.P.581-K/2005 
(Service Laws 
Matters / S.2A) 
Abid Ali Siddiqui Vs. 
The State Bank of 
Pakistan, Thr. 
Chairman Central 
Board of Directors.  
 
Appeal No. 
1234(K)CE/2001 
Dated 6.1.2005 
Nemo 
 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor 
 337 
C.P.1276-L/2005 
 
Ehsan-ud-Din Ch. 
Vs. NBP, etc  
 
 
Appeal No. 
286(L)CS/2000 
Dated 27.4.2005 
Parvez Innayat 
Malik, 
N.R. 
338  
C.P.1292/2005 
 
SME Bank Ltd. 
Islamabad Vs. 
Sadaqat Hussain and 
others  
Appeal No. 13(L) 
CE/2001 
Dated 11.12.2004 
Mr. F.K. Butt,  
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
 
 
 
 
N.R. 
 339 
C.P.1295-L/2005 
 
Dir (A) Civil 
Aviation Authority 
Karachi, etc Vs. 
Muhammad Mumtaz 
Hussain  
 
 Nemo 
 
 
 
 
N.R. 
340  
C.P.2275/2005 
 
Dr.(Mrs) Farrukh 
Tahir Vs. Allama 
Iqbal Open 
University thr. its 
V.C.,etc  
 
P- In Person  
Raja Ibrahim 
Satti, ASC 
 
 
Mr. M.S. Khattak 
341  
C.P.1339/2005 
 
Muhammad Ashraf 
Nadeem Vs. National 
Engineering Service 
(Pak.) Ltd and others  
Appeal 
No.69(L)CE/2000 
Dated 10.11.2004 
Ch Muhammad 
Akram  
 
 
 
N.R. 
342  
C.P.1350/2005 
(Service Matters 
/ Removal from 
Service) 
Muhammad Altaf 
Baig Vs. Regional 
Head National Bank 
of Pakistan and 
others  
Appeal No. 
84(L)CE/2001 
Dated 6.12.2004 
Altaf Elahi 
Sheikh,  
Ch Muhammad 
Akram  
 
Mian Qamar Zaman, 
ASC 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, 
AOR 
 343 
C.P.1366-L/2005 
 
Syed Jawad Hussain 
Vs. Chairman PIA 
Corp. Karachi, etc  
 
Appeal No. 
113(L)CE/2004 
Dated 23.5.2005 
Nemo  
 
Mr. Faiz-ur-Rehman,  
344  
C.P.1347/2005 
 
Pakistan International 
Airlines Corporation 
thr. its Chairman and 
others Vs. Miss 
Naghma Sehar Khan  
 
Appeal No. 
482(R)CE/2004 
Dated 12.1.2005 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
 
R- In Person 
345  
C.P.1400/2005 
 
Miss Naghma Sehar 
Khan Vs. P.I.A. 
Corp. and others  
 
 
Appeal No. 
482(R)CE/2004 
12.1.2005 
P- In Person  
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Chaudhry, ASC a/w 
Asmatullah Khan 
Manager PIA 
346  
C.P.1454-L/2005 
 
Khalid Masud Khan 
Vs. M.D. Small 
Business Finance 
Corp. etc  
 
 
Appeal No. 
542(L)CE/2001 
Dated 31.5.2005 
 Nemo 
 N.R. 
347  
C.P.1463/2005 
 
The State Bank of 
Pakistan through its 
Governor & another 
Vs. Sad Badshah and 
others  
 
Appeal No.1531 to 
1555(R)CE/2002 
Dated 31.1.2005 
Malik 
Muhammad 
Qayyum, ASC 
Raja Abdul 
Ghafoor  
Muhammad Akram 
Sheikh, Sr. ASC 
348  
C.P.1474, 
1598/2005 
 
SME Bank Ltd. Vs. 
Sahibzada  
Appeal No. 
1244(R)CE/2003 
Dated 31.1.2005 
Mr. F.K Butt,  
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
Sheikh Iftikhar , ASC 
Ch Muhammad Akram, 
AOR 
349  
C.P.1488/2005 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan Vs. Haji 
Muhammad Saeed  
Appeal No. 
348(R)CE/2002 
Dated 17.1.2005 
Mian Qamar 
Zaman 
Raja Abdul 
Ghafoor  
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
29
 
350  
C.P.1545-L/2005 
 
M. D. M/s. SNGPL, 
etc VS. Tariq 
Munawar  
 
 
Appeal No. 
206(L)/2000 
Dated 26.5.2005 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi  
N.R. 
351  
C.P.1582/2005 
 
Secy. Ministry of 
Finance, Islamabad 
Vs. Hilal A. Raza and 
others  
 
Appeal No. 
345(R)CE/2004 
Dated 28.1.2005 
Mr. Nazir 
Ahmad Khan 
Lughmani  
 
Mr. Naheem Bukhari, 
ASC 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, 
AOR 
 
 
 352 
C.P.1615-L/2005 
 
Ehsanul Haq Vs. 
M.D. Sui Northern 
Gas Pipelines Ltd.  
 
Appeal No. 
489(L)CE/2001 
Dated 28.5.2005 
Nemo 
N.R. 
353  
C.P.1653-L/2005 
 
Pakistan International 
Airlines Corp. Vs. 
Mazhar Ilyas and 
others  
 
 
 
Appeal No. 
48(L)CS/2004 
Dated 4.6.2005 
 
 Mr. Arshad Ali 
Chaudhry, a/w 
Asmatullah 
Khan Manager 
Legal PIA 
Ch. Naseer Ahmad 
Bhutta 
354  
C.P.1713-L/2005 
 
Tariq Amin Vs. 
National Bank of 
Pakistan, etc  
 
Appeal No. 
551(L)CE/2001 
Dated 12.7.2005 
 Mian Abdul 
Rashed, ASC 
 
Mian Qamar Zaman,  
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, 
AOR 
355  
C.P.1720/2005 
 
Muhammad Ilyas 
Bhatti Vs. D.G./ 
M.D. Associated 
Press of Pakistan, etc  
 
Appeal No. 
1594(R)CE/2004 
Dated 27.4.2005 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
356  
C.P.1785/2005 
 
Secy. College of 
Physicians & 
Surgeons Pakistan 
Vs. Muhammad 
Maqsood  
 
 
Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman,  
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak  
N.R. 
357  
C.P.1828/2005 
 
M.D. Pakistan 
Agricultural Storage 
& Services Corp. 
Ltd., etc. Vs. 
Muhammad Ashfaq  
 
Appeal No. 
1030(R)CS/2002 
Dated 21.4.2005 
Muhammad 
Akram Khawaja, 
ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam  
N.R. 
358  
C.P.1855/2005 
 
Pakistan Agricultural 
Research Council thr. 
its Chairman Vs. 
Khalid Masood 
Chaudhry, etc  
 
Appeal No. 
993(R)CE/2001 
Dated 7.5.2005 
Abdul Karim 
Khan Kundi, 
ASC 
Ch Muhammad 
Akram  
N.R. 
359  
C.P.1874/2005 
 
C.D.A. Thr. Its 
Chairman Vs. Saleh 
Muhammad  
Appeal No. 
16(R)CE/2004 
Dated 23.4.2005 
 
Muhammad 
Anwar Sipra 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
N.R. 
360  
C.P.1931/2005 
 
M/s Pakistan State 
Oil Company Ltd. 
and another Vs. 
Ghulam Farooq  
 
Appeal No. 
1431(K)CE/2001 
Dated 4.6.2005 
Mr. Zafar Iqbal,  
 
Sheikh Riaz Ul Haq, 
ASC 
361  
C.P.1935/2005 
 
The Pesident and 
Chief Executive 
Officer of Small & 
Medium Enterprises 
Vs. Munawar Ali 
Abbasi and another  
 
Appeal No. 
709(R)CE/2004 
Dated 20.4.2005 
Rao Fazal 
Akhtar, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
Sheikh Iftikhar 
Hussain, 
Ch Muhammad Akram 
362  
C.P.1945/2005 
 
Muhammad Afzal 
Sharif Vs. The Chief 
Executive Officer, 
LESCO, Ltd. and 
another  
 
Appeal No. 
205(L)CS/2001 
Dated 4.5.2005 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
N.R. 
363  
C.P.1950/2005 
 
Secy. to Govt. of 
Pakistan Commerce 
Appeal No. 
559(L)CE/2001 
Raja Muhammad 
Asghar, ASC 
N.R. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
30
Div., Islamabad and 
others Vs. 
Muhammad Rashid  
 
 
Dated 7.5.2005 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
364  
C.P.1977/2005 
 
Secy. M/o 
Information and 
others Vs. Mamlook 
Hussain  
Appeal No. 
675(R)CE/2001 
Dated 7.5.2005 
Muhammad 
Bashir Kiani, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
R- In Person 
365  
C.P.1985/2005 
 
Allama Iqbal Open 
University, 
Islamabad thr. its 
Vice Chancellor and 
another Vs. Dr. Mrs. 
Farrukh Tahir  
Appeal No. 
743(R)CE/2003 
Dated 12.5.2005 
Raja Muhamamd 
Ibrahim Satti, 
ASC 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak  
 
N.R. 
366  
C.P.1999/2005 
 
Anees ur Rehman Vs. 
S.M.E. Bank Ltd.  
Appeal 
No.743(R)CE/2003 
Dated 12.5.2005 
Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman,  
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik  
N.R. 
367  
C.P.2025-
2027/2005 
 
Muhammad Ibrahim 
Vs. Federation of 
Pakistan thr. 
Secretary, M/o of 
Defence and another  
 
Appeal No. 
132(R)CE/2003 
Dated 21.5.2005 
Ch Muhammad 
Akram  
Mr. Abdul 
Rehman 
Siddiqui, ASC in 
CP2026-27L /05, 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch., 
ASC. 
 
368  
C.P.2039/2005 
 
Chairman Pakistan 
Ordinance Factory 
Baord Wah Cantt. 
and another Vs. Sher 
Afsar Khan  
Appeal No. 
103(R)CS/2003 
Dated 5.5.2005 
 
 
 
Ch Muhammad 
Akram  
N.R. 
369  
C.P.2048/2005 
 
Muhammad Tahir 
Siddiqui Vs. State 
Life Head Zonal 
Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan, and 
another  
Appeal No. 
102(L)CE/2004 
Dated 26.5.2005 
 
 
 
Malik Mukhtar 
Malik, ASC a/w 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
Agha Tariq Mehmood, 
ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. 
370  
C.P.2094-
2102/2005 
 
State Life Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan and another 
Vs. Syed Hassan Ali 
Shah  
 
Appeal No. 1420 to 
1228(K)CE/2001 
Dated 16.6.2005 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi  a/w 
Sajjad Malik, 
Regional Chief 
Insurance 
Corporation 
 
N.R. 
371  
C.P.2179/2005 
 
PTCL thr. Its 
Chairman PTCL, 
Islamabad and others 
Vs. Mansoor Ahmed 
Khan  
 
Appeal No. 
262(K)CE/2002 
Dated 4.6.2005 
Hafiz S.A. 
Rehman 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik  
N.R. 
372  
C.P.2190/2005 
 
Muhammad Ilyas, 
Ex-Extra Assistant 
Director ADBP now 
ZTBL Vs. Zarai 
Taraqiati Bank Ltd., 
Islamabad thr. its 
President and 
another  
 
Appeal No. 
1487(R)CE/2003 
Dated 11.6.2005 
P- In Person  
N.R. 
373  
C.P.2191/2005 
 
S.M.E. Bank Ltd. thr. 
its Chief Executive 
Officer Vs. Mrs. 
Farhat Zafar and 
another  
 
 
 
 
 
Appeal No. 
351(L)CS/2004 
Dated 18.6.2005 
Mr. F.K. Butt, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
N.R. 
374  
C.P.2200-
2202/2005 
The President, 
National Bank of 
Appeal No. 69, 
218, 823(L)/1999 
Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
31
 
Pakistan Vs. 
Muhammad Iqbal 
and others  
 
Dated 17.6.2005 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
375  
C.P.2203/2005 
 
Managing Director, 
Pakistan State Oil 
Company Limited 
and another Vs. 
Nazar Muhammad  
 
Appeal No. 
79(R)CE/2003 
Dated 10.8.2005 
Mr. Zafar Iqbal 
Chaudhyr,  
.  
Syed Aqa Asif Jaffri, 
ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch 
376  
C.A.522/98 
 (Under Section 
2(A) 
Chairman P.T. 
Company Vs. Irshad 
Muhammad Khan & 
others  
 
Appeal No. 
1(K)/1997 
Dated 1.1.1997 
Raja Muhammad 
Bashir, ASC 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik  
 
Sh.Riaz Ul Haq, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan 
377  
C.A.1394/99 & 
C/A/98-99/2000 
Muhammad Idrees 
Vs. A.D.B.P.,etc.  
Appeal No. 
809(R)/1998 
335(P)/1998 
844(R)/1998 
Dated 2.3.1999 
Muhammad 
Akram Sheikh,  
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman,  
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik  
Ch Muhammad Akram 
 
378  
C.A.638/2001 
 
United Bank Ltd Vs. 
Syed Mazhar Hussain 
Shah  
Appeal No. 
1839(R)/1999 
Dated 1.3.2000 
Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
 
Ch. Muhammad Sadiq 
Warraich,  
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan 
379  
C.A.1580/2001 
 
Investment 
Corporation of 
Pakistan, etc. Vs. Ch. 
Muhammad Shafiq  
Appeal No. 
1895(L)/1998 
Dated  26.9.2000 
 
Muhamamd 
Akram Khawaja, 
ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman  
 
N.R. 
380  
C.A.1815/2001 
  
The President HBL, 
etc. Vs. Mohammad 
Yousaf  
Appeal No. 
907(L)/1998 
Dated 18.1.2001 
 
 Mian Abdul 
Bashir, ASC 
 
R- In Person 
381  
C.A.1816/2001 
 
President HBL, etc. 
Vs. Altaf Hassain  
Appeal No. 
1533(L)/1998 
Dated 20.1.2001 
 
 Mian Abdul 
Rauf,  
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi 
382  
C.A.671/2002 & 
Crl.O.P.50/2002 
in 
C.A.671/2002 
Pakistan Steel Mills 
Corporation Vs. 
Abdul Rasheed 
Dahar and another.  
Appeal No. 
656(K)CE/2000 
Dated 20.6.2001 
Mr. M.G. 
Dastagir, ASC 
Raja Sher 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, 
ASC 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik 
383  
C.A.53/2002 
 
Umar Ali Vs. 
Chairman ADBP, 
Islamabad others  
Appeal No. 
225(R)CE/2000 
Dated 9.2.2001 
 
 Nemo 
 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi 
384  
C.A.138/2002 
 
Managing Director 
P.I.A. Vs. 
Muhammad Hanif 
Lackho & another  
 
Appeal No. 
1982(K)/1998 
Dated 26.1.2001 
Mr. Javed Altaf, 
ASC 
Sh.Salahuddin  
 
Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, 
ASC 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor  
 
385  
C.A.181/2002 
 
Muhammad Shahid 
Nazir Vs. Pakistan 
Telecommunication 
Co. Ltd., etc.  
 
Appeal No. 
2054(L)/1998 
Dated 27.3.1999 
Nemo 
 
Gorsi Din Muhammad 
Chaudhry,  
386  
C.A.492-
494/2002 
 
Ch. Muhammad 
Ashraf. Vs. State Life 
Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan and another  
 
 
Appeal No. 8, 102 
& 103(P)CE/2000 
Dated 6.2.2001 
Javed A. Khan,  
Mr. Muhammad 
Zahoor Qureshi  
 
Mr. M.S. Khattak in 
CA 492 to 499/02 
387  
C.A.525, 
1176/2002 
 
Muhammad Javed 
Iqbal Vs. PAEC thr. 
Its Secretary, etc.  
 
Appeal No. 
103(R)CE/2000 
Dated 31.10.2000 
A- In Person  
 
Raja Muhamamd 
Ibrahim Satti, ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak 
 388 
C.A.526/2002 
 
Muhammad Aslam 
Khan Vs. A.D.B.P. 
Islamabad.  
 
Appeal No. 
1041(R)/1998 
Dated 1.6.1999 
A- In Person  
 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik 
389  
C.A.589/2002 
Chairman A.D.B.P. 
Appeal No. 
Hafiz S.A. 
Raja Muhammad 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
32
 (I.R) 
and another Vs. 
Mumtaz Khan  
81(P)/1999 
Dated 26.6.2000 
Rehman,  
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
 
Irshad, Deputy 
Attorney General  
Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar 
.A.A.G. Punjab 
Abdul Karim Khan 
Kudni, ASC 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. 
390  
C.A.593/2002 
 
Shamsh ur Rehman 
Vs. D.G.P.S.B., etc.  
Appeal No. 
1094(R)/1999 
Dated 6.10.2000 
A- In Person  
 
Mr. Irshad, Deputy 
Attorney General  
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. 
Mr. Fazal Elahai 
Siddiqui,  
Mr. Ejaz Muhamamd 
Khan, AOR 
 
391  
C.A.613/2002 
 
Muhammad Nawaz 
Gondal Vs. The 
Agricultural 
Development Bank 
and others  
 
Appeal No. 
488(R)CE/2001 
Dated 28.7.2001 
Khawaja 
Muhamamd 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
 
Hafiz S.A. Rehman, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik 
392  
C.A.689/2002 
 
The President 
(Chairman) 
Executive Board 
N.B.P., etc. Vs. 
Khalil Ahmed Khan  
 
Appeal No. 
1083(L)/1998 
Dated 16.6.2001 
Ch. Ameen 
Javed, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam  
 
Mian Mehmood 
Hussain, ASC 
Mr. Faiz-ur-Rehman 
393  
C.A.870/2002 
 
Capt (R) Malik 
Jahangir Ahmed Vs. 
Chairman P.A.E.C., 
etc.  
 
Abdul Rasheed 
Awan, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
 
Raja Muhamamd 
Ibrahim Satti, ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak  
Ms. Naheeda Mehboob 
Elahi, Deputy Attorney 
General 
 
394  
C.A.1081/2002 
 (D.B 
Syed Asif Ali. Vs. 
C.D.A., etc.  
 
Mr. M.Bilal, Sr. 
ASC 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak  
 
Malik Muhammad 
Nawaz, ASC 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor 
395  
C.A.1085/2002 
 
Zaheer ud Din Babar 
Vs. National Bank of 
Pakistan  
 
Ch. Muhammad 
Sadiq Warraich, 
ASC 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak  
 
Khawaja Muhammad 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
396  
C.A.1202/2002 
 (D.B) 
United Bank Limited 
and others Vs. 
Waseem Anjum and 
anothers  
Appeal No. 
255(L)/1998 
Dated 14.12.2000 
Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Farooq, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi, 
 
Muhammad Munir 
Peracha, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan 
397  
C.A.1695/2002 
 (D.B) 
Waseem Ahmed 
Siddiqui Vs. F.S.T. 
etc  
Appeal No. 
819(R)/1997 
Dated 1.5.2000 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
 
Abdul Baseer Qureshi, 
ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali  
  
 398 
C.A.42/2005 
 (D.B) 
(Summons) 
(C.O) 
Binte Zohra Vs. G.M. 
(A & P Utility Store 
Corporation Pvt. & 
another  
 
Appeal No. 
1014(R)CE/2001 
Dated 7.10.2002 
A- In Person  
 
Muhamamd Jaffar 
Hashmi, ASC 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi 
399  
C.A.325-
326/2003 
 
N.B.P. etc. Vs. Abdul 
Sattar.  
Appeal No. 
1342(L)/1998 
Dated 27.4.2001 
 
Mr. Zafar Iqbal 
Ch.  
 
Mr. Faiz-ur-Rehman 
400  
C.A.9/2004 
 (D.B) 
Ali Asghar Hussain 
and others Vs. Zafar 
Ali  
Appeal No. 
1047(R)CE/2001 
Dated 19.6.2003 
 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak  
 
Raja Muhamamd 
Ibrahim Satti, ASC 
Ch Muhammad Akram 
401  
C.A.603-638/ 
2004 
 
Miss Rubina Ramzan 
Vs MD PIA 
Corporation Head 
Office, Karachi  
In CA 603-627/04: 
Appeal No. 1497 to 
1521(R)CE/2002 
Dated 1.10.2003 
In CA 628-638/04: 
Passed by Lahore 
High Court in 
W.P.805,/2002, 
 Mr. M.A. 
Ghani, in 
CA.603-627/04 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch. a/w 
Asmatullah 
Khan Manager 
PIA in CA 628-
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. a/w 
Asmatullah Khan 
Manager PIA in 603-
627/04 
Mr. M.A. Ghani, in 
CA.628-629/04 and 
631-32//04 
Ch. Muhammad Sadiq 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
33
1248/03, 1565/03, 
1636/03, 1691/03, 
1744/03, 1755/03, 
1768/03, 
1769/031996/0320
31/2003 dated 
23.12.03 
638/04 
 
Warraich, in CA 633/04 
Dr. Babar Awan a/w, 
Ejaz Muhammad in 
634-36/04 
Muhamamd Rashid 
Qamar a/w Raja Abdul 
Ghafoor, in CA 637-
38/04 
 
402  
C.A.2139-2141 
& 2948-
2949/2004 
 
Chairman, State L:ife 
Insurance 
Corporation, etc. Vs. 
Humayun Irfan.  
Appeal No. 
720(L)CE/2000 
Dated 16.9.2004 
Appeal No. 
135(L)CE/2000 
Dated 27.10.2004 
Appeal 
No.454(L)CE/2001 
Dated 18.10.2004 
Appeal Nos. 
202(P)CE & 
1195(R)CE/2001 
Dated 3.11.2004 
 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi  
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
Hafiz S.A. Rehman 
In person CA 2141/04 
Ch. Muhammad Akram 
in CA 2939/04 
403  
C.A.5-32/2005 
 
P.I.A.C. & others Vs 
Tariq Ali Khan & 
others  
Appeal Nos. 1363 
& 1366 to 1392(R) 
CE/2002  
Dated 7.11.2003 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
a/w Asmatullah 
Khan Manger 
Legal PIA  
 
Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada, 
a/w  Mr. M.S. Khattak, 
and Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman 
 404 
C.A.134/2005 
  
Board of Director's 
Pakistan State Oil 
Company Ltd. 
through Its Chairman 
and others Vs. 
Ghulam Haider Mari 
and another  
 
 
Mr. Zafar Iqbal 
Chaudhry, ASC 
 
Riaz ud Din Ahmad, 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan  
 
405  
C.A.242-
266/2005 
  
State Bank of 
Pakistan thr. its 
Governor and another 
Vs. Sad Badshah  
Appeal No. 1531 to 
1555(R)CE/2002 
Dated 28.8.2004 
Malik 
Muhammad 
Qayyum, SAC 
Raja Abdul 
Ghafoor  
 
Mr. Muhamamd Akram 
Sheikh, Sr. ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali 
406  
C.P.591-
612,630/2003 
 
Ch. Azhar Ali Safeer 
Vs. State Life 
Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan through its 
Chairman State Life 
and others  
Appeal No. 1075, 
1076, 1077, 1079, 
1080, 1082, 1086, 
1088, 1094, 1096, 
1097, 1099, 1100, 
1106, 1108, 1111, 
1114, 1115, 1118, 
1112, 1119, 1120, 
(R)CE/2001 
Dated 21.1.2003 
 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
 
Agha Tariq Mehmood, 
ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali 
407  
C.P.2320-
2358/2005   
 
United Bank Limited 
and another Vs. 
Manzoor Ali C/o 
U.B.L. Lahbour 
Union, Karachi  
Appeal No. 
1401(K)/1997 
Dated  15.8.2005 
 
 
Mr. Khalid 
Anwar, Sr. ASC 
assisted by 
Barrister Bilal 
Shaukat 
Mr. Asmat 
Kamal, 
Raja Abdul 
Ghafoor  
 
N.R. 
408  
C.A.462/2002 
 
M/s Sui Northern Gas 
Pipelines(Ltd) Vs. 
Asif Mehmood  
Appeal No. 
1656(R)/1999 
Dated 2.11.2000 
 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi  
 
Mr. M.S. Khattak 
409  
C.A.702/2002 & 
C.A.120-
134/2004 & 
C.A.475-479, 
562 & 
2062/2004 
P.I.A. Vs. Omer 
Saeed Kazi.  
Appeal No. 
1322(K)/1998 
Dated 6.12.2000 
Appeal No. 178, 
179, 205, 212, 218, 
226,  234, 
287(K)/1998 
Dated 12.6.2003 
Mr. Fazal Ghani 
Khan Sr. ASC, 
in CA 702/02 
Javed Altaf a/w 
Mehr Khan 
Malik  and 
Kamal Afsar, in 
CA 120-127, 
Muhammad Akram 
Sheikh, Sr. ASC a/w 
M.A. Zaidi, AOR 
Mr. Faiz ur Rehman,  
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan 
Arshad Ali Chaudhry, 
in CA 475-478/04 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
34
Appeal No. 329 to 
333 (K)CE/2002 
Dated 10.5.2003 
Appeal No. 
91(K)CE/2004 
Dated 22.4.2004 
Appeal No. 
287(K)/1998 
Dated 4.5.2002 
 
475-478/04 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman  
Mr. Waseem 
Sajjad, a/w Merh 
Khan Malik in 
CA 128-134/04 
Asmatullah 
Khan, Manager 
Legal PIA 
Dr. Farrukh Naseem, 
Raja Abdul Ghafoor, 
ASC 
 
410  
C.A.1570-1575 
/2003 
 & C.A.207/2004 
The Habib Bank Ltd. 
and others Vs. 
Mahmood Ali Khan  
Appeal 
No.93®/CE/2003, 
103(R)CE/03 & 
104(R)CE2003) 
Dated 17.7.2003 
Appeal No.1003 
(R)/CE/2001 dated 
10.6.2002 
Shahid Anwar 
Bajwa, ASC 
Mr. M.S. Khattak  
in CA 1570-
1572/04  
Mr. Ameer Alam 
Khan,  
Mr. M.A. Qureshi 
in CA 1573-74/04 
Mr. Faizur 
Rehman in CA 
1575/04 
 
 
Shahid Anwar Bajwa in 
1575/04 
Khawaja Muhamamd 
Farooq a/w Ejaz 
Muhammad Khan in 
CA 207/04 
411  
C.A.64-86, 480-
547, 1228-
1249/2004 & 
C.P.194/2004 
P.T.C.L. thr. 
Chairman, etc. Vs. 
Rahat-e-Alam  
Appeal No. 596 to 
618(L)CS/2002 
Dated 4.11.2003 
Appeal No. 41 to 
50, 164 to 169 
(L)CS, 55 to 
84(P)CS/2001, 
271(P)CS/2002, 
328(L)CS, 509 to 
510(R)CS, 527, 
529 to 537, 539 to 
543(R)CS/2001 & 
610 to 612(R) 
CS/2002 
Dated 22.9.2003 
Appeal No. 1113 to 
1128(L)CS & 1140 
to 1145(L)CS/2000 
Dated 18.12.2003 
 
 
 
 
Gorsi 
Muhammad Din 
Chaudhry, ASC 
Mr. Mehmood-
ul-Islam  in CA 
64-86/04 
Ch. Muhammad 
Sharif a/w 
Muhammad 
Ashraf Mirza 
Assistan Legal 
Advisor PTCL in 
CA 480-501 
Mr. S.M. Abdul 
Wahab in CA 
502-516/04 
Mian Sarfraz Ul 
Hassan in 
1228/04 etc. 
  
Mr Abdul Wahid 
Chaudhry, 
Muhamamd Ashraf 
Mirza, PTCL 
Almas Haider Kazmi, 
a/w Arshad Ali Ch.  
Syed Aqa Asif Jaffri, 
Syed Safdar Hussain, 
Mirza Hifzur Rehman,  
412  
C.A.214/2004 
 (D.B) 
M.D. National Books 
Foundation & 
another Vs Mrs. 
Irshad Abbasi  
Appeal No. 
387(K)CE/2002 
Dated 2.8.2003 
Mr. Afzal 
Siddiqi, ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
Nemo 
413  
C.A.1399/2004 
 
G.M.Pakistan 
Television 
Corporation Lahore 
& others Vs. 
Muhammad Babar 
Zaman  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Raja Muhammad 
Ibrahim Satti 
ASC 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
  
 
Nemo 
414  
C.A.330-
339/2005 & 
C.P.2735/2004 
Pakistan 
Telecommunications 
Company Limited 
thr. its Chairman and 
others Vs. Haq Dad 
Khan  
Appeal No. 
152(P)CS/2001 
Dated 8.11.2002 
Appeal No.111, 
112, 113, 114, 115, 
116, 117,118, 
119(K)/CS/02 
dated 28.5.04 
Appeal No. 
1186(K)/1999 
Dated 9.10.2004 
 
Hafiz S A 
Rahman ASC  
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman  
(in) CA 330-
339/05  
Abdul Kareem Khan 
Kundi,ASC  
Afzal Siddiqi  
Arshad Ali Chaudhry   
415  
C.A.427/2005 
  (-) Tassaduq 
Hussain Gillani, 
Mehar Muhammad 
Nawaz Vs. Managing 
Dir. SBFC, etc  
Appeal No. 
755(R)CE/2000 
Dated 9.1.2003 
Abdul Kareem 
Khan 
Kundi,ASC 
FK But KSC Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad Khan 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
35
J. 
Mr. Arshad Ali 
Ch.  
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
416  
C.A.747-
756/2005 
  
Muhammad Ameen 
Memon and others 
Vs. M.D. Pakistan 
Television 
Corporation Ltd. and 
anothers  
Appeal No. 
50(P)CE/2003,  
626 to 
628(R)CE/2003 & 
732 to 
734(R)CE/2004 
Dated 20.9.2004 
 
Shaukat Aziz 
Siddiqui ASC 
Raja Abdul 
Ghafoor  
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak  
Ch Muhammad 
Akram  
 
Abdul Kareem Khan 
Kundi,ASC 
Raja Muhammad 
Ibrahim Satti 
Mr. M.S. Khattak  
Ch Muhammad Akram 
417  
C.P.23/2005 
 (C.O) 
Chairman State Life 
Insurance 
Corporation of 
Pakistan and others 
Vs. Salamat Ullah  
Appeal No. 
495(L)CE/2001 
Dated 27.10.2004 
Ibad ur Rehman 
Lodhi  
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
N.R 
418  
C.P.513/2004 
 (C.O) 
Abdul Ghafoor Alvi 
Vs. Zari Tarkiyati 
Bank Ltd. and 
another  
Appeal 
No.241(R)CE/2003 
Dated 26.12.2003 
Mr. Nazir 
Ahmad Khan 
Lughmani  
  
Ali Hasan Gillani 
Mr. M.S. Khattak 
419  
C.P.800-
824/2004 
 
State Bank & another 
Vs. Muhammad 
Aslam Khan  
Appeal Nos. 1049 
to 1067(R)CE, 
1140 to 1141(R)CE 
& 1156 to 
1159(R)CE/2001 
Dated 10.1.2004 
 
Khalid Anwar 
ASC 
Raja Abdul 
Ghafoor  
 
Tariq Aziz  
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan 
420  
C.P.1508-
1528/2004 
 
P.T.C. Ltd., 
Islamabad Vs. 
Mansoor Ahmed 
Khan and others  
Appeal Nos. 309 to 
317(K)CS, 539 to 
547(K)CS & 549 to 
551(K)CS/2002 
Dated 29.3.2004 
 
 
Naeem Bukhari 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
N.R 
421  
C.P.2356-
2367/2004 
 
Pervez Khan Vs. 
Pakistan 
Telecommunication 
Company Ltd. thr. its 
Chairman and 
another  
 
Appeal No. 
176(P)CS/2002 
Dated 20.7.2004 
 
Raja Muhammad 
Asghar 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
N.R 
422  
C.P.2540 & 
2646-2685/2004 
 
President, Zarai 
Traqiati Bank Ltd. 
and another Vs. Syed 
Yawar Ali Bokhari  
Appeal No. 42 to 
57, 643, 229, 331, 
904, 309 to 
329(R)CE/2003 
Dated 31.8.2004 
Hafiz S A 
Rehman 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak  
 
Shahid Hamid 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan (CP2651-
2664/04)  
CP2665 to 2685/04  
 
423  
C.P.2569-
2603/2004 
 
Ishrat Pervez Vs. 
Commissioner 
Afghan Refugees 
Organization, 
Peshawar and others  
Appeal No. 
167(P)CS/2001 
Dated 16.9.2004 
Ray Muhammad 
Nawaz Kharal  
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
 
424  
C.P.2893-
2927/2004 
 
P.T.C.L. thr. 
Chairman and 
another Vs. Abdul 
Rashid and others  
Appeal Nos. 1330 
to 1351, 1359 to 
1371(R)CE/2003 
Dated 18.10.2004 
 
Ch Muhammad 
Akram  
N.R  
425  
C.P.1300-
1317/2005 
 
Chairman, Pakistan 
Telecom Company 
Ltd and another Vs. 
Muhammad Naeem 
and others  
Appeal Nos. 358 to 
359, 409 to 418, 
438 to 440, 443, 
449 & 
452(K)CS/2002 
Dated 22.12.2004 
 
Sheikh Riaz ul 
Haq 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
N.R 
426  
C.P.1367-1377 
&2028/2005 
National Highway 
Authority thr. its 
Chairman and others 
Vs. Muhammad 
Idrees  
Appeal Nos. 448, 
454, 456, 458, 461, 
466, 467, 470, 472, 
531, 537(L)/1997 
Dated 10.1.2005 
Fasi Zafar, ASC 
Rao Muhammad 
Yousaf Khan  
CP 2028/05 
Sheikh 
Raja Muhammad 
Bashir  
Ms Khattak (CP1367-
1369/05  
(CP1370-1377/05) N.R 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
36
Appeal No. 
468(L)/1997 
Dated 23.5.2005 
 
Salauddin  
427  
C.P.1502-
1561/2005 
 
Federation of 
Pakistan Vs. 
Mulazam Hussain 
and others  
Appeal Nos. 690 to 
750(R)CS/2004 
Raja Muhammad 
Irshad DAG 
Ch. Akhtar Ali  
 
N.R 
428  
C.P.1248-
1285/2005 
 
M.D. Utility Stores 
Corporation of 
Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. 
and another Vs. Ejaz 
Hussain Talat  
 
 
Appeal Nos. 1557 
to 1566, 1597 to 
1624(R)CE/2004 
Muhammad 
Jafar Hashmi 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
Chudhry Muhammad 
Saddik Warrich 
Ejaz Muhammad Khan 
 
429  
C.P.2310/2005 
 
The Chief Manager, 
State Bank of 
Pakistan, The Mall, 
Rawalpindi and 
others Vs. Ghulam 
Rasool and another  
 
Raja Muhammad 
Ibrahim 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
Hafiz SA Rehman 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi 
430  
C.P.2298-
2304/2005 
 
Chairman Pakistan 
Tobacco Board, 
Peshawar and another 
Vs. Azam Khan  
 
Appeal Nos. 106 to 
112(P)CE/2002 
Dated 15.6.2005 
Syed Aqa Asif 
Jaffery  
Mir Adam Khan 
N.R 
431  
C.A.1824-
1825/2001 
 
The Circle Executive 
U.B.L.,etc. Vs. 
Mohammad Boota 
Saeed  
 
 
Appeal No. 
1032(L)/1998 
Mr. M.A. 
Qureshi  
  
In Person 
432  
C.A.2615-
2618/2001 
 
Zulfiqar Ali Vs. 
PTCL, etc.  
Appeal Nos. 
624(L)CS/2000 
Dated 30.9.2000 
Farooq Zaman 
Qureshi 
Mr. Faiz-ur-
Rehman  
 
  
Gorsi Muhammad Din  
Mian Sarfraz ul Hasan 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi 
433  
C.A.450-
461/2004 
 (D.B) (E.H.) 
Habib Bank Ltd. Vs. 
Nazeer Khan  
Appeal No. 
1328(K)/1998 
Dated 9.9.2002 
Shahid Anwar 
Bajawa 
Mr. N.C.Motiani  
M.A Qureshi  
In Person 
434  
C.P.763/2003 
 
Amanullah Memon 
Vs. Director 
Precision 
Engineering Complex 
Karachi Airport  
 
Appeal No. 
849(K)/2000 
Dated 7.3.2003 
Muhammad 
Akram Sheikh 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
 
Mr. Arshad Ali Ch. 
435  
C.P.1410-L & 
1439-L/2003 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan, etc. Vs. 
Azwar Hussain  
Appeal No. 
1089(L)/1999 
Dated 3.4.2003 
Ameer Alam 
Khan 
Mahmud-ul-
Islam  
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi  
Mr. M.A. Zaidi 
436  
C.P.1519/2003 
 
Ghulam Sarwar Vs. 
Pakistan 
Broadcasting 
Corporation thr.its 
Director General and 
others  
 
Appeal No. 
1039(R)CS/2002 
Dated 22.5.2003 
Sheikh Iftikhar 
Ahmed 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
N.R 
437  
C.P.2445/2003 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan & another 
Vs Qasir Abbas & 
another  
Appeal No. 
1867(L)/1998 
Dated 21.7.2003 
Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Farooq 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
N.R 
438  
C.P.2567/2003 
 
Hafiz Abdul Rauf Vs. 
M.D. PASSCO & 
another  
Appeal No. 
881(L)/1999 
Dated 17.7.2003 
Altaf Ellahi 
Sheikh 
M Munir Pasha 
Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan  
 
Mr. M.A. Qureshi 
439  
C.P.2274/2005 
 
ZTBL, thr. its 
President and others 
Vs. Shabbir Ahmed 
Malik  
Appeal No. 
1922(R)CE/2005 
Dated 23.7.2005 
Hafiz SA 
Rehman 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak  
R- In Person 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
37
 
440  
C.A.134/2003 
 (E.H) (Ch.O) 
P.S.O. Ltd. Through 
its M.D. Vs. Tariq 
Akbar Khan and 
others  
Appeal No. 
1180(R)CE/2001 
Dated 19.12.2002 
Abid Hasan 
Minto 
Ch. Akhtar Ali  
 
Chudhry Mushtaq 
Ahmed 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan  
R- In Person 
 
441  
C.A.958/2003 
 (S.J) 
State Life Insurance 
Corp. of Pakistan, 
etc. Vs. Mian Abdul 
Majeed.  
Appeal No. 
9923/2001 
Dated 28.10.2002 
Muhammad 
Jhanzab Khan 
Bharwana 
  
Nemo  
442  
C.P.681-719-
K/2005 
 
Manzoor Ali Vs. 
U.B.L. and others  
Appeal Nos. 1401, 
708, 714, 718, 749, 
755, 767, 778, 782, 
803, 825, 859, 866, 
874, 876, 908, 944, 
1015, 1152, 1196, 
1218, 1266, 1390, 
1422, 1450, 1500, 
1507, 1612, 1620, 
1648, 1656, 1774, 
1796, 1836, 1912, 
1966, 2034, 2056, 
964, 965(K)CE/1997 
Dated 15.8.2005 
 
 
 
Asmat Kamal 
Naseem Ahmed 
MG Dastiger 
443  
C.A.783/2005 
  
Hassan Khan Vs. M/s 
Sui Southern Gas. 
Co. Ltd. and others  
Appeal 
No.194(K)/1998 
dated 12.11.2002 
 
P- In Person  
  
A.S.K Ghouri 
444  
C.P.2258/2005 
 
National Bank of 
Pakistan thr. Attorney 
and others Vs. 
Muhammad Aslam 
  
Appeal No. 
337(L)/2000 
Dated 2.6.2005 
Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Farooq 
Mr. M.A. Zaidi  
 
N.R 
445  
C.P.2421- 
2424/2005 
 
Chairman, PTCL, 
Headquarter, 
Islamabad and 
another Vs. Saeed 
Anwar and others  
 
Note:- 
Paper books are 
not available 
Hafiz SA 
Rehman 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak  
N.R 
446  
C.P.2282-
2283/2005 
 
Pakistan International 
Airline Corporation 
and another Vs. Rafiq 
Ahmed Shaikh  
Appeal Nos. 767 to 
768(K)CE/2003 
Dated 2.6.2003 
Shahid Anwar 
Bajwa 
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak  
 
Muhammad Afzal 
Siddiqi Mr. Ejaz 
Muhammad Khan 
447  
C.P.2768-
2770/2005 
 
M.D. Pakistan 
Television 
Corporation, PTV, 
Headquarter, 
Islamabad and 
another Vs. Zia ur 
Rehman, Personnel 
Officer and another  
 
Appeal Nos. 2268 
& 2269(R)CE/2005 
Dated 2.12.2005 
Raja Muhammad 
Asghar  
Ubaid ur 
Rehman 
 
Mr. Ejaz Muhammad 
Khan  
Ch. Akhtar Ali 
 448 
C.P.88-L/2001 
 
Nazar Khan Vs. 
UBL, etc.  
Appeal No. 
1626(L)/1998 
Dated 11.11.2000 
 
 Farooq Zaman 
Qureshi 
N.R 
449 
C.P.1090 & 
1401/2002 
 C.P.109-
114/2003 & 136, 
803-834, 843-
900, 922-982, 
1000-1031, 
1106, 1202-
1203, 1609, 
2441, 3304/2003 
& C.P.47, 56-67, 
492-494, 
738/2004 & 
C.P.88-91, 106-
112, 183-299, 
Dr. Huzoor Bux Vs 
Federation of 
Pakistan & others  
Appeal No. 
870(R)CE/2000 
Dated 5.4.2002 
Appeal No. 
1340(K)CE/2001 
Dated 6.3.2002 
Appeal No. 871, 
872, 873, 878, 881 
& 883(R)CE/2001 
Dated 4.11.2002 
Appeal Nos. 
870(R)CE/2001 
Dated 4.11.2002 
Appeal Nos. 580 to 
585, 894 to 
Mr. Ali Hassan 
Gillani, ASC a/w  
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik  in CP 
1090/2002  
Ch. Muhammad 
Akram, in CP 
1401/02 
Syed Iftikhar 
Hussain Gillani 
a/w Meher Khan 
Malik, in CP 
109-114, 136, 
803-834, 922, 
1106, 1609, 
Khawaja Muhamamd 
Farooq, ASC a/w Mr. 
M.S. Khattak, in CP 
1401/02, CP 803-
834/03, CP 1000-
1031/03, CA 605-
719/03 
Mr. Qureshi, AOR in 
CPs 109-114, 136/03, 
Mr. Tariq Asad in CP 
1202/03, Syed Iftikhar 
Hussain Gillani a/w 
Mehr Khan Malik in 
CPs 56-67/04, 608-670-
817, 1218-1241/05, 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
38
345-439, 452-
817, 838-
1241/2005 
&C.A.685-
719/2003 
&C.A.1032/04 
&C.P.1679-L-
1682-L/2004  
&C.P.1697-
1699-L/2004 
&C.P.1028-
1049/2004 & 
C.A.786/2005 
919(K)/1999 
Dated 10.3.2003 
Note:- 
CP. 843/2003 
Is Missing 
Appeal Nos.313, 
314, 317, 318 to 
327, 331, 333 to 
336, 338 to 341, 
343, 345, 347, 
481(K)/1998, 
1223(K)/1999, 148, 
537, 538, 658, 659, 
661 to 677, 712, 
713, 767, 769 to 
772(K) CE/2000 
Dated 10.3.2003 
Note:- 
CP. 1000/2003 
Is Missing 
Appeal 
Nos.332(K)CE/199
8, 581, 679 to 681, 
683 to 685, 687 to 
693, 696, 698 to 
702, 766, 768, 773, 
775 to 780, 782, 
784(K)CE/2000  
Appeal Nos. 313, 
314, 316 to 327, 
331, 333 to 336, 
338 to 345, 347, 
481, 1223 & 
1226(K)/1998, 537 
to 539, 658 to 677, 
712, 713, 767, 769, 
770, 771, 772 & 
148(K)CE/2000 
Dated 10.3.2003 
Note:- 
C.P. 1106, 1202-
1203, 1609, 2441, 
3304/2003 are 
missing. 
 
C.P. 47/2004 is 
missing. 
 
Appeal Nos. 2323 
to 2330, 2335, 
2336(R)/1999, 70 
& 71(R)CE/2000 
Dated 31.10.2003 
 
Note:- 
CP 492-494, 
738/2004 & CP 
88-91, 106 to 112 
 
Appeal Nos. 780, 
763, 765, 766, 768, 
770, 771, 773, 777, 
783, 789, 790, 791, 
793, 794, 798, 803, 
804, 806, 808, 809, 
811, 815, 816, 817, 
818, 819, 820, 821, 
822, 824, 825, 826, 
827, 828, 831, 833, 
834, 835, 837, 839, 
842, 853, 854, 855, 
856, 859, 861, 862, 
1111, 1112, 1114 
to 1119, 1188 to 
1190, 1195, 1197, 
2441, 3304/03, 
CPs 56-57/04, 
CPs 608-611, 
622, 670-817, 
1218/05 and 
CRP 64 to 68 of 
05  
Mr. Waseem 
Sajjad in CP 843 
to 900/03, 
Waseem Sajjad 
a/w Mehr Khan 
Malik in CA 
685-719/03, CA 
1032/04, CRP 
60,61, 62/03, 
Muhammad 
Akam Sheikh, 
Sr. ASC a/w 
Mehr Khan 
Malik in CP 
1000-1031/03 
Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Farooq, a/w  
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak  in CPs 
923-982/03 CP 
47, 56-67/04, 
492-494/04, CPs 
183-299/05, CP 
345-439/05, 452-
1241/05, 670-
817/05,  
 
Arshad Ali Chaudhry, 
in CPs 183-299/05,  
Mr. Wassem Sajjad a/w 
Arshad Ali Chaudhry in 
CP 345-439/03 , 
Waseem Sajjad a/w 
M.S. Khattak, in CA 
605-719/03, 
Mr. Abdul Hafeez 
Pirzada a/w Mehr Khan 
Malik in CP 452-
1241/05  
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
39
1199, 1200, 1201 
to 1205, 1207, 
1209, 1210, 1214, 
1216, 1217, 1239, 
1244, 1246, 1249, 
1250, 1251, 1252, 
1255, 1257, 1260, 
1262, 1268, 2268, 
2269, 2271, 2272, 
2273, 2274, 2277, 
2279, 2281, 2282, 
2283, 2285, 2288, 
2292, 2293, 2297, 
2300, 2302, 2303, 
2304, 2306, 2309, 
2310, 2312, 2314, 
2317, 
2334(R)/1999, 632, 
633, 634 & 
637(R)CE/2000 
Dated 23.10.2003 
Appeal Nos. 567 to 
587, 594 to 662, 
664, 834, 1004, 
1033, 1034, 1035 
(R)CE/2002  
Dated 8.11.2003 
 
Appeal Nos. 554, 
550, 551, 710, 575, 
576, 577, 632, 633, 
639, 640, 641, 252, 
253, 254, 258, 260, 
261, 262, 265, 266, 
508, 895 to 
902(K)CE/2001, 
526, 550, 573, 574, 
575, 577, 578, 618, 
641, 765, 1067 to 
1073, 1159 to 
1162, 1166, 1168, 
1169, 1171, 1172, 
1174, 1176, 1238, 
1239, 1266, 
190(K)/1998, 570, 
572, 574 to 580, 
582 to 625, 631, 
648, 649, 1284 & 
1491(R)CW/2002, 
1677(K)CE/2000, 
219(R)CW/2002, 
463(R)CW/2003, 
1285(R)CW/2002, 
141(R)CE/2003, 
1008(R)CW/2002, 
1273, 571, 573, 
750(R)CE/2003, 
5(Q)CE/2004, 315, 
328, 329, 330, 344, 
346(K)/1998, 1667, 
1671, 1674, 1675, 
1676, 1680(K) 
CE/2001, 
245(K)CE/2003, 
62 to 
66(Q)CW/2003, 
1391, 
1392(R)CW/2003, 
519(R)CE/2002, 
1283, 1009 to 
1012, 1186 to 
1191, 1193, 1197, 
1323 to 
1350(R)CW/2002, 
247, 422 to 430, 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
40
444(R)CW/2003, 
1411 to 1415, 1472 
to 
1483(R)CW/2002, 
220 to 224, 250, 
251, 462, 464 to 
493, 497 to 536, 
557, 565 to 652, 
654, 698 to 703, 
751 to 763, 814 to 
816, 847 to 852, 
856, 857, 869 to 
872, 1298 & 
5(R)CW/2003, 
1135, 1274, 1276 
to 
1281(R)CW/2002, 
142 to 144, 
1481(R)CW/2003 
Dated 12.11.2004  
 
Appeal Nos. 
1207(R)CE, 568, 
570(K)CE, 1266, 
1267(R)CE/2000, 
39, 40(R)CE, 
180(P)CE, 348, 
350, 351, 352, 448, 
449, 450, 451, 452, 
453, 464, 467, 507, 
508, 510, 511, 512, 
515 to 524, 528, 
530, 531, 536, 537, 
556 to 653, 655, 
656, 657, 677 to 
737, 739 to 781, 
786 to 817, 840 to 
869, 895 to 903, 
917, 918, 938 to 
953, 965, 966, 972, 
973, 1127 to 1134, 
1143, 1200 to 
1202, 
1208(R)CE/2001, 
421 to 425, 440, 
446 to 473, 516, 
517, 588 to 593, 
663, 690, 691, 835, 
836, 
1264(R)CE/2002, 
72, 84, 100, 101, 
114, 115 & 116(R) 
CW/2003 
Dated 2.10.2003 
 
Appeal No. 
160(K)CE/2001 
Dated 26.8.2002 
 
Note:- 
C.A. 1032/2004 & 
CP 1679-L to 
1682-L/2004 & 
C.P. 1697 to 1699-
L/2004 & CP 1028 
-1049/2004 & CA 
786/2005 paper 
books are not 
available. 
 
 
 
 
 
  
C.R.P.60-62, 64-
Dr.Ghulam Murtaza. 
Civil Appeal Nos. 
Mr. Waseem 
Mr. Khalid Anwar, Sr. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
41
450  
68/2003 in 
C.A.370-
371,378, 368-
369,372, 373 & 
375 /2001   
Vs. Federation of 
Pakistan and others.  
370, 371, 378/2001 
Dated 22.10.2001 
Civil Appeal Nos. 
368, 369, 372, 373, 
375/2001 
Dated 22.10.2001 
Sajjad, Sr. ASC 
a/w 
Mr. Mehr Khan 
Malik  in CRP 
60, 61,62/03 
Syed Iftikhar 
Hussain, Sr. 
ASC a/w Mehr 
Khan Malik in 
CRP 64-68/03 
 
ASC a/w Mr. M.S. 
Khattak in CRP 60, 64-
68/03 
451  
C.R.P.81-82, 
101-103, 118-
120/2003   
The Managing 
Director Sui Southern 
Gas Co.Ltd . Vs. 
Ghulam Abbas and 
others  
Civil Appeal Nos.  
533/2002 
Civil Petition 
1850/2002 
Dated 2.5.2003 
Civil Petition No. 
2391, 2392 & 
2394/2002 
Dated 10.6.2003 
 
Note:- 
CRP 118-120/2003 
papers books are 
not available. 
 
Barrister 
Chaudhry 
Muhammad 
Jamil a/w M.S. 
Khattak, in CRP 
81-82/03 
 Khawaja 
Muhammad 
Farooq,  
Mr. M.S. 
Khattak in CRP 
101-103/03, 
Malik 
Muhammad 
Qayyum, ASC 
a/w M.S. Khattak, 
in CRP 118-120/03  
 
Mr. Waseem Sajjad, Sr. 
ASC a/w Mehr Khan 
Malik in CRP 81-82/03, 
Muhammad Akram 
Sheikh, Sr. ASC a/w 
Mehr Khan Malik in 
CRP 118-120/03 
R-In person in CRP 
101-103/03 
452  
Crl.O.P.35-36, 
43, 50/2003, 12, 
14-15/2004  
Ejaz Ali Mugheri & 
others Vs. Munawar 
Basir Ahmed, MD, 
Sui Southeren Gas 
Co.Ltd. & another  
 
  
Mr. Waseem 
Sajjad, Sr. ASC 
a/w Mehr Khan 
Malik in 
Cr.O.35/03, 
Cr.O.P.14, 
15/04 
Mr. Waseem 
Sajjad a/w Ejaz 
Muhammad 
Khan in 
Cr.O.P.50/03, 
Mr. Abdul 
Hafeez Pirzada, 
Sr. ASC a/w 
Mehr Khan 
Malik in 
Cr.O.P. 36/03, 
Syed Iftikhar 
Gillani a/w 
Mehr Khan 
Malik in 
Crl.O.P. 43/03, 
Cr.O.P. 12/04   
 
Mr. Khalid Anwar a/w 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR 
in Crl.O.P. 35, 36, 43, 
50/03, Crl.O.P.12, 14, 
14/04 
 
 
Dates of hearing  
: 
 
16th to 20th January, 2006. 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, CJ. – In appeals No. 792 of 2005 
and 148 to 167 and 174 to 178, etc. appellant questioned the judgment dated 27th 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
42
November 2004, passed by Federal Service Tribunal. Relevant para therefrom reads 
thus:--- 
“11. The upshot of the whole discussion is that the appellant is a civil 
servant in terms of Section 2(i)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and 
section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and ,therefore, can invoke 
the jurisdiction of this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance in respect of 
his terms and conditions of service. The FST’s jurisdiction in the PAF 
Educational Institutions has been recognized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 
in its judgments referred to earlier. The fact that the Appellant is considered 
as a  civil servant  for limited purpose for invoking the jurisdiction of this 
Tribunal, he will not be automatically entitled to all the benefits of rules, 
regulations which govern the civil servants Appellant shall be governed by 
the terms and conditions of service as laid down in AFM-540, which he 
accepted at the time of joining of service and any violation of the terms and 
conditions contained in the said Manual and if he is adversely affected he 
can approach the FST for redressal. The perusal of the AFM also indicates 
that some Government rules have been adapted by the PAF for application 
in these Institutions and now form part of AFM No.54-2. The employees of 
these Institutions shall be governed by those adopted Government rules by 
the Respondents and therefore, the plea of the Appellant is accepted to that 
extent. All the Government rules and regulations governing civil servant 
which do not form part of the AFM No.54-2 cannot be made applicable to 
him till these are adopted by the PAF Management Committee for these 
Institutions. Furthermore, having accepted the terms and conditions of his 
appointment letter Appellant is estopped from requesting for ipso facto 
application of Government rules and regulations to him.”     
2.  
After hearing parties counsel, leave to appeal was granted, inter alia, to examine 
following questions:-- 
1) 
Whether or not the teachers/employees of PAF Educational 
Institutions managed by the Managing Committees or bodies are 
civil servants under Section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 
1973 or for the purpose of Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals 
Act, 1973? 
2) 
Whether employees/Teachers of PAF Educational Institution 
can invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal as well as of this 
Court under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan.  
3) 
The 
question 
of 
validity 
and 
vires 
of 
Section  
2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on the touchstone of 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
43
Article 212 and other provisions of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan.  
 
3. 
It may be noted that above questions, particularly the question cited at Sr. No.3, 
was likely to affect a large number of cases of the employees who are deemed to be civil 
servants under Section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 [herein after referred to as 
“STA, 1973”], therefore, constitution of larger bench was considered appropriate and 
office was directed to club all identical petitions and appeals for disposal by means of an 
authoritative pronouncement on the subject. Learned Attorney General for Pakistan was 
also asked to assist the Court, as different Constitutional provisions were likely to come 
under examination. 
 
4. 
Learned counsel for the parties argued as follows:-- 
5. 
Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Sr. ASC contended that :- 
a) 
Ultimate constitutional objective is to establish an egalitarian 
society, and if there was a sufficient public law element, then the 
concept of master and servant will not be applicable. 
b) 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 should be saved, instead of 
destroying it as it is well settled that the Court must act in favour 
of upholding the constitutionality of a legislation.  
Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Gunton   v.   London 
Borough of Richmond upon Thames  [1980] 3 All ER 577, R   
v. Civil Service Appeal Board [1988] 3 All ER 686, Inamur 
Rehman    v.   Federation of Pakistan (1992 SCMR 563) and  
Farasat Hussain    v.  Pakistan National Shipping 
Corporation (2004 SCMR 1874).  
c) 
If ultimately, this Court comes to the conclusion that Section 2-
A is ultra vires of the Constitution, the judgment being 
pronounced on its constitutionality shall be declared to have 
application prospectively.  
d) 
This Court is always fully empowered to provide guidelines on 
the issues to the Federation of Pakistan under the circumstances 
of the case.  
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
44
Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Workers of M/s 
Rohtas Industries Ltd.    v.   Rohtas Industries Ltd.  (AIR 
1990 SC 481) 
 
 
 
 
6. 
Mr. Naeem Bukhari, learned ASC argued that :--- 
i) 
There is no limitation on the powers of Parliament to declare any 
service to be the service of Pakistan, therefore, in exercise of 
these powers, a declaration in terms of Section 2-A of the STA, 
1973 has been made accordingly, as a result whereof every 
person holding a post in a statutory body and Federally 
controlled and managed organization shall be deemed to be in 
the service of Pakistan and would be treated as civil servant 
under the CSA, 1973, for the purpose of availing remedy under 
the law. In this manner, by reason of a legal fiction, the 
employees covered by Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 shall be 
deemed to be civil servants.  
Reliance in this behalf has been placed by him upon Mehreen 
Zaibun Nisa    v.  Land Commissioner Multan  (PLD 1975 
SC 397 at 433) and Siraj Din   v.  Sardar Khan  (1993 SCMR 
745 
 at 749).  
ii) 
The Legislature was fully conscious that Article 260 of the 
Constitution excludes certain persons from the definition of 
‘service of Pakistan’ but in spite of it, by enacting Section 2-A 
of the STA 1973, for class of employees holding a post in a 
statutory authority and Government managed or controlled 
bodies and Corporations, whose cases are covered under Section 
2-A,  though excluded from the definition of ‘civil servant’ by 
providing a deeming clause indeed for this reason, ignorance is 
not to be imputed to the Legislature because, wisdom is always 
expected in favour of the Legislature, which has not to be called 
in question by the Courts while interpreting the law on the 
subject.  
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
45
In this behalf he relied upon Aftab Ahmed    v.  K.E.S.C.  
(1999 SCMR 197), PIA Corporation    v.   Koural Channa 
(1999 PLC (CS) 1539), Divisional Engineer Phones    v.   
Muhammad Shahid  (1999 SCMR 1526), Zahir Ullah  v. 
Chairman WAPDA, Lahore  (2000 SCMR 826), Anwar Ali 
Sahto    v.   Fedeation of Pakistan (PLD 2002 SC 101), 
Managing Director, SSGC Ltd.    v.  Ghulam Abbas, (PLD 
2003 SC 724).    
iii) 
In the light of the judgments cited above, Section 2-A of the 
STA, 1973 is intra vires of the Constitution. However, one 
aspect appears to have been overlooked e.g. every person, if not 
holding a post, would be governed by terms of the contract, and 
the remedy available to such a person would be a suit for 
damages. Word ‘permanent post’ has been defined in Section 
2(1)(e) of the CSA, 1973.  
Reliance is placed on State of Assam    v.   Kanak Chandra   
(AIR 1967 SC 884 rel. 886 at para 10)  
iv) 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 holds the field from 1997 and its 
constitutionality has never been challenged, therefore, at this 
belated stage, it would not be appropriate to strike it down.  
 
 
7. 
Mr. M.A. Ghani, ASC contended that  
a) 
Section 2-A is applicable to those employees who do not fall 
within the category of worker or workman  
b) 
Article 212 of the Constitution does not cater to protect the 
validity of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 and the remedy is 
independent of Article 212 of the Constitution because Section 
2-A of the STA, 1973 itself provides a remedy.  
c) 
As regards the worker or workman, since Article 212 of the 
Constitution is not attracted in the case of Section 2-A and if so, 
Section 2-A  is reduced to ordinary piece of legislation, dealing 
with routine cases of service and employment.  
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
46
d) 
Industrial Relation Ordinance is a special law, dealing with 
special 
class 
of 
people. 
Section  
2-A of the STA, 1973 is an ordinary piece of legislation, thus the 
former is to prevail.  
e) 
Service Tribunal Act is a procedural law whereas Civil Servants 
Act is a substantive law. Unless corresponding amendment is 
made in the substantive law i.e. Civil Servants Act, they do not 
become civil servants and Article 212 of the Constitution would 
not be applicable. 
f) 
Under jurisprudence, there are two types of interpretations; one 
is literaligus and the other is centialigus. The Court must accept 
first interpretation because the legislature has said that what it 
means in so many words, and second interpretation can be 
adopted if there is ambiguity.   
8. 
Ch. Muhammad Farooq, ASC adopted the arguments of Mr. M.A. Ghani, ASC. 
9. 
Syed Asif Ali Shah, learned ASC argued that :--- 
a) 
Section 2-A of STA, 1973 is not in derogation of the 
Constitution, therefore, its constitutionality cannot be objected 
to.  
10. 
Raja Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, ASC contended that :--- 
i) 
Section 2-A is intra vires of the Constitution.  
ii) 
This Court cannot examine the vires of any legislation in 
collateral proceedings.   
iii) 
No one, either an employee or an employer, has challenged the 
validity of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973. 
iv) 
In collateral proceedings, only under Article 8 of the 
Constitution, this Court can strike down the vires of legislative 
instrument. Since provision of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is a 
beneficial provision, therefore, it cannot be struck down.  
v) 
No decision by this Court can affect the petitions and appeals 
pending before this Court. 
11. 
Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, learned Sr. ASC contended that:--- 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
47
i) 
Neither any one has challenged the vires of Section 2-A of the 
STA, 1973 nor amongst both the parties has any one prayed for 
examination of its constitutionality. 
ii) 
This Court cannot widen the scope of Article 212 of the 
Constitution 
by 
framing 
a 
question 
to 
examine 
the 
constitutionality of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973.  
iii) 
This Court does not act in a vacuum. The Court has to take 
notice of these conditions in which the society is functioning. 
That is why it is said that no Constitution is rigid. While dealing 
with the case, we have to look into the ever changing 
circumstances of the society.  
12. 
Mr. Tariq Asad, ASC contended that :--- 
a) 
The Court has no power of judicial review to declare any law 
against the Constitution, unless the test laid down in Article 8 of 
the Constitution is fulfilled.  
13. 
Mr. Wasim Sajjad, learned Sr. ASC stated that:- 
a) 
Section 2-A is intra vires of the Constitution.  
b) 
If the Court has decided to examine the vires of Section 2-A of 
the STA, 1973, it would also be required to take into 
consideration the implications of the Removal from Service 
(Special Powers) Ordinance 2000, which covers both the 
categories of the employees i.e. civil servants and the workers; 
and this Ordinance has got the Constitutional protection, in view 
of 17th Amendment of the Constitution. 
c) 
The definition of ‘service of Pakistan’ under Article 260 of the 
Constitution is very wide and generally it is termed as 
‘government service’.  
In this behalf he relied upon Ajit Singh    v.  State of Punjab 
(AIR 1970 Haryana 351), Salahuddin    v.    Frontier Sugar 
Mills and Distillery Ltd. (PLD 1975 SC 244), to define the 
expression i.e. person performing functions in connection with 
the affairs of the Federation or Province.  
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
48
d) 
Article 260 of the Constitution deals only with one aspect of the 
service of Pakistan. Article 212 of the Constitution is an 
independent Article and it deals in respect of matters relating to 
the terms and conditions of service of the persons, who are or 
have been in the service of Pakistan, whereas Article 240 of the 
Constitution deals in respect of the service of the Federation, 
posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation and All 
Pakistan Service by or under the Act of [Majlis-e-Shoora 
(Parliament)]. Therefore, the Tribunal can exercise exclusive 
jurisdiction in respect of the employees whose cases are covered 
by Section 2-A of the STA 1973, notwithstanding that under 
Article 240 of the Constitution, their terms and conditions have 
been prescribed or not.  
e) 
The Court while interpreting the Constitutional provisions has to 
keep in mind the social set up of the country.  
Reliance in this behalf has been placed by him on M/s Ellahi 
Cotton Mills    v.   Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 SC 582) 
and Arshad Mehmood   v.   Government of Punjab (PLD 
2005 SC 193).  
He also relied upon American Jurisprudence 2nd  Edition  
Vol. 16 para 86  and the copy of speech of the then Law 
Minister Khalid Anwar, when Section 2-A was being 
promulgated.  
f) 
If the Court comes to the conclusion that Article 2-A of the 
STA, 1973 is ultra vires of the Constitution following the 
judgment in the case of L. Chandra Kumar   v.   Union of 
India (AIR 1997 SC 1125), it may be held that the earlier 
judgments passed by the Service Tribunal are valid and within 
jurisdiction but these can be challenged before the High Court 
under Article 199 of the Constitution and this Court may transfer 
pending, petitions for leave to appeal to the respective High 
Courts for treating them as Constitution Petitions under Article 
199 of the Constitution for disposal.  
14. 
Dr. Babar Awan, learned ASC contended as under:-- 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
49
i) 
The Legislature through, Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, has 
validly declared the status of persons holding a post in statutory 
Corporations and autonomous bodies as “service of Pakistan” 
with the intention to protect them from arbitrary exercise of 
administrative discretion and in conformity with prevalent 
universal practice of enforcement of rule of law and protection 
of rights of employees. 
ii) 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 was inserted through an Act of 
Parliament, therefore, it is a valid enactment.  
iii) 
Jurisdiction of the Tribunal under Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 
is to be judged in conjunction with Section 5 of the  STA, 1973.  
iv) 
Jurisdiction conferred on Tribunal under Section 2-A of the 
STA, 1973 to adjudicate upon the grievance and claims of the 
persons, classified therein, does not offend the spirit of the 
Constitution because it is a Constitutional jurisdiction, by means 
of which word ‘deemed, has been inserted in law, therefore, 
Section  
2-A of the STA, 1973 has to be protected.  
v) 
A forum of Appeal with the leave of this Court is provided 
under Article 212(3) of the Constitution, to this Court. 
vi) 
No law can be declared as void under the scheme of the 
Constitution, unless it falls within the parameters of Article 8 of 
the Constitution.  
vii) 
Article 37 (d) of the Constitution provides for promotion of 
social justice and to ensure inexpensive and expeditious justice 
to every citizen.  
Reliance in this behalf has been placed on The State    v.   Zia-
ur-Rahman (PLD 1973 SC 49) and Hakam Qureshi    v.   
Judges of the Lahore High Court (PLD 1976 SC 713).  
viii) 
The Federation has not come forward to do something for the 
poor employees of the Corporations, etc. therefore, instead of 
striking down Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 as a whole, 
instructive guidelines and directions, as deemed fit, may be 
issued to the Federation in view of the judgment of this Court in 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
50
the case of Khan Asfandyar Wali    v.   Federation of 
Pakistan   (PLD 2001 SC 607). 
ix) 
There are a number of laws under which one segment of the 
society is excluded from the jurisdiction of Special Courts under 
a particular provision of law. Reference in this behalf can be 
made to NAB Ordinance, 1999.    
 
15. 
Mr. Adul Mujeeb Pirzada, ASC at the very out set pointed out that 
i) 
The Federal Government itself is not interested to repeal Section 
2-A of the STA 1973, as would be evident from the statement 
filed on its behalf by the learned Deputy Attorney General.  
ii) 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is intra vires of the Constitution 
and it does not violate any of its provisions.  
iii) 
The principle of master and servant is violative of the 
injunctions of Islam, Quran, Sunnah and the Objectives 
Resolution. This principle is also violative of Article 14 of the 
Constitution being against the dignity of person, security of life 
and property of the individual employees, guaranteed under 
Article 9 of the Constitution. This principle is also 
discriminatory and runs against the provisions of Article 25 of 
the Constitution, therefore, Article 2-A of STA, 1973 is to be 
saved in the interest of justice.  
iv) 
Section 2-A of STA, 1973 has only provided a forum to the 
employees of Corporation, etc. and their cases have to be 
decided according to rules and regulations, governing their 
service, therefore, for this reason, there is no point to discuss as 
to whether Section 2-A of STA, 1973 is ultra vires of the 
Constitution or not.  
16. 
Mr. Iftikhar Gillani, learned Sr. ASC contended as follows:- 
a) 
The class of service under Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is 
distinct from civil servants as defined in Section 2(1)(b) of the 
CSA, 1973, therefore, neither they are in the service of Pakistan, 
nor they are civil servants. This distinction has been highlighted 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
51
firstly in the case of Noor Mustafa Khuhro    v.   The 
Federation of Pakistan (1998 PLC (CS) 1263) and approved in 
Zahir Ullah (ibid) and Muhammad Nasim Turyali   v.   
Ghulam Sarwar Khan (PLD 2005 SC 570)  
b) 
Under Article 63 of the Constitution, the Government service 
and the service of a statutory body has been treated at par and 
not distinctly, therefore, in view of the judgment in the case of 
Shahid Nabi Malik   v.    Chief Election Commissioner (PLD 
1997 SC 32), it may be treated as a new specie.  
c) 
In the case of Zahir Ullah (ibid) it has been held that the 
employees covered under Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 have 
attained the status of Government servant by fiction of law, as it 
also includes the persons appointed on contract basis, etc, 
therefore, they can avail remedy before the Service Tribunal.  
d) 
As per the will of the Legislature, the employees of a 
Corporation have been declared to be holders of post in the 
service of Pakistan, therefore, whether it is right or wrong 
decision of the Legislature, the same has to be respected and it 
cannot be struck down for reasons of jurisdiction, impropriety or 
expediency.  
In this behalf he relied upon Reference by the President [No.1 
of 1957] (PLD 1957 SC (Pak) 219), Kihota  Hollohon   v.   
Zachilhu (AIR 1993 SC 412), Pir Sabir Shah    v.   Shah 
Muhammad Khan (PLD 1995 SC 66) and Zulfiqar Ali Babu    
v.   Government of the Punjab (PLD 1997 SC 11).  
17. 
Mr. Khalid Anwar, learned Sr. ASC contended that:- 
a) 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is wholly ultra vires and 
unenforceable. 
b) 
As per Article 260 of the Constitution, unless a person is in the 
service and holding a post, his case does not fall within the 
definition of “service of Pakistan”.  
c) 
It is a misconception that the Parliament, by means of a deeming 
clause, can declare that the persons holding a post under any 
authority or Corporation, body or organization, established by or 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
52
under the Federal law or which is owned or controlled by the 
Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has 
controlling share or interest, to be in service of Pakistan and 
holder of post under such authority or Corporation, body or 
organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the 
purpose of this Court, because no such power is available to it 
under Article 142 of the Constitution.  
d) 
A declaration could be given for the purpose of STA, 1973 and 
CSA, 1973 and even for the purpose of the Constitution but not 
for legislative purposes.  
e) 
According to Article 240, read with Article 260 of the 
Constitution, if a person who is in service of Pakistan or has 
been declared to be in service of Pakistan, his appointment and 
the terms and conditions of service shall be determined by the 
Act of Parliament.  
f) 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 has not provided any appeal to the 
Supreme Court, as appeal with the leave, lies before it if the 
conditions laid down in Article 212(3) of the Constitution are 
fulfilled, therefore, if it is concluded that remedy to the persons 
covered by Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is before an ordinary 
statutory Tribunal, their remedy would lie before the High Court 
under Article 199 of the Constitution, being the only Article in 
the Constitution to safeguard the fundamental rights, there-
under.  
g) 
Declaration of status of persons under Section 2-A of the STA, 
1973 is for the purpose of Article 260 of the Constitution or for 
the purpose of STA, 1973 or CSA, 1973, therefore, all those 
persons, who are not holding the post, cannot be declared to be 
in service of Pakistan for the purpose of treating them to be civil 
servant  under STA, 1973.  
h) 
Section 5 of the CSA, 1973 deals with the appointment in all 
Pakistan service or to civil service of the Federation or to a civil 
post in connection with the affairs of the Federation in the 
prescribed manner, whereas Section 6 and 7 of the CSA, 1973 
deal with the probation and confirmation of a civil servant, 
therefore a person who is appointed on contract basis, etc. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
53
cannot be deemed to be in regular appointment and cannot be 
said to hold a post,  as such he has no legal entitlement to avail 
of  remedy before the Service Tribunal.  
i) 
In Ghulam Abbas case (ibid) [2003 SCMR 734], this Court has 
held that law of master and servant does not apply and in such 
situation the High Court may be approached by an employee; 
and if no relief is granted by the High Court, then he may invoke 
the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 185(3) of the 
Constitution.  
j) 
The workers/workmen, in presence of the Industrial Relations 
Ordinance 2002 [herein after referred to as “IRO, 2002”] cannot 
avail remedy before the Service Tribunal under Section 2-A of 
the STA, 1973 because the Labour laws being special law shall 
prevail, which is meant specially for such category of people, 
instead of invoking jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal, which is 
a general law for all intents and purposes.  
18. 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Attorney General for Pakistan appeared on 
Court notice and submitted as follows:-- 
i) 
The Court cannot be estopped to examine the constitutionality of 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, at a belated stage because in the 
earlier judgments cited at the bar, its vires on the touchstone of 
the Constitution were not examined, therefore, if this Court 
comes to the conclusion that it is unconstitutional, the same can 
be declared at as such, notwithstanding the fact that the law has 
worked for a long time.  
Reliance in this behalf has been placed on Mr. Fazlul Quader 
Chowdhry    v.  Mr. Muhammad Abdul Haque (PLD 1963 
SC 486) and  Thomas Cole Contech   v.   Queen (PLD 1957 
PC 112).  
ii) 
It is not necessary for the Court to wait for an occasion that 
some one must challenge the constitutionality of a law. The 
Court can examine the validity/ constitutionality of the statutory 
provision, itself when it comes to its notice or it has been 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
54
brought into notice by the parties and mere passage of time is 
not a criteria for the validation of the constitutionality of law.  
In this behalf reliance has been placed by him on Immigration 
and Naturalization Service    v.    Jagdish Rai Chandha (462 
US 919 [77 L Ed. 2d 317], Abdullah Khan    v.   Nisar 
Muhammad Khan (PLD 1965 SC 690) and Board of 
Intermediate and Secondary Education    v.   Salma Afroze  
(PLD 1992 SC 263).  
iii) 
If this Court comes to the conclusion that Section  2-A of the 
STA, 1973 is violative of any of the provisions of the 
Constitution, other than the chapter relating to fundamental 
rights, then the law is to be struck down and the declaration 
would be considered retrospective. It will not protect the 
pending proceedings. 
In this behalf he relied upon Ghulam Qadir    v.   The State 
(PLD 1959 SC 387), Constitution of Canada by Hog at page 
1241,  Fundamental Law of Pakistan by A.K. Brohi (page 
591).  
iv) 
If the Court strikes down Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, being 
contrary to the Constitution, the workers of autonomous bodies, 
etc. shall avail forum of the Labour Courts and ultimately come 
to this Court under Article 185(3) of the Constitution. Under this 
provision, the threshold requirement is much lower than that of 
Article 212 of the Constitution. 
v) 
The employees who are in the Corporation service and whose 
terms and conditions of service are statutory, would be entitled 
to remedy in the form of a Constitution Petition and the third 
category, where rules of service are not statutory in nature, they 
can file a suit for recovery of damages. Besides, it is a cardinal 
principle of legal jurisprudence that mere change of a forum 
itself does not give rise to any vested right. 
Reference in this behalf can be made to Inamur Rehman (ibid).  
vi) 
Examining Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 on the touchstone of 
Articles 212, 240 and 260 of the Constitution, one can conclude 
that the law under examination has only provided a forum and 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
55
not the procedure of appointment, etc. therefore, it being 
contrary to the Constitution deserves to be struck down.  
vii) 
Article 260 of the Constitution, while defining the expression 
‘service of Pakistan’, does not provide that ‘any person 
employed’, rather it deals with the persons who are in service of 
Pakistan, in connection with the affairs of the Federation. The 
words “affairs of the Federation” have to be interpreted in the 
sense that there must be some role in the performance of the 
sovereign functions of the State and in absence of that a person 
cannot be said to be employee in the affairs of the Federation.  
Reference in this behalf can be made to Salahuddin    v.  
Frontier Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. (PLD 1975 SC 244) 
and Aitchison College    v.   Muhammad Zubair (PLD 2002 
SC 326).   
viii) 
Definition of ‘civil servant’ under Section 2(1)(b) of the CSA, 
1973  had made number of exclusions, enumerated therein in 
clauses (i), (ii) and (iii), and this has been done deliberately 
because the persons of such categories do not fulfill the 
requirement of ‘in the service of Pakistan in connection with the 
affairs of the Federation’, under Article 260.  
In this behalf he relied upon Employees’ Old Age Benefit 
Institution    v.   N.I.R.C. (1988 SCMR 765)  and Province of 
Punjab   v.  Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (2002 SCMR 
836).  
ix) 
The words employed in Article 260 of the Constitution i.e. “and 
any other service declared to be service of Pakistan by or under 
the Act of  [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)] are required to be 
interpreted in the perspective of Article 260 of the Constitution.  
While quoting an example whether the Legislature can declare 
the service of a person in domestic employment to be the service 
of Pakistan or holding a post or office in connection with the 
affairs of Federation, he argued that such expression must be 
read in the context of the Article 260 of the Constitution.  
In order to reinforce his above contention, he relied upon Don 
Basco High School     v.   The Assistant Director E.O.B.I. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
56
(PLD 1989 SC 128), Al-Jehad Trust    v.   Federation of 
Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 324), Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari      
v.    Federation of Pakistan  (PLD 1999 SC 57) and Reference 
No.2 of 2005 by the President of Pakistan (Hisba) (PLD 2005 
SC 873).  
x) 
This Court in so many cases has made distinction between 
‘service of Pakistan’ and ‘service of a Corporation’ with 
reference to the provisions of Article 63 of the Constitution. 
[disqualification 
of 
membership 
of 
Majlis-e-Shoora 
(Parliament)]. 
In support of above contention he relied upon Adil Abdul 
Jabbar    v.   Chairman Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal 
[2005 PLC (CS) 956]. 
xi) 
A person, in absence of a statute or statutory rules, governing the 
terms and conditions of his service, is not permitted by the 
Constitution to approach this Court under Article 212. 
He relied upon Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif    v.   
Muhammad Altaf Hussain (PLD 1995 Lahore 541), 
Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan    v.  Wali 
Muhammad (1997 SCMR 141) and Muhammad Siddique   v.   
Lahore High Court  (PLD 2003 SC 885).  
xii) 
Under a deeming clause, a person covered by Section 2-A of 
STA, 1973 cannot be declared as civil servant, unless the nexus 
can be brought within the scope of a civil service and at least it 
should have some relevancy with the context.  
Reference in this behalf can be made to Commissioner of Sales 
Tax    v.   Hunza Central Asian Textile and Woollen Mills 
Ltd. (1999 SCMR 526), Sheikhoo Sugar Mills   Ltd.     v.   
Government of Pakistan (2001 SCMR 1376).  
19. 
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, learned ASC contended that :- 
a) 
Section 2-A does not cover the employees whose terms and 
conditions are not governed by the statutory provisions of law 
qua the employees who fall within the definition of civil servant 
under the CSA, 1973 and those employees whose terms and 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
57
conditions are regulated by statute, have the remedy before the 
Service Tribunal and by invoking the jurisdiction of the High 
Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, therefore, they 
ought to seek remedy under the Labour Laws.  
b) 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 has conferred jurisdiction upon 
the Service Tribunal, in respect of matters of the employees 
covered by it, being a procedural law but such jurisdiction 
cannot be exercised unless the terms and conditions have been 
regulated by a statute or statutory rules.  
c) 
For the purpose of considering a person, covered by Section 2-A 
of the STA, 1973, falling within the definition of civil servant, it 
is necessary that conditions laid down under Articles 240 and 
260 of the Constitution must exists; firstly it should be a service 
of Pakistan actually and not by a deeming fiction; secondly, the 
terms and conditions of such employee must be laid down under 
the Act of Parliament.  
d) 
The intention of Legislature in enacting Section 2-A of the STA, 
1973 was not to place the employees covered by it at a pedestal 
higher than that of a civil servant, including those who are 
employed on contractual basis and allowing remedy to the 
workers/labourers before the Service Tribunal merely by 
incorporating a deeming clause therein. In order to reinforce his 
arguments, he relied upon Mehreen Zaibun Nisa (ibid). 
20. 
Mr. Kamal Azfar, ASC contended that :-- 
i) 
That the amendment introduced by Section 2-A of the STA, 
1973 only relates to the change of forum but they do not alter the 
terms and conditions of the service of the employees, therefore, 
the employees whose terms and conditions are not defined by a 
statutory provision cannot avail of remedy before the Service 
Tribunal and they must avail of remedy before a forum other 
than the Service Tribunal.  
21. 
Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, learned ASC argued that:--   
a) 
Without complying with the provisions of Article 240 of the 
Constitution, a person cannot be declared to be in the service of 
Pakistan, therefore, by granting a fictional status under Section 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
58
2-A of the STA, 1973, status of a civil servant cannot be granted 
to State managed Corporations employees, therefore, Section 2-
A of the STA, 1973 be declared ultra vires of the Constitution.  
b) 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 also does not qualify the test laid 
down under Article 260 of the Constitution  with reference to the 
definition of “service of Pakistan”, therefore, for this reason as 
well, it being a law contrary to the Constitution may not be 
allowed to hold the field any longer.  
c) 
Assuming that by means of a declaration, persons covered by 
Section 2-A are deemed to be in service of Pakistan, for limited 
purpose, amendment in the definition of civil servant under 
Section 2(1)(b) of the CSA, 1973 was necessary. 
d) 
As the terms and conditions of the persons, covered under 
Section 2-A remained same in view of the law laid down by this 
Court in the case of Qazi Wali Muhammad (ibid), applicable 
prior to amendment, they cannot invoke the jurisdiction of 
Service Tribunal for the redressal of their grievance in view of a 
deeming clause incorporated therein.  
e) 
This Court, time and again, has held that where rules of service 
of Corporation are not statutory, only remedy available to such 
employees of the Corporation is to claim damages and not 
reinstatement.  
In this behalf he relied upon number of judgments starting from  
Lahore Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.    v. Saif Ullah Shah 
(PLD 1959 SC 210) and United Bank Ltd.    v.  Shahmim 
Ahmed Khan (PLD 1999 SC 990). 
22. 
Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, learned Sr. ASC contended that :-- 
i) 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is not in consonance with the 
provisions of Articles 240 and 260 of the Constitution, therefore, 
for the purpose of filing an appeal before a forum, a person 
cannot be treated as civil servant under this Section.  
ii) 
The provisions of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 are against the 
principles of State Policy under Article 37 of the Constitution, 
which caste duty upon the State to provide inexpensive and 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
59
speedy justice, therefore, clustering of litigation before one 
Tribunal, which is mostly working in Islamabad has crated a lot 
of problems for the employees who do not fall within the 
definition of civil servant, therefore, it requires to be declared as 
ultra vires of the Constitution.  
23. 
Mr. Alamgir, ASC contended that :-- 
a) 
Employees of the Private Companies cannot be considered to be 
civil servants, therefore, declaration in this behalf is required to 
be made, otherwise Federal Service Tribunal has taken up the 
cases of such employees as well, contrary to law.  
24. 
Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, learned ASC argued that :-- 
i) 
Article 260 of the Constitution talks about three kinds of service; 
(1) service in connection with the affairs of Federation; (2) 
service in connection with the affairs of Province; and (3) 
service declared by the law to be service of Pakistan; but it does 
not deal with the post or the office for declaring the same to be 
service of Pakistan, whereas Article 240 of the Constitution 
deals in respect of categories of the service noted herein above at 
No. (1) and (2), therefore, the Legislature cannot declare a 
person to be civil servant by introducing a deeming clause. 
Thus, it being contrary to the Constitution deserves to be struck 
down.  
ii) 
First part of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 declares service to be 
service of Pakistan and according to its second part, a person 
holding a post shall be deemed to be civil servant, whereas 
Article 260 of the Constitution speaks of declaring a service to 
be a service of Pakistan. Article 260 of the Constitution 
authorizes Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament) to declare a service to 
be service of Pakistan but it does not enjoy any power to declare 
a post or office in connection with the affairs of Pakistan. 
Conversely, Article 240(a) of the Constitution lays down that 
conditions of service of a person in the service of Pakistan shall 
be determined in the case of service of the Federation, posts in 
connection with the affairs of the Federation and All-Pakistan 
Services, by or under Act of [Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)]. It 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
60
does not speak in respect of office, therefore, second part of 
Section 2-A is ultra vires of the Constitution.      
25. 
Raja Muhammad Akram, ASC contended that :-- 
a) 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is intra vires of the Constitution 
so far it deals with the persons, whose terms and conditions have 
been laid down by statutory provisions and it is ultra vires in 
respect of persons who do not enjoy such status.  
b) 
The Service Tribunal is performing functions of judicial forum 
and against judgments/ orders of the Tribunal, appeal by leave of 
the Court is competent before this Court, therefore, appointment 
of its Chairman and the Members should be made with the 
consent of the Supreme Court of Pakistan to ensure the 
independence of Tribunal.  
c) 
STA, 1973 does not lay down the terms and conditions of the 
Members of the Service Tribunal, therefore, directives be issued 
to the Federal Government to prescribe their terms and 
conditions including qualifications for their appointment to the 
Service Tribunal.  
d) 
The persons, working in Corporation, as per the provisions of 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, cannot be considered to be civil 
servants as it would defeat their fundamental right to form 
association  and trade union under Article 17 of the Constitution 
and consequential benefits  arising therefrom in terms of IRO, 
2002. 
e) 
Article 212 of the Constitution provides that the jurisdiction with 
regard to the matters relating to the terms and conditions of the 
persons, who are or have been in the service of Pakistan, 
including disciplinary matters shall exclusively vest in the 
Tribunal, whereas in the case of worker and the workman, 
whose terms and conditions are governed under IRO, 2002 
cannot be deemed to be a person holding a post under the 
Authority or Organization as mentioned in Section 2-A. Thus 
such declaration being void deserves to be declared ultra vires of 
the Constitution.  
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
61
f) 
So far as the workman or worker are concerned, Labour Laws 
i.e. IRO, 2002 being a special law, prevails over the general law, 
as held in  I.G. of Police Punjab    v.  Mushtaq Ahmad 
Warraich (PLD 1985 SC 159) and Neimat Ali Goraya  v.  
Jaffar Abbas, Inspector/Sargeant Traffic (1996 SCMR 826).   
26. 
Raja Muhammad Bashir, ASC argued that :-- 
i) 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 can be saved by interpreting  it in 
the manner that so far it deals with the persons whose services 
are regulated by the statutory provisions; they can be deemed to 
be civil servants, therefore, to their extent it is valid law. 
Whereas in respect of others, whose terms and conditions of 
service are not governed by a statutory provision, it is contrary 
to the Constitution and deserves to be struck down partially.  
27. 
M/s Hafiz S.A. Rehman ASC, Barrister Ch. Muhammad Jamil ASC, Ch. Zafar 
Farooq, ASC, Dr. Sohail Akhtar ASC, Raja Abdul Ghafoor ASC, Qamar-uz-Zaman ASC, 
Abdul Karim Kundi ASC, M.Bilal Sr. ASC, Ch. Mushtaq Masood ASC, Noor 
Muhammad Chandia ASC, Mian Abdul Rauf ASC and Raja Sher Muhammad Khan ASC 
adopted the arguments, advanced by learned Attorney General for Pakistan.  
28. 
Mrs. Naheeda Mehboob Ellahi, learned Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan 
appeared on behalf of Federation of Pakistan and filed the  following statement :-- 
“As desired by this Hon’ble Court, the undersigned contacted  the Ministry 
of Law, Justice & Human Rights to seek specific instructions regarding the 
stand of the Federal Government. I have been instructed to state as follows:- 
i) 
That the vires of the legislation is a matter of this Hon’ble 
Court. 
ii) 
The Federal Government, is however, examining reviewing 
this legislation in view of the implications that it has given 
rise to.   
Sd/- 
 
 
 
 
Nahida Mehboob Ellahi, 
 
 
 
Deputy Attorney General for Pakistan.”   
 
29. 
It would be appropriate to observe that in 1973, the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (Act 
No.LXXI of 1973) [herein after referred to as “CSA, 1973’] was promulgated with the 
following preamble:-- 
“Whereas it is expedient to regulate by law, the appointment of persons 
to, and the terms and conditions of service of persons in the service of 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
62
Pakistan, and to provide for matters, connected therewith or ancillary 
thereto;”  
Section 2(1)(b) of the CSA, 1973 defines ‘civil servant’ as under:-- 
“Civil servant means a person who is a member of an All Pakistan 
Service or of a civil service of the Federation, or who holds a civil post in 
connection with the affairs of the Federation, including any such post 
connected with defence, but does not include:-- 
i) 
a person who is on deputation to the Federation from any 
province or other authority; 
ii) 
a person who is employed on contract, or on work-
charged  basis or who is paid from contingencies; or  
iii) 
a person who is a “worker” or “workman” as defined in 
the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934), or the 
Workman’s Compensation Act, 1923 (VII of 1923).  
 
In the above definition of the civil servant, the expression “All Pakistan Service or of a 
civil service of Federation” has been included, therefore, Section 5 of CSA, 1973 defines 
the competent authority for appointment. According to which “ Appointments to an All-
Pakistan Service or to a civil service of the Federation or to a civil post in connection 
with the affairs of the Federation, including any civil post connected with defence, shall 
be made in the prescribed manner by the President or by a person authorized by the 
President in that behalf.” To meet the requirements of this provision of law, Federal 
Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977 was promulgated in pursuance whereof the 
Commission was authorized to conduct tests and examinations for recruitment of persons 
other than officers of the Armed Forces of Pakistan, etc.  
30. 
At this juncture it may be observed that in the same year i.e. 1973, the Service 
Tribunals Act, 1973 (Act LXX of 1973) was promulgated with the following preamble :-- 
“Whereas it is expedient to provide for the establishment of 
Administrative Tribunals, to be called Service Tribunals, to exercise 
exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and 
conditions of civil servants, and for matters connected therewith or 
ancillary thereto.”  
Section 2(a) defines the “civil servant” as follows:-- 
“ civil servant means a person who is, or has been, a civil servant within 
the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 (LXXI of 1973); and shall 
include a person declared to be a civil servant under Section 2(a);”   
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
63
31. 
Essentially, the CSA, 1973, containing the definition of “civil servant” was 
promulgated in pursuance of command of Article 240 of the Constitution of Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973 [herein after referred to as “the Constitution”], which reads 
thus:--- 
“240. Subject to the Constitution, the appointments to and the conditions 
of service of persons in the service of Pakistan shall be determined – 
(a) 
In the case of  the services of the federation, posts in 
connection with the affairs of the Federation and All-
Pakistan Services, by or under Act of [Majlis-e-Shoora 
(Parliament)]; and  
(b) 
In the case of services of a Province and posts in 
connection with the affairs of a province, by or under 
Act of the Provincial Assembly. 
Explanation. – In this Article, “All Pakistan Service” means a service 
common to the Federation and the Provinces, which was in existence 
immediately before the commencing day or which may be created by Act 
of [Majlis-e-Shoor (Parliament)].  
 
32. 
Obviously, the Administrative Tribunals were constituted under Article 212 (1)(a) 
of the Constitution. An appeal against their orders/judgments with the leave of the Court 
has been provided under sub-Article (3). For convenience same is reproduced herein 
below:-- 
“212. (1) Notwithstanding anything herein before contained the 
appropriate Legislature may by Act [provide for the establishment of] 
one or more Administrative Courts or Tribunals to exercise exclusive 
jurisdiction in respect of –  
(a) 
Matters relating to the terms and conditions of 
persons [who are or have been]  in the service of 
Pakistan, including disciplinary matters;  
(b) 
…………………………… 
(c) 
…………………………… 
(2) ………….….…………………………….………..  
(3) An appeal to the Supreme Court from a judgment, decree, order or 
sentence of an Administrative Court or Tribunal shall lie only if the 
Supreme Court, being satisfied that the case involves a substantial 
question of law of public importance, grants leave to appeal. 
 
33. 
Perusal of the above definition of ‘civil servant’ reproduced earlier indicates that 
at least three types of persons were excluded from the definition of ‘civil servant’; firstly, 
those who are on deputation to the Federation from any Province or other authority; 
secondly, who are employed on contract, or on work-charged basis or who are paid from 
contingencies; and thirdly who are ‘workers’ or ‘workmen’ as defined in the Factories 
Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934), or the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923). 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
64
34. 
This Court, right from 1973, when the CSA, 1973, was promulgated, had 
examined the definition of ‘civil servant’ in a number of cases, with reference to Section 
5 of the CSA, 1973. Reference, however, may be made to the case of Mrs. M.N. Arshad   
v.   Miss Naeem Khan  (PLD 1990 SC 612). Relevant para therefrom is reproduced 
herein below for convenience :-- 
“7. 
A perusal of the above-quoted definition of the term ‘civil servant’ 
indicates that it includes a person, who is (i) a member of All Pakistan 
services or (ii)is a civil servant of the Federation or (iii)holds a civil post in 
connection with the affairs of the Federation including any such post 
connected with defence but does not include the persons mentioned in sub-
clauses (i) and (ii) to the above clause (b), whereas the above quoted section 
5 provides that the appointment to the above three categories of the persons 
shall be made in the prescribed manner by the President or by a person 
authorized by the President in that behalf. It may also be pointed out that the 
above-quoted section 7 of the Ordinance provides that the test and 
examinations for recruitment of the above three categories of persons 
referred to in the above clause (b) and section 5 of the Act are to be 
conducted as may be prescribed by rules made under Section 10 of the 
Ordinance. We may observe that the learned ASC has not been able to point 
out any rules, requiring the junior teachers to appear in the Federal Public 
Service Commission examination. In any case this is not the point in issue. 
The controversy is, as to whether respondent No.1 falls in any of the above 
three categories of persons, who have been defined as civil servants. 
Admittedly the Federation has established inter alia the college in 
Islamabad, which is the capital of the Federation. This has been done in the 
discharge of tis constitutional and/or statutory obligation as a State. In the 
capital of the Federation, the Federal Government discharges dual functions 
namely, of the Federal Government and of the Provincial Government. In 
the above background, it cannot be denied that respondent No.1 holds a civil 
post in connection with the affairs of the Federation . The Tribunal has 
dilated upon the above question exhaustively and has pointed out the factum 
that the schools and colleges were constructed by the Federation and even 
annual budget is provided by the Federation.”    
The above view has been reaffirmed in Saeed Rabbani    v.   Director-General Leather 
Industry Development Organization  (PLD 1994 SC 123), Chairman, Pakistan 
Broadcasting Corporation     v.  Nasir Ahmad  (1995 SCMR, 1593), Dr. Rashid 
Anwar    v.   Federation of Pakistan  (1996 SCMR 1572)  and Managing Committee, 
P.A.F.   v.   Muhammad Pervaiz Akhtar (1997 SCMR 1957).  It may be noted that in 
last mentioned case, the teachers of PAF Model Inter-College were declared to be ‘civil 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
65
servants’ and with the majority opinion, the appeal filed by the Managing Committee, 
PAF Model Inter-College was dismissed.  [Implications/reflections of the ratio 
decidendi of this case shall be examined in depth at a later stage while disposing of 
Civil Appeals, which pertains to School Teachers of PAF].  
35. 
From perusal of the definition of ‘civil servant’ in Section 2(1)(b) of the CSA, 
1973, it emerges that in order to attain the status of a ‘civil servant’ it is necessary that the 
person should be member of All Pakistan Service or of a civil service of the Federation, 
or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation. There may be 
some employees who fall within the definition of ‘civil servant’ for the purpose of STA, 
1973 but do not enjoy the status of All Pakistan Service or of a civil service of the 
Federation. Both these expressions are not synonymous, as declared by this Court in the 
case of Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan     v.   Wali Muhammad  (1997 SCMR 
141). Relevant para therefrom is reproduced herein below:-- 
“We would like to mention here that from the trend of arguments at the bar 
it appeared that two expressions ‘service of Pakistan’ and ‘Civil servants’ 
were treated as synonymous. This in our opinion is not so. Service of 
Pakistan is defined in Article 260 of the Constitution as meaning, any 
service, post or office in connection with the affairs of Federation or a 
Province. This expression also includes an All Pakistan Service and service 
in the Armed Forces or any other service declared under an Act of the 
Parliament or a Provincial Assembly as Service of Pakistan. The terms 
‘Civil Servant’ is defined in the Civil Servants Act 1973 as a person, who is 
a member of an All Pakistan Service or of a civil service of the Federation 
or a person holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of Federation, 
including a civil post connected with the defence. However, a person on 
deputation to the Federation from any Province or other authority, a person 
who is employed on a contract or on work-charge basis who is paid from 
contingencies and a person who is ‘worker’ or ‘workman’ as defined in the 
Factories Act, 1934 or the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, are 
expressly excluded from the category of ‘Civil Servant’. On a careful 
examination of the definitions of ‘Service of Pakistan’ as given in Article 
260 of the Constitution and the ‘Civil Servant’ as mentioned in Civil 
Servants Act, 1973, it would appear that the two expressions are not 
synonymous. The expression ‘service of Pakistan’ used in Article 260 of the 
Constitution has a much wider connotation than the term ‘Civil Servant’ 
employed in the Civil Servants Act. While a ‘Civil Servant’ is included in 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
66
the expression ‘Service of Pakistan’, the vice versa is not true. ‘Civil 
Servant’ as defined in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 is just a category of 
service of Pakistan mentioned in Article 260 of the Constitution. To 
illustrate the point, we may mention here that members of Armed Forces 
though fall in the category of ‘Service of Pakistan’ but they are not civil 
servants within the meaning of Civil Servants Act and the Service Tribunals 
Act. The scope of expression ‘service of Pakistan’ and ‘Civil Servants’ 
came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Syed Abida 
Hussain v.  Tribunal for N.A. 69 (PLD 1994 SC 60). In that case the 
petitioner was disqualified from contesting the general elections of 1993 on 
the ground that she was a person who held the office of profit in the Service 
of Pakistan. It was contended by the petitioner in that case that she was 
appointed as an Ambassador on contract for two years and as a person 
employed on contract was specifically excluded from the definition of civil 
servant the petitioner could not be disqualified. The contention was repelled 
by this Court in the above case as follow:- 
“6.   It is difficult to subscribe to the contention of the 
learned counsel. The expression ‘service of Pakistan’ has 
been defined in Article 260(1) of the Constitution. It reads 
as follows:-- 
means  any service, post or office in connection with 
the affairs of the Federation or of a Province, and 
includes an All Pakistan Service, service in the 
Armed Forces and any other service declared to be a 
service of Pakistan by or under Act of Majlis-e-
Shoora (Parliament) or of a Provincial Assembly, but 
does not include service as Speaker, Deputy Speaker, 
Chairman, 
Deputy 
Chairman, 
Prime 
Minister, 
Minister of State, Chie Minister, Provincial Minster, 
Attorney-General, Advocate General, Parliamentary 
Secretary or Chairman or Member of a Law 
Commission, Chairman or Member of the Council of 
Islamic Ideology, Special Assistant to the Prime 
Minister, Advisor to the Prime Minister, Special 
Assistant to the Chief Minister, Adviser to a Chief 
Minister or Member of a House or a Provincial 
Assembly;”  
Learned counsel for the petitioner rightly concedes that the 
post of an Ambassador is a post in connection with the 
affairs of the Federation. It will be seen that the definition 
does not take notice of the manner in which a post in 
connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province 
may be filled. Thus so far as the inclusion of the post in the 
service of Pakistan is concerned, it is immaterial whether 
the holder thereof has come to occupy it through a special 
contract or in accordance wit the recruitment rules framed 
under the Civil Servants Act: consequently, the mere fact 
that a person is not a civil servant within the meaning of the 
Civil Servants Act would not put him beyond the pale of the 
said Constitutional definition. The contention that the case 
of the petitioner was covered by sub-clause (n) ibid, is 
entirely misconceived as ex facie it does not apply to 
situations where the relationship of master and servant 
exists between the parties. Here the petitioner was a 
wholetime employee of the Government and except for 
matters, which were specifically provided in the letter of 
appointment she was governed by the ordinary rules of 
service applicable to the civil servants. It may perhaps be of 
interest to mention here that these rules were framed in 
pursuance of the provision of Article 240 ibid. Thus the 
assertion on her behalf that while serving as an Ambassador 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
67
she could not be treated as one in the service of Pakistan  
merely because her appointment to the post owed its origin 
to a special contract cannot be accepted. Admittedly, a 
period of two years has not passed since she relinquished 
charge of the said post. Therefore, she has been rightly  held 
to be suffering from the disqualification laid down in clause 
(k) ibid. We find no merit in this petition. It is hereby 
dismissed.   
For the above discussion, it is quite clear that a person may be in the service 
of Pakistan but for that reason he cannot be classed as a ‘Civil Servant ‘ as 
well, as defined  in the Civil Servants Act. The Service Tribunal established 
in pursuance of Article 212 of the Constitution has been conferred exclusive 
jurisdiction only in respect of the dispute relating to terms and conditions of 
the service of a '‘Civil Servant’ as defined under the Civil Servants Act, 
1973 and as such the jurisdiction of the Tribunal could not  be extended to 
any other category. “  
36. 
It is important to note that in the above judgments, for all intents and purposes, a 
person on deputation to the Federation from any Province or other authority, or a person 
who is employed on contract or work charge basis and is paid from contingencies and a 
person who is a ‘worker’ or ‘workman’ as defined in Factories Act, 1934 or the 
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 has been expressly excluded from the definition of 
civil servant as defined in CSA, 1973. It is also important to note that in the judgments 
noted herein above, none of the employees was on contract or deputation or workman 
and as their terms and conditions were laid down under Article 260(1) of the 
Constitution, therefore, they were declared to be ‘civil servant’ Reference at this stage to 
Syeda Abida Hussain    v.   Tribunal for N.A. 69, Jhang  (PLD 1994 SC 60), would 
not be out of context. In the case of Qazi Wali Muhammad (ibid), relevant para of 
which has been reproduced herein above, this case has also been referred. In this case an 
Ambassador, on having qualified both the conditions of service of Pakistan and 
performing duties in connection with the affairs of the Federation, was found to be a 
‘civil servant’. In fact, both these judgments i.e. Qazi Wali Muhammad (ibid) and 
Syeda Abida Hussain (ibid) clearly lay down the criteria for the purpose of treating  a 
person to be a member of All Pakistan Service or of a civil service of the Federation, or 
who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, etc.  
37. 
Thus, in view of ratio decidendi of the above judgments, it can be held that a 
worker or a workman as defined in Factories Act, 1934 or the Workmen’s Compensation 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
68
Act, 1923, notwithstanding the fact that the controlling share in the industry vests in the 
Federal Government, shall not be treated as civil servant. Similarly, persons on contract, 
even though discharging their functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation 
and likewise, as well as the deputationists from the Provinces to the Federal Government 
have not been granted protection of CSA, 1973, therefore, they were excluded from the 
definition of ‘civil servant’ and as per terms and conditions of the person of later 
category, laid down in CSA, 1973  they shall not be entitled to approach the Service 
Tribunal, established under Article 212 of the Constitution. It may be noted that this 
Court in the case of Qazi Wali Muhammad (ibid), has crystallized the proposition, 
leaving no ambiguity in respect of ‘civil servant’ or other persons, as per Section 
2(1)(b)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the CSA, 1973 to avail remedy before the Service Tribunal in 
respect of their terms and conditions, being in the service of Pakistan, including 
disciplinary matters, as per the mandate of Article 212(1) of the Constitution.  
38. 
It is important to note that enactment of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is not new 
to statutory regime. In this behalf, presently there are two identical provisions of law, one 
by Federal Legislature and one by Provincial Legislature of Sindh on the subject, 
implication of which will be discussed herein below. In pursuance of West Pakistan 
Water and Power Development Authority (Amendment) Act, 1975, (Ordinance No. 
LXXXIV of 1975), the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority 
(Amendment) Ordinance XVI of 1975 was amended and Section 17(1-B) of the Pakistan 
Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, was added. For the sake of 
convenience same is reproduced herein below:-- 
“[(1-B)  Service under the Authority is hereby declared to be service of 
Pakistan and every person holding  a post under the Authority, not being a 
person who is on deputation to the Authority from any Province, shall be 
deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 
1973 (LXX of 1973).]  
 
39. 
Perusal of Section 17(1-B) indicates that service under the Authority was declared 
to be service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under the Authority, except 
those who are on deputation to the Authority from the Province, were deemed to be ‘civil 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
69
servants’ for the purpose of STA, 1973. Significance of the amendment is that holder of a 
post under the Authority was declared to be in the Service of Pakistan. This Court, in the 
case of WAPDA   v.   Muhammad Arshad Qureshi (1986 SCMR 18) examined the 
provisions of Section 17(1-A), (1-B) and (1-C) of the WAPDA Act, 1958 alongwith 
Sections 4 & 6 of the STA, 1973 (Act LXX of 1973) and held that jurisdiction of the 
Service Tribunal itself shall not be affected. Again this view was reaffirmed in the case of 
WAPDA   v.  Agha Nazim Ali  (1986 SCMR 574). Similar view was reiterated in the 
case of WAPDA   v.  Javaid Ahmad (1989 SCMR 1068). Subsequent thereto, in the 
case of Project Director Ghotki, (WAPDA)   v.   Commissioner, Workmen’s 
Compensation Authority for the Payment of Wages Act  (PLD 1992 SC 451), leave to 
appeal was granted to examine the question of law “whether the respondents were 
employees of WAPDA  and as such in the service of Pakistan and their grievance, if any, 
could be redressed by the Service Tribunal and not by the Commissioner Workmen’s 
Compensation and Authority under Payment of Wages Act.” In this case, facts were that 
respondents were appointed as work charge employees in the projects known as ‘Salinity, 
Control and Reclamation Project (SCARP). On completion and successful running of the 
Project, these were handed over to the Government of Sindh alongwith the staff, which 
opted for such transfer. The Government of Sindh took them to be fresh appointees, 
regular in nature, and the WAPDA took the transfer as termination of their appointment 
with it. In this background, affected employees approached the Commissioner 
Workmen’s Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, claiming 
gratuity, pay etc. in lieu of earned leave and notice pay.  The question of jurisdiction was 
seriously raised but was repelled and the Authority granted them relief. This order was 
challenged before the High Court by invoking its constitutional jurisdiction but without 
any success as the High Court declined to grant relief. Consequently, the matter came up 
for consideration before this Court and the proposition was answered as follows:-- 
“9.  
In the position of work charge establishment under the Authority the 
respondents would undoubtedly be treated as in the service of Pakistan but 
not everyone in the service of Pakistan is a civil servant for the purposes of 
the Service Tribunals Act. In the Service Tribunals Act itself and in the 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
70
Civil Servants Act ‘civil servant’ has been so defined as to exclude 
workmen. That apart, for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act only 
such of the employees of the WAPDA could be treated as civil servants who 
were holding a post under the Authority. Work charge establishment as such 
holds no post hence they cannot for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act 
be treated as civil servants. In the absence of their being civil servants, the 
remedy lay before the forum other than the Service Tribunal. If they fell in 
the definition of ‘workmen’ the authorities providing them the redress were 
the appropriate authorities and there was no exclusion of their jurisdiction in 
the case.”  
40. 
Later on, in the case of WAPDA     v.    Muhammad Ashraf Naeem  (1997 
SCMR 1128) this Court had an occasion to examine whether West Pakistan (Industrial 
and Commercial Employment) Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 would be applicable to 
the employees of WAPDA, notwithstanding the proviso to Section 1(4)(c) of the West 
Pakistan WAPDA Act 1958, and the proposition was answered as follows:--- 
“9. 
This provision of law is in two parts. By the first, service under the 
Authority has been declared to be a service of Pakistan. The second part, 
which is distinct from the first is that every person holding a post under the 
Authority of the type described shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the 
purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The result of this bifurcation is 
that the employee shall be deemed to be in service of Pakistan but not 
necessarily a civil servant as defined in the Civil Servants Act. If the 
respondent stands excluded from the definition of the civil servant as 
contained in the Civil Servants Act, then the statutory provision made for 
the civil servants will not apply. In the case in hand, it appears that the 
respondent is excluded from the definition of employee under the 
Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 [clause (xix) to Schedule II]  whereby 
persons connected with the generation, transformation and supply of 
electricity are to be treated as workmen for the purposes of Workmen’s 
Compensation Act. (underlined by us to supply emphasis)  
41. 
Whereas in the case of Wasim Ahmed Khan    v.   WAPDA (1997 SCMR 2000), 
once again the employees of WAPDA, holding post under the Authority, were deemed to 
be in service of Pakistan, for the purposes of STA, 1973, therefore, it was held that 
“removal or termination of service of such employee, falling within the mischief of 
Section 17(1-A) of the Act, could not be called into question under Industrial Relations 
Ordinance, 1969 or the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, or under any law for 
the time being in force, before any Court, tribunal or commission”.  In the case of 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
71
Chairman, WAPDA   v.   Abdul Hafeez Khan  (2000 SCMR 1734), it was ruled by this 
Court that “ every person holding a post under the WAPDA, not being a person who was 
on deputation to the Authority from any province, was to be deemed to be a civil servant 
for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973”. Again in the case of  Muhammad 
Ibrahim Mangrio    v.   Chairman WAPDA  (2001 SCMR 848) this Court examined 
the question “as to what is the rationale behind the legislative move in relation to 
employees of WAPDA in the context of the Constitutional mandate, contained in Articles 
260, 240 and 212 of the Constitution” and answer to the query was that “it is an admitted 
position that the provisions contained in Section 17(1-B) (ibid) are tantamount to making 
the declaration by the Legislature to the effect that the petitioners were in the ‘service of 
Pakistan and deemed to be civil servants for the purposes of Section 4 of the Service 
Tribunals Act (No.LXX of 1973). 
42. 
Now it would be appropriate to note that earlier to promulgation of Section 2-A of 
the STA, 1973, by a legal fiction, Legislature similarly conferred status of ‘civil servant’ 
upon the employees of Corporation, etc. by means of Corporation Employees (Special 
Powers) Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance No.XIII of 1978). Sections 3 and 5, being relevant 
are reproduced herein below for convenience sake:--  
“3.   Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in 
force, or in the terms and conditions of service, a person in Corporation 
service appointed or promoted during the period from the first day of 
January, 1972, to the fifth day of July, 1977, may be removed from 
service or reverted to his lower post or grade, as the case may be, without 
notice, by the President, or a person authorized by him in this behalf, on 
such date as the President, or as the case may be, the person so 
authorized may, in the public interest, direct. 
4.   ……………………………………………….. 
5.   Service of a Corporation is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan 
and every person in Corporation service who is removed from service or 
reverted to a lower post or grade, under this Ordinance, not being a 
person who is on deputation to a Corporation from any Province, shall be 
deemed to be a civil servant for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act, 
1973.”   
43. 
It may be noted that action against the employees of a Corporation was not 
intended to be taken generously but only in respect of those who were inducted into 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
72
service from the first day of January, 1972 to the fifth day of July 1977, and were to be 
removed from service or reverted to lower post  or grade, as the case may be, without 
notice, by the President or a person authorized by him in this behalf, on such date as the 
President, or as the case may be, the person so authorized may, in the public interest, 
direct. In order to provide remedy to such like persons, they were deemed to be ‘civil 
servants’ for the purpose of STA, 1973. It appears that said Ordinance was promulgated 
for limited purposes, therefore, had not covered the cases of all those employees, who 
were in the Corporation service or institutions, set up, established, managed or controlled 
by the Federal Government. [Section 2 of the Ordinance No.XIII of 1978]. The 
implication of Sections 3 and 5 of the Ordinance No.XIII of 1978 were examined by this 
Court in the cases of Mabood Khan    v.  Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan 
(1989 SCMR 41) and Mehdi Khan   v.  Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1989 SCMR 
345).  For reference sake, relevant para from the case of Mabood Khan  (ibid) is 
reproduced herein below:-- 
“5. 
Being not earlier to the Ordinance, in service of Pakistan, the 
President could not exercise in respect of such employees any power 
relating to the terms and conditions of their Service. Declaration by law of 
“any  other service” as declaration having been made by section 5 of the 
Ordinance, the President acquired the power reserved in Article 240, by 
Section 3 of the Ordinance. Reading Section 5 of the Ordinance, alongwith 
the Constitutional provisions just reproduced, it follows that in declaring the 
‘person in Corporation service’ to be ‘in service of Pakistan’, power under 
Article 240 of the Constitution was acquired by the President for 
determining their conditions of service. Nothing beyond should be read into 
that declaration. Next follows in section 5 of the deeming provision whereby 
those employees who have been dealt with under Section 3 have been 
provided relief/remedy in the Service Tribunal. The deeming clause is 
available only to those who are proceeded under Section 3 of the Ordinance 
and none else. On that view of the matter, as in this case action had not been 
taken under the Ordinance, the petitioner would not be deemed to be a civil 
servant for the purposes of Civil Servants Act or Service Tribunals Act. 
Therefore, Article 212 of the Constitution was not a bar to the petitioner 
seeking relief from the High Court, in its constitutional jurisdiction.”     
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
73
44. 
Likewise, in the case of Mehdi Khan (ibid), it was concluded that where an action 
is not taken under Section 3 of the Ordinance, the employees of the Corporation and 
those institutions controlled by the Government continue to be governed by their own 
terms and conditions as provided by or under any law or regulation. Therefore, Article 
212 of the Constitution is not an impediment for them to seek relief from the High Court 
if they feel aggrieved by an illegal order of removal or dismissal or imposition of any 
other penalty by or under any law or regulation. 
45. 
The Provincial Legislature of Sindh incorporated Section 3-E of the Sindh Service 
Tribunals Act, 1973, declaring “notwithstanding anything contained in any law, service 
of Corporation, to be the service of the Province and every person holding post in the 
Corporation, not being a person who is on deputation to the Corporation, shall, for the 
purpose of this Act, be deemed to be a civil servant”.  
46. 
The above legislative history furnishes proof that by making declaration, 
Legislature is competent to declare an employee, under any Authority, Corporation, Body 
or Organization established by or under the Federal law, to be in the service of Pakistan, 
if he holds a post or office in connection with the affairs of the Federation or of a 
Province. Emphasis has been laid on the words “post in connection with the affairs of the 
Federation” as commonly used in Article 240 and 260 of the Constitution, with reference 
to appointment to service of Pakistan and conditions of service, and the definition of 
service of Pakistan.  
47. 
Now in view of above discussion, it becomes necessary to examine relevant 
provisions of the Constitution, in pursuance of which Service Tribunals are established. 
In this behalf, Article 212 (1)(a) of the Constitution confers authority upon the 
appropriate Legislature to establish Administrative Courts and Tribunals. For 
convenience same is reproduced herein below:- 
“212. (1) Notwithstanding anything herein before contained the appropriate 
Legislature my by Act provide for the establishment of one or more 
Administrative Courts or Tribunals to exercise exclusive jurisdiction in 
respect of – 
(a) 
matters relating to the terms and conditions of persons who 
are or have been in the service of Pakistan, including 
disciplinary matters;  
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
74
(b) 
………………………………………… 
(c) 
…………………………………………. 
 
48. 
At 
this 
juncture, 
it 
may 
be 
noted 
that 
under 
Article  
323-A of the Constitution of India, the Administrative Tribunals are established. The 
above said Article reads as under;--- 
“323-A. Administrative Tribunals. – (1) Parliament may, by law, provide 
for the adjudication or trial by Administrative Tribunals of disputes and 
complaints with respect to recruitment and conditions of service of persons 
appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the 
Union or of any State or of any local or other authority within the territory of 
India or under the control of the Government of India or of any Corporation 
owned or controlled by the Government.”    
 
49. 
It may be pertinent to note that in the above provision of the Constitution of India, 
the word “post’ has been used significantly. Now the stage is ready to examine the 
question of validity and vires of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 on the touchstone of 
Article 212 and other provisions of the Constitution. Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is 
reproduced herein below:- 
“2-A. Service under certain Corporations, etc. to be service of Pakistan. 
– Service under any authority, Corporation, body or organization established 
by or under a Federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal 
Government or in which the Federal Government  has a controlling share or 
interest is hereby declared to be service of Pakistan and every person 
holding a post under such authority, Corporation, body or organization shall 
be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of this Act.”   
50. 
A plain reading of above definition indicates that this provision has impliedly 
included in the definition of civil servant, such persons, who stand excluded by means of 
clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Section 2(1)(b) of the CSA, 1973. It may be recalled that there 
are a number of persons who are serving as deputationists, contingency staff as well as 
workmen in connection with the affairs of the Federation of Pakistan who could not 
otherwise avail remedy for the redressal of their grievance before the Service Tribunal but 
by enacting Section 2-A in STA, 1973, persons working under any authority, 
Corporation, body or organization established by or under a Federal law, etc. have been 
made eligible to seek remedy before the Service Tribunal, notwithstanding the fact 
whether they are workers, workmen, permanent or temporary, holding a post on contract, 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
75
etc. Prima  facie, this provision of law, i.e. Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 has not 
advanced the cause of employees of Corporations, etc. by providing them remedy before 
the Service Tribunal because initially in the case of a Corporation/body, etc. if it has 
statutory backing, and rules are framed thereunder, its employees other than the workers, 
used to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution i.e. 
a remedy which is always considered to be speedy, expeditious and in-expensive; 
whereas the employees governed by the relationship of master and servant rule used to 
approach the Civil Court for the redressal of their grievance while workers and the 
workmen were eligible to seek remedy before the local Labour Courts, functioning under 
the new dispensation of Industrial Relation Ordinance 2002, at the Divisional level with a 
right of appeal before the respective High Courts and appeal under Article 185(2) or a 
petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution before this Court, 
under which this Court enjoys vast jurisdiction, as compared to limited jurisdiction under 
Article 212(3) of the Constitution.  
51. 
We have heard parties counsel at length and examined their respective contentions 
thoroughly, while taking into consideration the law and the judgments cited at the bar on 
the subject. Essentially, it would be just, fair and appropriate to examine the preliminary 
objections raised by learned counsel M/s Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, Sr. ASC, Raja 
Muhammad Ibrahim Satti, ASC and others to the jurisdiction of this Court to examine the 
constitutionality of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973.  
52. 
In this behalf it may be noted that this Court, in exercise of Constitutional 
Jurisdiction conferred upon it under various provisions of the Constitution, including 
Article 184, 185, 186, 187(1) and 212(3), enjoys enormous power of judicial review. 
Besides, it is well settled by this time that being the apex Court, it has also been vested 
with inherent powers to regulate its own authority of judicial review, in as much as, that 
in Zafar Ali Shah   v.   Pervaiz Musharraf, Chief Executive of Pakistan (PLD 2000 
SC 869), it has been held by the full Court that “so long as the superior Courts exist, they 
shall continue to exercise powers and functions within the domain of their jurisdiction 
and shall also continue to exercise power of judicial review in respect of any law or 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
76
provision of law which comes for examination before the superior Courts.” Argument by 
one of the learned counsel that in the absence of violation of any of the fundamental 
rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 can be struck down 
only if in derogation of Article 8 of the Constitution and there is no other specific 
provision in the Constitution, authorizing this Court to exercise powers in this behalf is 
untenable on the face of it. A reference  to the case of Mr. Fazlul Qader Chowdhry  
(ibid) would indicate that “superior Courts have inherent duty, together with the 
appurtenant power, to ascertain and enforce the provisions of the Constitution in any case 
coming before them.” In the case of A.M. Khan Leghari    v.   Government of Pakistan  
(PLD 1967 Lahore 227), it has been emphasized that  “…………..in cases of conflict 
between the supreme law of the Constitution and an enactment it is the duty of the 
superior Courts as its protectors and defenders to declare the enactment in question as 
invalid to the extent of its repugnancy with the Constitutional provision in the absence of 
any bar either express or implied.”  Similarly, in  Messrs Electric Lamp Manufacturers 
of Pakistan Ltd.      v.   The Government of Pakistan  (1989 PTD 42), it has been held 
that “the Parliament in England is sovereign in the real sense and it is not subject to any 
constraints as in England there is no written Constitution, whereas in Pakistan the 
Parliament is subject to constraints contemplated by the Constitution in accordance with 
the procedure provided therein, but so long as it is not amended the Parliament has to act 
within its four corners; so a statute or any of its provisions can be struck down on the 
ground of being ultra vires of the Constitution.” Likewise, in the case of Fauji 
Foundation   v.   Shamimur Rehman  (PLD 1983 SC 457), it is held that “……….when 
a Court, which is a creature of the Constitution itself, examines the vires of an Act, its 
powers are limited to examine the legislative competence or such other limitations as are 
in the Constitution; and while declaring a legislative instrument as void, “it is not because 
the judicial power is superior in degree or dignity to the legislative power” but because it 
enforces the Constitution as a paramount law either where a legislative  instrument  is in 
conflict with the Constitutional provision so as to give effect to it or where the 
Legislature fails to keep within its constitutional limits.” In the case of Liaqat Hussain  
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
77
v.  Federation of Pakistan  (PLD 1999 SC 504), the conclusion was that “Court cannot 
strike down a statute on the ground of mala fides, but the same can be struck down on the 
ground that it is violative of a Constitutional provision. In Collector of Customs and 
others    v.  Sheikh Spinning Mills (1999 SCMR 1402), this Court struck down the 
imposition of pre-shipment inspection service charge under the Customs Act, 1969 as 
unconstitutional, which of course was not based on any fundamental rights. Relevant para 
reads as under:--  
“Considering the case from all angles, although the Federal Legislature is 
competent to legislate for the imposition of fees within the meaning of Entry 
54, in the Federal Legislative List, Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, but 
again as already discussed herein before, one has to see what is the nature of 
the legislation and whether the same could have been legislated within the 
ambit of the powers of the Federal Legislature. No doubt, legislation can be 
made to impose fee in respect of any of the matters in the Federal 
Legislative List, but definitely not for pre-inspection, the benefit of which 
has to go to the companies appointed to carry out the inspection and not to 
the payees of the fees. The imposition of such fee is not in lieu of services to 
be 
rendered 
for 
the 
benefit 
of 
its 
payees. 
………………….. 
………………. 
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the imposition of 
service charge as imposed under Section 18-B of the Act towards the pre-
shipment inspection is ultra vires of the powers of the Federal Legislature.”   
53. 
Likewise, in the case of Zaman Cement Company (Pvt) Ltd.    v.   Central 
Board of Revenue and others (2002 SCMR 312) this Court observed that “the function 
of the judiciary is not to question the wisdom of Legislature in making a particular law 
nor it can refuse to enforce it even if the result of it be to nullify its own decisions 
provided the law is competently made; its vires can only be challenged being violative of 
any of the provisions of the Constitution and not on the ground that it nullifies the 
judgment of the superior Courts.” In this judgment the use of expression ‘any’ has 
widened the jurisdiction of the Court and extended it to the extent of the violation of the 
any of the provisions of the Constitution including fundamental rights. Similarly in 
Ghulam Mustafa Ansari   v.   Government of Punjab  (2004 SCMR 1903) it was held 
that “ordinarily it is not for us to question the wisdom of the Legislature merely on the 
ground that a provision of law may work some inconvenience or hardship in the case of 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
78
some persons, unless it be violative of a constitutional provision including the 
fundamental rights.”   
54. 
Adverting to the submission by Mr. Tariq Asad, ASC that Supreme Court of India 
has been vested with the powers to declare any law unconstitutional under Article 131-A 
of Indian Constitution, whereas no such powers have been conferred upon this Court 
under the Constitution except the powers under Article 8 of the Constitution, which are 
subject to violation of fundamental rights.  
55. 
It may be pointed out that Article 131-A was inserted in the Constitution of India 
by means of 42nd Amendment but later on  omitted by 43rd Amendment of the 
Constitution. However, fact remains that prior to the amendment and even now the 
Supreme Court of India had been examining the constitutionality of different laws and 
has declared them unconstitutional. Reference in this behalf may be made to Mafatlal 
Industries Ltd.    v.  Union of India  (1997) 5 SCC 536. In this judgment, Section 11-B 
of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was struck down as being violative of Article 
265 of the Constitution. Reference may also be made to Marbury   v. Madison  [(1803 2 
Law Ed. 60 (73)], which was relied upon and approved in Saiyyid Abul A’la Maudoodi   
v.  The Govt. of West Pakistan  (PLD 1964 SC 673). 
56. 
It may be observed that in the Constitution of United States , there is no express 
provision, empowering the Supreme Court of United States to invalidate a statute. 
Nevertheless, in the case of Marbury (ibid), Chief Justice Marshall observed that “ it is, 
emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is; 
those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that 
rule; if two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of 
each; So if a law be in opposition to the Constitution; if both the law and the Constitution 
apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to 
the law, disregarding the Constitution; or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding 
the law; the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case; this 
is  of the very essence of judicial duty; if then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
79
and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary Act of the Legislature, the Constitution 
and not such ordinary Act, must govern the case to which they both apply.”  
57. 
The principle laid down in Marbury case (ibid) has been followed invariably by 
the Courts of different jurisdictions. Reference in this behalf may also be made to the case 
of Australian Communist Party    v.  The Commonwealth [83 CLR 1 (1950-51)]. It is 
also to be noted that although in the Australian Constitution as well, there is no express 
provision, authorizing the High Court (which is the highest court of the country) to strike 
down a statute, yet a number of laws have been struck down by the said Court being 
contrary to Constitutional provisions, essentially on the basis that Constitution being the 
highest law every statute must conform to its parameters and where it fails to do so, it 
must be held repugnant to the Constitution and struck down. The Supreme Court of India 
expressed similar view in the case of Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record 
Association    v.   Union of India (AIR 1994 SC 268). Relevant para therefrom is 
reproduced herein below:--- 
 “The Constitution of India which we have given to ourselves is the 
fundamental law of the land. The Judiciary, under the Constitution, is 
designed to be an intermediary body between the people on the one side and 
the Executive on the other. It belongs to the Judiciary to ascertain the 
meaning of the constitutional provisions and the laws enacted by the 
Legislature. In order to keep the Executive/Legislature within the limits 
assigned to their authority under the Constitution, the interpretation of laws 
is the proper and peculiar province of the Judiciary. Constitution is the 
“will” of the people whereas the statutory laws are the creation of the 
Legislature who are the elected representatives of the people. Where the will 
of the legislators – declared in the statutes – stands in position to that of the 
people – declared in the Constitution – the will of the people must prevail. 
The Constitution of India provides for an elected President. House of People 
is elected. The State Legislators  are elected. Supreme Court Judges are not 
elected, they are appointed under the Constitution. So are other High Court 
Judges. Yet the Constitution gives unelected Judges a power – called 
judicial review under which they may nullify unconstitutional acts of the 
Executive and of the elected representatives of the people assembled in the 
Parliament and the State Legislatures. This conclusion does not suppose that 
the Judiciary is superior to the Legislature. It only supposes that the power 
of the people – embodied in the Constitution – is superior to both.    
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
80
It may also be emphasized that in the Indian jurisdiction as well, learned Supreme Court 
struck down a statute where there was no question of violation of fundamental rights. 
Reference in this behalf may be made to Sundararamier & CO.    v.   State of Andhra 
Pradesh  (AIR 1958 SC 468). Relevant para therefrom is also reproduced herein below 
for convenience:---  
“Now, in considering the question as to the effect of unconstitutionality of a 
statute, it is necessary to remember that unconstitutionality might arise 
either because the law is in respect of a matter not within the competence of 
the Legislature, or because the matter itself being within its competence, its 
provisions offend some Constitutional restrictions. In a Federal Constitution 
where legislative powers are distributed between different bodies, the 
competence of the Legislature to enact a particular law must depend upon 
whether the topic of that legislation has been assigned by the Constitution 
Act to the Legislature.”  
58. 
Thus, foregoing discussion leads us to conclude that this Court is competent to 
examine the vires of a statute, if it has been promulgated in derogation of any of the 
provisions of the Constitution, apart from Article 8 of the Constitution.  
59. 
Mr. Naeem Bukhari, learned ASC objected to the maintainability of the 
proceedings on the premise that Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 was promulgated as far 
back as 10th June 1997 by means of Service Tribunals Amendment Act No. XVII) of 
1997, and it worked successfully, therefore, at this belated stage, it cannot be struck 
down. 
60. 
Learned Attorney General opposed the arguments and stated that laches cannot be 
pleaded when a question of constitutionality of a law has been raised.  
61. 
It is a factual position that since the promulgation of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 
its constitutionality never came under attack. However, in the instant case as noted in the 
paras supra, on examining the pleadings of the parties, it became necessary to examine its 
constitutionality. This Court in the case of Fazlul Quader Chowdhry (ibid) has held that 
“In any event, on questions relating to the constitutionality of actions the ground of laches 
cannot prevail, for there, can be no estoppel against the Constitution and an act which is 
unconstitutional cannot become constitutional by lapse of time, nor can it vest anyone 
with any kind of legal right to benefit from such an unconstitutional act.” Similarly in the 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
81
case of Attorney General of Australia   v.   The Queen Boilermakers’  Society of 
Australia  (PLD 1957 Privy Council 115), identical question was examined and it was 
held as under :--- 
“It is, therefore, asked, and no one can doubt that it is a formidable question, 
why for a quarter of a century no litigant has attacked the validity of this 
obviously illegitimate union. Why in Alexander’s case itself was no 
challenge made? How came it that in a series of cases, which are 
enumerated in the majority and the dissentient judgments it was assumed 
without question that the provisions now impugned were valid? 
 
It is clear from the majority judgment that the learned Chief Justice 
and the Judges who shared his opinion were heavily pressed by this 
consideration. It cannot be otherwise. Yet they were impelled to their 
conclusion by the clear conviction that consistently with the Constitution the 
validity of the impugned provisions could not be sustained. Whether the 
result would have been different if their validity had previously been 
judicially determined after full argument directed to the precise question and 
had not rested on judicial dicta and common assumption it is not for their 
Lordships to say. Upon a question of the applicability of the doctrine of 
stare decisis to matters of far-reaching constitutional importance, they would 
imperatively require the assistance of the High Court itself. But here no such 
question arises. Whatever the reason may be, just as there was a patent 
invalidity in the original Act which for a number of years went 
unchallenged, so for a greater number of years an invalidity which to their 
Lordships as to the majority of the High Court has been convincingly 
demonstrated, has been disregarded. Such clear conviction must find express 
in the appropriate judgment.”  
62. 
Learned Attorney General also relied upon Immigration and Naturalization 
Service (ibid) and stated that Supreme Court of United States of America struck down the 
power of legislative veto even through grant of such powers had become common over a 
span of several decades.  
63. 
Thus, it is concluded that this Court cannot be refrained from examining the 
constitutionality of a law because of lapse of time, therefore, notwithstanding any 
objection, if the constitutionality of a law is under challenge, its vires can be examined 
despite the fact that it had remained on the statute book for a considerable time.  
64. 
Preliminary objection raised in paragraph No.51 has already been attended to 
above. However,  it may be observed that whenever there is a pure question of law, it can 
be raised at any time, either by the party or taken up by the Court itself, and the duty to 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
82
decide in accordance with law cannot be avoided on an untenable alibi (of not having 
been raised by a party) i.e. ignorance of a litigant or his counsel because this duty flows 
from the Constitution. Reference in this behalf may be made to the cases of Abdullah 
Khan (ibid) and Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (ibid). In the last 
mentioned case, it was observed as follows:-- 
“A Judge must know the adage 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 him is not a complete excuse in the matter.” 
65.  
In addition to above,  perusal of Article 212(3) of the Constitution reveals that it 
casts duty upon the Court to specify as to whether a substantial question of law of public 
importance is involved, before leave to appeal is granted. Thus, it would mean that the 
leave can be granted only if this Court is satisfied to examine a particular aspect of the 
case,  including the question of constitutionality of a substantive law on the basis whereof 
case has arisen for adjudication. In the case of  Mohammad Hashim Khan    v.   
Province of Balochistan (PLD 1976 Quetta 59), it was held that “the Tribunal under 
Section 5 of the said Act is deemed to be a civil court for the purpose of deciding any 
appeal before it with all the powers under the Code of Civil Procedure; as any other Civil 
Court or Tribunal, to our mind, will have jurisdiction to examine whether or not a law is 
void by reason of its conflict with the Fundamental Rights or is otherwise ultra vires or 
that the order made is mala fide.”  This Court approved this view of the High Court of 
Balochistan in the case of Iqan Ahmad  Khurram   v.  Government of Pakistan (PLD 
1980 SC 153). Upon careful perusal of both these judgments, one can safely conclude 
that under Section 5 of the STA, 1973, the Service Tribunal is competent to adjudge the 
validity of a statute, therefore, the Supreme Court while granting leave to appeal under 
Article 212(3) of the Constitution, being an appellate forum, cannot logically be denied 
the same power as an appeal is always considered to be continuation of the original 
proceedings. In this behalf we are fortified by the judgment in the case of F.A. Khan  v.   
Government of Pakistan  (PLD 1964 SC 520), wherein it has been held that :-- 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
83
i) 
When an appeal is filed, the matter becomes sub-judice and is re-heard by 
the appellate Court, which does not act merely as the Court of error;  
ii) 
After, there has been an appeal even though, an appellate Court simply 
affirms the order of Original Court the only decree or order in existence is 
the order of the appellate Court;  
iii) 
The Original and appellate proceedings are steps in one proceedings.” 
66. 
This Court had an opportunity to examine identical proposition in the case of Pir 
Sabir Shah’case (ibid), wherein it has been held that “the doctrine that there is 
distinction between judicial review and appellate jurisdiction in the sense that questions 
of vires belong to the former and not to the latter jurisdiction is a judicially evolved 
doctrine, and like all judicially evolved doctrines, it is, and ought to be, flexible and 
capable of new application; the distinction should not be regarded as something 
“engraved on tablets of stone”; Foster case serves as an example in which that doctrine 
was effectively exploded.” High Court of Sindh in the case of Nazrul Hassan Siddiqui    
v.  Federation of Pakistan  (2000 PLC (CS) 189), after having surveyed the judgments 
on the point concluded that “the Federal Service Tribunal had the jurisdiction to 
determine the vires of a statute.” That being the case, the Supreme Court certainly would 
have jurisdiction to determine the vires of a statute in exercise of its jurisdiction under 
Article 212(3) of the Constitution.  
67. 
It is important to note that in the cases, pertaining to WAPDA, particularly  
Project Director Ghotki, (WAPDA)  (ibid), it was specifically held that “that apart, for 
the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act only such of the employees of the WAPDA 
could be treated as civil servants who were holding a post under the Authority and as 
Work charge employees hold no post hence they cannot for the purposes of Service 
Tribunals Act be treated as civil servants. (emphasis provided); and finally it was 
concluded that “in the absence of their being civil servants, the remedy lay before the 
forum other than the Service Tribunal.”  
68. 
The ratio decidendi of the judgments, discussed above, lays down following two 
basic propositions, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether a person is in the service 
of Pakistan:-- 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
84
a) 
A declaration must exist that he shall be deemed to be in the 
service of Pakistan. 
b) 
Such person must hold a post or office in connection with the 
affairs of the Federation or of a Province and includes in all 
Pakistan Service.  
69. 
The view taken in the above judgments, giving rise to above proposition, was 
reiterated in the cases of WAPDA     v.    Muhammad Ashraf Naeem  (ibid), Wasim 
Ahmed Khan (ibid),  Chairman, WAPDA   v.   Abdul Hafeez Khan (ibid), and 
Muhammad Ibrahim Mangrio (ibid). In these judgments, the proposition under 
discussion namely, as to whether by means of a deeming clause a person can be declared 
to be in the service of Pakistan for the purposes of Article 260 of the Constitution, had not 
been examined. In this behalf it may be noted that according to Article 260 of the 
Constitution, the Legislature is empowered to declare any service to be service of 
Pakistan by or under an Act of Majlis-e-Shoora [Parliament]. This constitutional 
provision nevertheless does not empower the Legislature to declare any person to be in 
the service of Pakistan, on the basis of a legal fiction.  The Legislature by using the 
expression “shall be deemed” has allowed to enjoy the status of civil servant, even to 
those persons who were excluded from its definition in terms of Section 2(1)(b) of the 
CSA, 1973, which also includes a person, who is a contract employee as interpreted by 
this Court in the case of Aftab Ahmed (ibid) followed in Zahir Ullah ‘s case (ibid). 
Relevant para from the last mentioned judgment is reproduced herein below for 
convenience:--- 
“The above view taken by the learned Tribunal does not appear to be correct 
as section 2-A which was inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 by its 
own force, created a class of Government servants by fiction, for the 
purpose of allowing them to avail remedy of appeal before the learned 
Service Tribunal. Section 2-A ibid while providing that the service under an 
authority, Corporation, body or organization established by or under a 
Federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or 
in which the Federal Government has a controlling share of interest  is 
declared to be the service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under 
such Corporation or organization shall be deemed  to be a civil servant for 
the purpose of Service Tribunals Act, does not make any differentiation 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
85
between the employees working in such organization either as regular 
employees or contract employees or workmen. We are, therefore, of the 
view that as the appellants were covered by the provisions of Section  
2-A for the purposes of availing remedy before the Service Tribunal. The 
fact that they were employed in the organization/Corporation on contract 
basis, could not disentitle them to the remedy of appeal which became 
available to them on account of inCorporation of section 2-A of the Service 
Tribunals Act, 1973. Accordingly, the above appeals are allowed, the order 
of the learned Service Tribunal is set aside and the cases are remanded to the 
learned Service Tribunal with the direction to decide the same afresh in the 
light of above observations. There will, however, be no order as to costs.”  
70. 
Learned Attorney General pointed out that if this principle is accepted then the 
persons, working in the Government controlled Corporation, either on deputation or on 
contract basis or in the capacity of worker or workman, shall enjoy the status of the civil 
servant on account of the legal fiction because no such declaration  is required to be made 
in their favour, as they are already working in the Government departments.  
71. 
In view of above position, we are of the opinion that Article 260 of the 
Constitution does not mandate to Legislature to declare any person to be in the service of 
Pakistan,  and by deeming clause to be a civil servant for the purpose of STA, 1973. We 
have minutely examined the earlier judgments on the point, particularly the cases of 
WAPDA employees, discussed above, as well as the judgment in the case of Qazi Wali 
Muhammad (ibid), to come to the conclusion that a person can be declared to be in 
service of Pakistan but not necessarily a civil servant, in terms of CSA, 1973. It was 
further observed in Ashraf Naeem  (ibid) that “if the respondent stands excluded from 
the definition of civil servant as contained in Civil Servants Act,  then the statutory 
provision made for the civil servants will not apply and such persons connected with the 
generation, transformation and supply of electricity  are to be treated as workmen for the 
purposes of Workmen’s Compensation Act.” Reference in this behalf has already been 
made to a number of judgments. This Court in another case i.e. Divisional Engineer 
Phones (ibid) also examined this proposition and concluded as under :---  
“The respondents in their appeals belong to the category of the person who 
has been declared as civil servant under Section 2-A of Service Tribunals 
Act, 1973, for the purpose of availing the remedy before the Service 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
86
Tribunal, such persons in the absence of a corresponding amendment in the 
Civil Servants Act, 1973 cannot automatically become the civil servants, 
within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973.”  
72. 
As a result of above conclusion, the appeals filed by Divisional Engineer Phones  
were accepted for the reason that the respondents who were admittedly appointed after 
creation of the Corporation, did not enjoy the status of civil servant, therefore, they could 
not avail the remedy in respect of disputes, relating to their terms and conditions of 
service before the Service Tribunal established under the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. 
This view has been approved in the case of Koural Channa  (ibid).  
73. 
Undoubtedly the proposition laid down in the above judgments was very important 
from the jurisprudential point of view but subsequent thereto liberal view was followed 
by this Court, allowing a person to continue to avail remedy under Section 2-A of the 
STA, 1973 because of the fact that its constitutionality had never been examined, 
otherwise, this proposition being more logical and convincing is bound to be followed 
subsequently in the judgments delivered from time to time. At this juncture, reference to 
the case of Qazi Wali Muhammad  (ibid)  would not be out of context, wherein this 
Court while examining the status of employees of the Supreme Court has held that “ the 
expression ‘service of Pakistan’  used in Article 260 of the Constitution has a much wider 
connotation than the term ‘civil servant’ employed in the Civil Servants Act; while the 
‘civil servant’  is included in the expression ‘service of Pakistan’, the vice versa is not 
true; ‘civil servant’ as defined in the Civil Servants Act, 1973 is just a category of service 
of Pakistan mentioned in Article 260 of the Constitution.” It was further observed that “to 
illustrate the point, it is stated that members of Armed Forces though fall in the category 
of ‘service of Pakistan’ but they are not civil servants within the meaning of Civil 
Servants Act and the Service Tribunals Act”.  
74. 
It is equally important to observe that under Article 260 of the Constitution, a 
person can be declared to be in the service of Pakistan if his duties have a nexus with the 
affairs of the Federation, meaning thereby that a person who is playing an active role in 
the performance of sovereign functions of the State and exercises public powers can 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
87
legitimately claim to be in the service of Pakistan. Undoubtedly the Parliament can 
declare any service to be service of Pakistan but subject to the condition that such 
declaration should not be based on a legal fiction, as done in the instant case, whereby 
through a deeming clause, a person of a Government controlled Corporation in terms of 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 has been declared to be in the service of Pakistan and for 
such reason he shall be deemed to be a civil servant. Secondly, conditions under Article 
260 of the Constitution with regard to having nexus/connection with the affairs of the 
Federation of Pakistan have not been fulfilled.  According to “Understanding Statutes” 
by S.M. Zafar 2nd Edition page 101, the purpose of importing a deeming clause is to 
impose an artificial construction of a word or phrase that would not otherwise prevail and 
sometimes it is to make the construction certain.” It has been further observed by the 
learned jurist that “if the deeming provision is invalid, all the ancillary provisions fall to 
the ground along with it; and if the later Act is entirely dependent upon the continuing 
existence and validity of the earlier Act, which is held to be unconstitutional and has no 
legal existence the provisions of the later Act are incapable of enforcement.” It is 
important to note that two important concepts have been introduced by the learned author 
in the construction of the provision creating a statutory fiction, namely; “statutory fiction 
should be carried to its logical conclusion as held in Muhammad Yasin   v.  Sheikh 
Ghulam Murtaza and another (PLD 1988 SC 163) but the fiction cannot be extended 
beyond the language of the section by which it is created or by importing another fiction,” 
therefore, to find out a solution, it has been observed that “principle of harmonization 
shall be attracted” and ultimately it was held that “the impact of deeming clause could be 
curtailed if it produces a disgraceful result.”  
75. 
This Court had an occasion  to examine the effect of a deeming clause in the case 
of Mehreen Zaibun Nisa (ibid), wherein the effect of a deeming clause in light of the 
earlier judgments was summed up as follows:---  
i) 
When a statute contemplates that a state of affairs should be 
deemed to have existed, it clearly proceeds on the assumption 
that in fact it did not exist at the relevant time but by a legal 
fiction we are to assume as if it did exist. 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
88
ii) 
Where a statute says that you must imagine the state of affairs, it 
does not say that having done so you must cause or permit your 
imagination to boggle when it comes to the inevitable corollaries 
of that state of affairs. 
iii) 
At the same time, it cannot be denied that the Court has to 
determine the limits within which and the purposes for which 
the Legislature has created the fiction.  
iv) 
When a statute enacts that something shall be deemed to have 
been done which in fact and in truth was not done, the Court is 
entitled and bound to ascertain for what purposes and between 
what persons the statutory fiction is to be resorted to.”    
76. 
As pointed out herein above that on promulgation of Section 2-A of the STA, 
1973, the persons employed in the Government controlled Corporations, were never 
treated to be in the service of Pakistan, therefore,  they were not allowed to enjoy the 
status of a civil servant. But now, by means of a legal fiction, such status has been 
conferred upon them notwithstanding the fact that statedly their cases are not covered by 
the definition of “civil servant” and on account of this legal fiction a discrimination has 
been created between the persons, who have been excluded from the definition of civil 
servant as per Section 2(1)(b) of the CSA, 1973 whereas the persons in the employment 
of Government controlled Corporations, either created by or under a statute, most of them 
incorporated under the Companies Ordinance 1984, have been declared to be in the 
service of Pakistan and deemed to be civil servants. Thus, it has created a classification 
which does not seem to be reasonable. As per the second principle, noted herein above, a 
deeming clause only permits to imagine a particular state of affairs but it does not mean 
that such imagination can be allowed to be overwhelmed, when it comes to the inevitable 
corollaries of that state of affairs, therefore, merely on the basis of imagination, status of a 
person cannot be converted, without ensuring compliance of the basic requirements. As in 
the case in hand, merely on the basis of a deeming clause, if a person is treated to be a 
civil servant, it has also to be examined whether remaining conditions, provided under the 
CSA, 1973 have been afulfilled, particularly, as to whether, while making appointments, 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
89
provisions of Section 5 of the CSA, 1973 have been complied with or not, according to 
which the appointments to an All-Pakistan Service or to a civil service of the Federation 
or to a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation, including any civil post 
connected with the defence, shall be made in the prescribed manner by the President or 
by a person authorized by the President in that behalf. Inevitable corollary consequent 
upon this provision of law and the conclusion would be that those persons, who are 
working in the Government controlled Corporations etc. and have been appointed in a 
prescribed manner, would be deemed to be in the service of Pakistan and if their status is 
declared to be a civil servant, only then they would be entitled to enjoy the benefits of 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, whereas the persons other than those, like persons 
employed on contract basis, deputationist, worker or workman, under different statutes, 
whose appointment has not taken place in the prescribed manner, shall not be deemed to 
be civil servants and merely on the basis of fiction their status cannot be enhanced 
essentially, in majority of cases, they have not been appointed under any statutory 
provision and it is also not clear as to whether their appointment had taken place under 
lawful authority and such Authority had exercised its discretion fairly and in good faith or 
there was any mala fide etc. In majority of such Corporations, the appointments are made 
by the functionaries who themselves have not been appointed under any statutory 
provision because of creation of Corporation by the Memorandum and Article of 
Association, duly registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan 
under the Companies Ordinance, 1984.  
 
As far as third principle, noted herein above, is concerned, the Court is required to 
determine the limits within which and the purpose for which the Legislature has created 
the fiction. Before its promulgation, a debate had also taken place in the Parliament, 
extracts whereof have been placed on record. A perusal whereof indicates that the objects 
of enacting Section 2-A was to facilitate the persons working in Government controlled 
Corporations in order to provide them adequate and efficacious remedy for the redressal 
of their grievance. But, in our considered opinion promulgation of Section 2-A of the 
STA, 1973 has not advanced the cause of the employees working in the Corporations, 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
90
particularly where statutory backing is not available to them. Although this law was 
promulgated on 10th June 1997 and thereafter the Courts took sufficient time in 
interpreting its provisions, initially at the High Court level, subsequently before the 
Service Tribunal and finally before this Court but in none of the judgments, its vires were 
examined. However, keeping in view the socio-economic conditions, prevailing in the 
country, it seems that even by promulgation of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, the said 
object has not been achieved. In this behalf, it may be noted that the persons who fall 
within the category of worker or workman, have more efficacious, adequate and speedy 
remedy before the Labour Court, headed by a District Judge and appeal before the High 
Court under the IRO, 2002 and after exhausting remedy before the High Court, a petition 
for leave to appeal is competent before this Court under Article 185(3) of the 
Constitution, the scope whereof is broader than the provisions of Article 212(3) of the 
Constitution, where leave can only be granted if a substantial question of law of public 
importance is involved. As far as the other category of the contract employees and work 
charged employees are concerned, they can avail the remedy of claiming compensation 
before the Civil Courts, functioning all over the country. Similar would be the position of 
deputationists, if aggrieved by an order relating to terms and conditions of service. 
Comparing to it, the remedy provided under Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is more 
cumbersome, harsh and expensive. Moreover, it is a fact that a large number of cases 
have piled up before the Federal Service Tribunal, which, eventually, would take a long 
time in disposal and thereafter, aggrieved party, challenging the decision, with the result 
that the dispute shall remain pending for a considerable period, before higher forum.  
 
It may also be noted that the persons covered under Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 
have been deprived of a right of appeal because earlier the view was that after exhausting 
departmental remedy, such persons can file appeal before the Service Tribunal  but after 
the judgment in Ghulam Abbas’s case (ibid) an aggrieved person can directly approach 
the Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance whereas it has been held by this Court 
that under the Islamic system of dispensation of justice, as a matter of right, one appeal 
should be made available.  Reference in this behalf can be made to the cases Pakistan    
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
91
v.  General Public   (PLD 1989 SC 6), Chenab Cement   v.   Banking Tribunals  (PLD 
1996 Lahore 672) and Arshad Mehmood    v.   Government of Punjab  (PLD 2005 SC 
193), laying down that a statute which does not provide at least one appeal is 
unreasonable and can be struck down. Therefore, for this reason as well, Section 2-A of 
the STA, 1973 seems to be unconstitutional.   
77. 
We may also point out here that reference to the Parliamentary debate, which took 
place before the promulgation of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, is not of much help 
because such debates can be referred to when there is any ambiguity in the statute under 
discussion. In this behalf reference may be made to the judgment in A&B Food 
Industries Ltd.  v.     Commissioner of Income Tax/Sales Tax  (1992 SCMR 663). In 
the case of  Pir Sabir Shah (ibid), it has been observed that “the question of 
constitutionality of a law, or to put it differently, whether a law is intra vires or ultra vires 
does not depend upon consideration of jurisprudence or of policy; it depends simply on 
examining the language of the Constitution and of comparing the legislative authority 
conferred on the Parliament with the provisions of the sub-Constitutional law by which 
the Parliament purports to exercise that authority.”  
 
 So far as the fourth principle is concerned, it is not attracted in the instant case 
because after promulgation of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, the persons working in the 
Government controlled Corporations, are being treated to be in the service of Pakistan 
and due to this reason, they are being treated as civil servant for the purpose of STA, 
1973. The purpose for which the status of civil servant was given to them has already 
been discussed herein above.  
78. 
Learned counsel appearing in support of constitutionality of Section 2-A failed to 
produce any material to persuade us that on the basis of any statute or by means of any 
other statutory instrument, these persons shall be deemed to be in the service of Pakistan, 
therefore, they can enjoy, by means of a legal fiction, the status of a civil servant. In this 
context reference to the case of Saeed Rabbani (ibid) may be made, wherein this Court, 
after having discussed the relevant instrument like Rules of Business, etc. held that “it is 
the duty and responsibility of the Federal Government to organize, constitute and 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
92
develope Federal agencies and institutions for research, professional or technical training 
or for promotion of special studies; Leather Industry Development Organization is 
engaged in performing such duties;  as this institution is promoting industrial activity and 
special studies in industrial fields. It falls under item No.5 of the Industries Division as 
provided by the Rules of Business; therefore, as the appellant is employed with LIDO, he 
holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation and he is thus covered 
by Section 2(1)(b) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.” It may be noted that in this very 
judgment, another question came up for consideration i.e. with reference to the status of 
the employees of LIDO, which was answered in view of the judgment in the case of Mrs. 
M.N. Arshad (ibid), wherein it was held as follows:---  
“In Pakistan Corporations are not created by a Royal Charter but they are 
incorporated either by a statute like the Karachi Port Trust incorporated 
under the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, or by registration under a statute 
like companies under the Companies Act or associations under the Societies 
Act or cooperative societies under the Cooperative Societies Act or a trust 
under the Trust Act, etc. However, Corporations can also be created by an 
executive  order under the authority delegated by an Act of Parliament. In 
Pakistan, we find such a delegation inter alia in Section 3 of the Evacuee 
Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 (Act XIII of 1975), 
which provides that the Federal Government shall constitute a body to be 
known as the Evacuee Trust Property Board, for the management and 
disposal of evacuee trust property and that the Board shall be a body 
corporate by the name aforesaid having perpetual succession and common 
seal, with power to acquire, hold and dispose of property both movable and 
immovable, and to contract and sue and be sued in its name. It is an 
admitted position that the Resolution has not been passed in pursuance of 
any such delegated statutory power. In this view of the matter, the Board is 
neither a corporate body nor a juristic person competent to employ teachers. 
Mr. Bashir Ahmed Ansari has invited our attention to the factum that the 
employees of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, the Pakistan 
Television Corporation, the WAPDA and the PIA have been held to be 
employees of corporate bodies and not civil servants though they are 
controlled by the Federal Government. This is so, for the reason that the 
corporate status of the above Organization has been created by virtue of a 
statute or by virtue of registration as a corporate body under the Companies 
Act.”  
  
79. 
At this juncture it may also be observed that Article 260 of the Constitution has 
conferred authority upon the Parliament to declare any other service to be the service of 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
93
Pakistan under an Act of Parliament. The words “declared” used therein is of much 
significance. In view of its importance, it has to be seen as to whether there was any 
doubt or difficulty in the definition of civil servant under Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, 
which persuaded the Legislature to make a declaration that the persons working in the 
Government controlled Corporations, etc. shall be declared to be in the service of 
Pakistan and incumbents, therefore, shall be deemed to be civil servants. In case, there is 
some doubt in respect of a state of the law, Parliament may decide to pass a declaratory 
Act, setting out what the law is. [“Understanding Statute” by S.M. Zafar Second 
Edition (Page 287)]. Essentially on the plain reading of the definition of the civil servant, 
both under Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 and Section 2(1)(b) of the CSA, 1973, there 
was absolutely no doubt. In this behalf the Parliament had also not identified any doubt as 
would be evident from the Parliamentary debates, which took place at the time of 
promulgation of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973. A declaration, however, has not been 
made to clarify any doubt rather by introducing a legal fiction, the persons working in 
Government controlled Corporations, etc. have been made civil servants for the purpose 
of Article 260 of the Constitution. The language employed by the Constitution, 
authorizing the Parliament to declare any other service as service of Pakistan, only 
confers authority to make a solid declaration in respect of any such service, instead of 
bringing it into the folds of service of Pakistan by introducing a legal fiction.      
80. 
Now turning towards the second limb of the argument i.e. as to whether the 
persons working in the Government controlled Corporations, etc. in terms of Section 2-A 
of the STA, 1973 are performing their functions in connection with the affairs of the 
Federation, being one of the most important condition for attaining the status of being in 
the service of Pakistan. In this behalf, a criteria has been laid down in the case of Saeed 
Rabbani (ibid). Similarly, in the case of Salahuddin (ibid), it was held as under:---   
“Now what is meant by the phrase “performing functions in connection with 
the affairs of the Federation or a Province.” It is clear that the reference is to 
governmental or state functions, involving, in one form or another, an 
element of exercise of public power. The functions may be the traditional 
police functions of the State, involving the maintenance of law and order 
and other regulatory activities; or they may comprise functions pertaining to 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
94
economic development, social welfare, education, public utility services and 
other State enterprises of an industrial or commercial nature. Ordinarily, 
these functions would be performed by persons or the Federal Government 
or a Provincial Government. However, in recent years, there has been 
manifest a growing tendency on the part of Governments to create statutory 
Corporations for undertaking many such functions, particularly in the 
industrial and commercial spheres, in belief that free from the inhibiting 
effect of red-tapism, these semi-autonomous bodies may prove more 
effective, flexible and also profitable. Inevitably, Government retains 
effective control over their functioning by appointing the heads and other 
senior officers of these Corporations, by regulating their composition and 
procedures by appropriate statutes, and by finding funds for financing their 
activities.  
 
Examples of such statutory Corporations are the National Bank of 
Pakistan, the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority, the 
National Shipping Corporation, the Agricultural Development Bank of 
Pakistan and the large number of Universities functioning under their 
respective statutes. On account of their common attributes, as mentioned in 
the preceding paragraph, they have all been regarded as persons performing 
functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province.  
…………………………………………………………... 
……………………………………………………...…………………………
…………………………………...… 
 
However, private organizations or persons, as distinguished from 
government or semi-government agencies and functionaries cannot be 
regarded as persons performing functions in connection with the affairs of 
the Federation or a Province simply for the reason that their activities 
happen to be regularized by laws made by the State. Accordingly, a joint-
stock company, incorporated under the Companies Act, for the purpose of 
carrying on commercial or industrial activity for the benefit of its 
shareholders, cannot be regarded as a person performing State functions, 
just for the reason that its functioning is regulated by law or that the 
distribution of its manufactured products is subject to governmental control 
in the public interest. The primary test must always be whether the functions 
entrusted to the organization or person concerned are indeed functions of the 
State involving some exercise of sovereign or public power; whether the 
control of the organization vests in  a substantial manner in the hands of 
Government; and whether the bulk of the funds is provided by the State. If 
these conditions  are fulfilled, then the person including a body politic or 
body corporate, may indeed be regarded as a person performing functions in 
connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province ; otherwise not.”   
This view has also been reiterated in the Aitchison College (ibid).  
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
95
81. 
Mr. Wasim Sajjad, learned Sr. ASC while relying upon the case of Salahuddin 
(ibid), argued that statutory Corporations are the same as the Government itself, 
therefore, their employees are to be treated at par with each other.  
82. 
Argument advanced by him is not acceptable because the ratio decidendi of the 
judgment is that to determine as to whether a person is holding a post or office in 
connection with the affairs of the Federation, an element of sovereign authority and 
exercise of public power is essential to bring an employee or service within the scope of 
the words “affairs of the Federation”. Thus it is concluded that the Parliament cannot 
enact a law declaring any other service to be the service of Pakistan by or under any Act, 
without demonstrating that such declared service has nexus with the affairs of the 
Federation. In fact, the framers of the Constitution have restricted the power of the 
Parliament to declare any service to be service of Pakistan by placing an embargo that 
such person should also hold a post or office in connection with the affairs of the 
Federation. Unless this condition is fulfilled, every service cannot be declared by the 
Parliament to be service of Pakistan. In a number of judgments, this Court, in respect of 
statutory Corporations and Bodies owned or controlled by the Government, has held that 
such Corporations or Bodies are distinct and different from the Government and their 
employees are not ipso facto in the service of Pakistan. Reference in this behalf to the 
case of Printing Corporation of Pakistan    v.   Province of Sindh (1985 CLC 1486), 
would not be out of context, wherein it was held that “workers working in the petitioner 
company drawing up to Rs.1000/- in terms of the definition of ‘worker’ given in the 
Ordinance can be said to be in service of State; they are in fact in service of the petitioner 
Company. As pointed out herein above the company has the power to employ any person 
under the Memorandum of Association; the mere fact that the Federal Government has 
totally subscribed ‘A’ class shares and appoints the Directors or that it issues directives 
from time to time will not change the status of the petitioner workers into the status of 
service in State; the concept of ‘person in the service of the State’ is a very old concept 
and in fact is now akin to the phrase “persons in the service of Pakistan”; in this regard 
reference may be made to Article 242 and 275 of the Constitution, 1973; it has been 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
96
consistently held by the Supreme Court that the employees of Corporations established by 
the Federal Government are not in service of Pakistan.” To arrive at this conclusion, 
reference was made to Chairman East Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation, 
Dacca    v.  Rustam Ali  (PLD 1966 SC 848), Abdul Salam Mehta    v.  Chairman 
Water and Power Development Authority  (1970 SCMR 40), Shahid Khalil   v.  
Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Karachi  (1971 SCMR 568), Shujauddin 
Ahmad    v.   Oil and Gas Development Corporation  (1971 SCMR 566) and R.T.H. 
Janjua    v.   National Shipping Corporation  (PLD 1974 SC 146). The judgment in the 
case of Printing Corporation of Pakistan (ibid) came up under consideration before this 
Court in the case of Printing Corporation of Pakistan   v.  Province of Sindh  (PLD 
1990 SC 452), wherein it was held that “the fact that the part of the capital has been 
subscribed by the Government does not, in any manner, establish that the Federal 
Government controls the affairs of the appellant and the workers of the appellant are in 
the service of the State; similarly, if the Government has provided working capital, it 
would be a loan to the appellant, which has to be repaid; therefore, it cannot be said by 
any reason or logic that by doing so the Federal Government controls the affairs of the 
appellant or the workers of the appellant could be considered to be in the service of the 
State.” It was further held that “merely by the fact that the Government owns 60 per cent 
share capital or the ‘A’ class ordinary shareholders representing the Government of 
Pakistan can appoint Directors including the Chairman, the Managing Director and the 
Finance Director, would not establish that the affairs of the Corporation are controlled by 
the Government.”   
83. 
This Court, while interpreting the Constitutional provisions, in the case of Don 
Basco High School (ibid), has held that it is well established rule of construction of 
statute that general terms following particular ones apply only to such persons or things 
as are Ejusdem Generis with those comprehended in the language of the Legislature. 
Reliance in this behalf has also been placed on R.V. Cleworth (1864) 4.B & S.927. 
Relevant para therefrom is reproduced herein below:--- 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
97
“In other words, the general expression is to be read as comprehending only 
things of the same kind as that designated by the preceding particular 
expressions, unless there is something to show that a wider sense was 
intended.”   
84. 
In the case of Al-Jehad Trust    v.   Federation of Pakistan  (PLD 1996 SC 324), 
it was observed that “the general words cannot be construed in isolation but the same are 
to be construed in the context in which, they are employed; in other words, their colour 
and contents are derived from their context.” Likewise, in the case of Farooq Ahmed 
Khan Leghari  (ibid), similar observations were made. Similarly, in this very context, 
while disposing of Presidential Reference No.2 of 2005  (PLD 2005 SC 873), it was 
observed that “general words cannot be construed in isolation but the same are to be 
construed in the context in which they are employed. In another judgment in the case of 
Adil Abdul Jabbar (ibid), High Court of Sindh observed that “it also needs to be kept in 
view that the Service Tribunals Act is a law enacted under Article 212 of the Constitution 
and though the Parliament is competent to declare a person to be in the service of 
Pakistan, such person, must perform an element of public duty; we fail to comprehend 
how a clerk of a private Stock Exchange could be deemed to be performing such public 
service.”       
85. 
Article 63 of the Constitution creates a disqualification for a candidate for the 
membership of Parliament if he is in the service of any statutory body or body, owned or 
controlled by the Government or in which the Government has controlling share or 
interest but status of such person is different, if he is in service of Government controlled 
Corporation and has been declared to be in the service of Pakistan. The ‘service of 
Pakistan’ is a broader expression which itself covers the ‘service of any body, owned or 
controlled by the Government or in which the Government has a controlling share or 
interest’. This expression would not have been used as it would have been redundant in 
this Article because it is well settled that redundancy cannot be attributed to a 
Constitutional provision. Reference in this behalf may be made to the case of Shahid 
Nabi Malik (ibid) and Reference No. 2 of 2005 (ibid). Therefore, both the expressions 
are to be considered distinctly with reference to the context, relating to the matter under 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
98
discussion. It is established rule of interpretation that where the Legislature has used two 
different words in legislation, they must be given different meanings. Even if the words 
appear to be synonymous or akin to one another they should be assigned different 
meanings to avoid making one or the other legislative expression redundant. Reference 
may be made to State   v.  Zia-ur-Rehman  (PLD 1973 SC 49) and Raja Maula Dad 
Khan   v.  West Pakistan Bar Council  (PLD 1975 SC 469). From the principle 
highlighted herein above and as discussed in these two judgments, it is abundantly clear 
that Legislature, under Article 63 of the Constitution, by using the expressions ‘service of 
Pakistan’ and ‘service of any statutory body or any body, owned or controlled by the 
Government or the Government has controlling share or interest’ in it had identified the 
consequences, which would ultimately result in disqualification of a candidate in terms of 
clause (k) of Article 63(1) of the Constitution. Comparing this Article with Article 
212(1)(a), expression ‘service of Pakistan’ has been employed and it does not make any 
reference to ‘service of any statutory body or any body, owned or controlled by the 
Government or in which the Government has controlling share or interest.’ Thus only 
those persons who are covered within the definition of ‘service of Pakistan’ in terms of 
Article 212(1(a) of the Constitution, can invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, otherwise 
when the Constitution framers have used the expression ‘service of any statutory body or 
any body, owned or controlled by the Government or in which the Government has 
controlling share or interest’ along with the expression ‘service of Pakistan’ may have 
used it. This distinction is presumed to be in the knowledge of the Constitution framers in 
view of the earlier judgment of this Court in the case of Chairman East Pakistan 
Industrial Development Corporation, Dacca (ibid), wherein it has been held that 
“employees of statutory Corporations are not the Government servants.” Similarly in the 
case of Fazlul Quader Chowdhry (ibid), it has been held that “between amendment and 
adaptation there is a clear distinction and this distinction had already been the subject of 
discussion in judgments of Courts before this Constitution was framed; the framer of the 
Constitution is presumed to have been well aware of the distinction which had been 
accepted by the Courts; when he used the word ‘adaptation’, therefore, and omitted the 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
99
word ‘amendment’ in Article 224(3), there can be little doubt that he did so deliberately; 
the Legislature is by presumption an ideal person and has full knowledge of the state of 
case law, at least the important part of it.” 
86. 
It is important to note that intention of the framer of the Constitution had never 
been to provide a forum of the Service Tribunal to the employees of the Government 
controlled Corporations, in terms of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973. Had it been so, it 
could have incorporated the same in Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution as provided 
under Article 323A of the Constitution of India, which reads as under:-- 
“323A.(1). Parliament may, by law, provide for the adjudication or trial by 
administrative tribunals of disputes and complaints with respect to 
recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services 
and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State or of 
any local or other authority within the territory of India or under the control 
of the Government of India or of any Corporation owned or controlled by 
the Government. (emphasis provided)        
Thus, with reference to above Article of the Constitution of India, the argument put 
forward by Mr. Iftikhar Gillani, learned Sr. ASC  that Section 2-A creates a new and 
distinct class of Government servants, which is neither covered by the definition of ‘civil 
servant’ nor by the definition of ‘service of Pakistan’, seems to be correct. Therefore, for 
this reason alone Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 becomes ultra vires of the Constitution 
because the employees of Government controlled Corporations etc. are not covered by 
the definition of ‘service of Pakistan’ as provided under Article 260 of the Constitution 
nor their cases can be taken up under Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution, as such the 
Federal Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant them relief in terms of Article 
212(1)(a) of the Constitution because under this provision of the Constitution, 
administrative tribunals are set up for the purpose of exercising jurisdiction in respect of 
the terms and conditions of service of those persons, who are in the service of Pakistan. 
The terms and conditions of service of those employees, however, are required to be 
specified under Article 240 of the Constitution by or under Act of the Parliament. Thus, 
the conclusion would be that only those persons, who are in the service of Pakistan, as 
discussed herein above, and if their terms and conditions are governed either by a statute 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
100
or statutory rules, in terms of Article 240 of the Constitution, can seek remedy before the 
Service Tribunals. It can be, therefore, said in other words that as the persons, who are in 
service of Pakistan but whose terms and conditions of service are not governed by a 
statute or statutory rules, cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. 
In this behalf in Mehboob Khan (ibid) it was observed that “it was for the first time in 
1973 that it was decided to regulate the terms and conditions of the Civil Servants 
through a statute and to set up Administrative or Service Tribunals to adjudicate the 
matters in respect of the terms and conditions of Civil Servants; and to achieve this object 
Articles 212 and 240 were introduced in the present Constitution; this was followed by 
promulgation of Civil Servants Act 1973 to regulate the appointment and providing for 
terms and conditions of the persons in service of Pakistan; simultaneously Service 
Tribunal Act, 1973 was introduced; the result was that jurisdiction of all Courts excluding 
this Court in respect of the terms and conditions of service of the Civil Servants was 
excluded.” In this very judgment it was further observed that “according to this Article 
[240], the terms and conditions of the persons in service of Pakistan were to be 
determined by or under Act of Parliament while conditions of persons in service of 
Provinces were to be governed by or under Act of Provincial Assembly; this was the 
natural consequence of Article 212 because earlier the civil servants were enjoying 
Constitutional guarantees; the same having been excluded from the purview of the 
Constitution, the Parliament in pursuance of this Article proceeded to promulgate Civil 
Servants Act LXXI of 1973; similarly the Provinces also promulgated the Provincial 
Civil Servants Acts; these statutes provided the superstructure while for disciplinary 
matters and procedure thereof Rules were promulgated at different levels.” Reference at 
this stage to the case of Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif  (ibid) would not be out of context, 
wherein it has been held that “it is true that a person may not be a civil servant within the 
meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973 but may be in the service of Pakistan as is the case 
with an Ambassador; however, the fact remains that in such cases also appointments to 
and terms and conditions of offices are determined by or under the Act of appropriate 
legislature or by rules framed pursuant to Article 240 of the Constitution which is not so 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
101
in respect of holders of Constitutional offices; apart from the fact that Syeda Abida 
Hussain’s case did not deal with the holder of Constitutional office and is, therefore, 
clearly distinguishable, on a closer analysis of the said judgment, it will be seen that one 
of the reason for holding that Syeda Abida Hussain was in service of Pakistan as an 
Ambassador was that she was governed by Rules of Service applicable to civil servants 
framed pursuant to Article 240 of the Constitution; similarly, the case of Mahboob Khan 
and 242 others    v.  Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, 
Islamabad and 5 others (1991 PLC (CS) 415) has no relevance nor does it advance the 
case of the petitioner; moreover in that case also it was observed that the terms and 
conditions of person in service of Pakistan were to be determined by or under the Act of 
the Parliament or the Provincial Assembly as mandated by Article 240 of the 
Constitution, which shows that the determining factor as to whether or not a person is in 
the service of Pakistan, is as to whether his terms and conditions are determined by law 
made under Article 240 of the Constitution.” Similarly in Qazi Wali Muhammad’s case 
it has been held that the Federal Service Tribunal has no jurisdiction in cases where the 
terms and conditions of service of an employee in question are not or cannot be 
determined in terms of Article 240 of the Constitution. This view was followed by this 
Court in the case of Muhammad Siddique (ibid).       
87. 
It may be noted that under Section 2-A of the STA, the Legislature has not 
declared the service of a person in the Government controlled organization to be the 
‘service in connection with the affairs of the Federation’. It may also be noted that under 
Article 240 of the Constitution ‘service of Pakistan’ means “any service, post or office in 
connection with the affairs of the Federation.” Essentially, when a person is not holding a 
post in connection with the affairs of the Federation or of a Province, he would not be 
entitled to claim himself to be in the service of Pakistan, as discussed herein above. 
Likewise, there is yet another important condition i.e. he must hold a post or office in 
connection with the affairs of Pakistan.  
88. 
Mr. Naeem Bukhari, learned ASC candidly conceded that if a person is not 
holding a post in connection with affairs of State, he would be governed by a contract and 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
102
the remedy lies in damages. In this behalf it may be noted that word ‘permanent post’ as 
defined in Section 2(1)(e) of the CSA, 1973, means ‘a post sanctioned without limit of 
time.’ In the case of State of Assam   v.  Kanak Chandra  (AIR 1967 SC 884), wherein 
with reference to Article 309 and 310 of the Constitution of India, the ‘post’ has been 
defined as follows:--- 
“10. 
In the context of Arts.309, 310 and 311, a post denotes an office. A 
person who holds a civil post under a State holds ‘office’ during the pleasure 
of the Governor of the State, except as expressly provided by the 
Constitution, see Art. 310. A post under the State is an office or a position to 
which duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached, an 
office or a position to which a person is appointed and which may exist 
apart from and independently of the holder of the post. Article 310 (2) 
contemplates that a post may be abolished and a person holding a post may 
be required to vacate the post, and it emphasizes the idea of a post existing 
apart from the holder of the post. A post may be created before the 
appointment or simultaneously with it. A post is an employment, but every 
employment is not a post. A post under the State means a post under the 
administrative control of the State. The State may create or abolish the post 
and may regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to the post.”  
89. 
In view of the criteria laid down in the above judgment, as well as the definition of 
‘permanent post’, it is concluded that the persons working in the Government controlled 
Corporations would not be deemed to be holding a post under Section 2-A of the STA, 
1973 unless there is warrant under law i.e. that a statute governs appointments and 
regulates terms and conditions. In this context reference may be made to the employees, 
who are working on contract basis or are on deputation or fall within the definition of 
worker or workman, but cannot be considered to be holders of the post, in order to fulfill 
the requirement of Article 260 of the Constitution, according to which a person will be in 
the service of Pakistan, if he is holding a post or office in connection with the affairs of 
the Federation. Similarly,  Article 240(a) of the Constitution speaks in respect of services 
of the Federation, posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation and All Pakistan 
Services. In order to make out a case for the purpose of hearing before a Service Tribunal, 
a person falling within the scope of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, is required to hold a 
post, otherwise, in absence of such mandatory condition, he would not be deemed to be in 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
103
service of Pakistan. Therefore, the Service Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to grant 
him relief.           
90. 
Mr. M.A. Ghani, learned ASC contended that Civil Servants Act is a substantive 
law which creates rights and duties whereas Service Tribunals Act is a procedural law 
and the persons whose cases are covered under Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 are seeking 
remedy under the substantive law. So long as CSA, 1973 is not amended, incorporating 
the category of the persons falling within the mischief of Section 2-A of the STA, they 
cannot claim relief. Reliance in this behalf has also been placed by him on Divisional 
Engineer Phones (ibid). 
91. 
 This argument has already been discussed herein above, therefore, need not be 
repeated.  
92. 
Malik Abdul Qayyum, learned ASC while supporting the arguments of learned 
Attorney General for Pakistan argued that the efforts should be made to save the 
enactment instead of destroying it, therefore, he contended that by harmonizing the 
provisions 
of 
Section  
2-A of the STA, 1973, it may be declared that the employees of the Government 
controlled Corporations, whose terms and conditions have been determined by means of a 
statute, in terms of Article 240 of the Constitution, would be considered to be civil 
servants, provided they can show that a post or office is held by them; secondly, the 
employees whose terms and conditions are not governed by a Statute but they are 
discharging their functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, they can 
invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution for the 
redressal of their grievance; thirdly, the persons who are not covered under these two 
categories, they may be left to avail the remedy subject to their terms and conditions and; 
fourth category of the persons shall have the remedy before the forums provided by the 
labour laws.  
93. 
Mr. Kamal Azfar, learned ASC has rightly contended that Section 2-A of the STA, 
1973 only relates to change of forum but does not alter the terms and conditions of the 
employees, as according to him, there are Corporations who have statutory rules for the 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
104
purpose of governing the affairs of their employees and some of the Corporations have 
got only Regulations, therefore, according to him out of both the categories, the one who 
fulfilled the requirement of Articles 240 and 260 of the Constitution shall have remedy 
before the Service Tribunal, constituted under Article 212 of the Constitution and the 
others may approach to the High Court or the Labour Court as the case may be. 
94. 
The contention of Khawaja Muhammad Farooq, ASC seems to be correct that if 
the terms and conditions of an employee have not been determined under Article 240 of 
the Constitution, then they cannot seek remedy before the Service Tribunal and Section 2-
A of the STA, 1973 would not be of any help to them. He further emphasized that if there 
are no statutory rules for governing the terms and conditions of the employees of a 
Corporation, they have to seek remedy by way of filing a suit for damages as this law is 
still holding the field. Reliance in this behalf has been placed by him on Lahore Central 
Co-operative Bank Ltd.    v. Saif Ullah Shah (PLD 1959 SC 210) and Ms. Zeba 
Mumtaz   v.   First Women Bank Ltd.  (PLD 1999 SC 1106).    
    
95. 
Likewise, the argument put forward by Ch. Mushtaq Ahmed Khan, learned ASC 
that clustering of litigation before one Tribunal is against the principle of policy 
enshrined under Article 37 of the Constitution, therefore, merely for the purpose of 
providing a forum the employees of Government controlled Corporation/Authority 
cannot be considered in the service of Pakistan, is also found with force and substance.  
96. 
Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa, learned ASC has also advanced convincing argument 
that according to Article 260 of the Constitution, the Parliament is competent to declare 
any service to be the service of Pakistan, subject to the condition that terms and 
conditions of such service shall be governed by a statute or  statutory rules, under Article 
240 of the Constitution and if it is not possible for the law giver to lay down the terms 
and conditions of the service under Article 260 of the Constitution, such service cannot 
be declared to be service of Pakistan. Therefore, according to him, the employees of those 
statutory Corporations or bodies, who do not fulfill these two tests, cannot be considered 
to be in the service of Pakistan nor civil servant for the purpose of availing remedy before 
an administrative tribunal, constituted under Article 212 of the Constitution. His 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
105
argument seems to be convincing that the first part of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, 
whereby the service of a statutory Corporation has been declared to be the service of 
Pakistan, seems to be in accordance with the Constitution subject to Articles 240 and 260 
of the Constitution but second part is ultra vires of the Constitution because post or office 
cannot be declared to be the service of Pakistan. Since such persons do not hold any post 
in connection with the affairs of the Federation, they cannot be deemed to be civil 
servants.  
97.  
Similarly, Raja Muhammad Akram, learned ASC was right in saying that workers 
or workmen, whose cases are covered under the IRO, 2002, cannot be declared to be in 
the service of Pakistan for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal 
because their appointment had not taken place by virtue of the terms and conditions laid 
down by the Legislature under Article 240 of the Constitution nor such persons shall be 
deemed to be civil servants because they are not holding a permanent post for the purpose 
of discharging their functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation.  
98. 
Mr. Wasim Sajjad, learned Sr. ASC contended that while examining the vires of 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, it would be appropriate if the Court keeps in mind the 
social set up of the country, in view of the observation in the case of Arshad Mehmood  
(ibid) and M/s Ellahi Cotton Mills (ibid), therefore, if the status of a civil servant is 
conferred upon a person, covered under Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, it must be kept 
intact as held earlier in the case of Farid Ahmed   v.   Karachi Shipyard and 
Engineering Works Ltd.  (PLD 1983 Karachi 576), Nisar Ahmed    v.   Secretary 
Ministry of Information (1984 PLC (CS) 372) and Printing Corporation of Pakistan    
v.   Province of Sindh  (1990  PLC (CS) 176).  
99. 
Above argument, while making reference to the Constitutional provisions, 
discussed herein above, has no force. It may also be noted that in the judgments cited by 
the learned counsel, vires of Section 5 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) 
Ordinance, 1978 (Ordinance No.XIII of 1978) were not examined, therefore, merely for 
the reason that Legislature has declared the service of a Government controlled 
Corporation/Authority to be service of Pakistan and such person is holding the post in 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
106
connection with the affairs of Pakistan, is not acceptable. However, in view of the 
principle of taking into consideration the social set up of the country, attempt should be 
made to extend the benefit of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 to some of the persons, 
whose cases are protected by the constitutional provisions i.e. Articles 240 and 260 of the 
Constitution.  
100. Learned 
counsel 
also 
contended 
that 
following 
the 
case 
of  
L. Chandra Kumar (ibid), if this Court comes to the conclusion that the provisions of 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 are ultra vires of the Constitution then, it may be held that 
the judgments delivered by the Service Tribunal are with jurisdiction but they can be 
challenged before the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, or 
recommendations be made to the Government that against the decision of the Service 
Tribunal, a right of appeal be given to such employees before the High Court for the 
purpose of disposing of the cases and; lastly any other appropriate direction, which 
deemed appropriate by this Court, be issued in this behalf.  
101. Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned Sr. ASC also stated that instead of striking 
down Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, it may be interpreted in such a way that the law 
should be saved and intention of the Legislature can be ascertained. Indeed, Court should 
refrain from entering into technicalities. He has placed reliance on Reference by the 
President No.1 of 1957 (ibid), Pir Sabir Shah (ibid) and Zulfiqar Ali Babu (ibid). 
Relevant para from the case of Pir Sabir Shah (ibid) is reproduced herein below for 
convenience:--- 
“27. The question of the constitutionality of a law, or to put it differently, 
whether a law is intra vires or ultra vires does not depend upon 
consideration of jurisprudence or of policy. It depends simply on examining 
the language of the constitution and of comparing the legislative authority 
conferred on the Parliament with the provisions of the sub-Constitutional 
law by which the Parliament purports to exercise that authority.” 
 
102. We have examined the arguments put forward in this context and we are quite in 
agreement with Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, learned ASC that efforts should be made to 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
107
save the law by excluding those portions which appear to be contrary to any 
Constitutional provision.  
103. Dr. Babar Awan, learned ASC also vehemently argued that as Section 2-A of the 
STA, 1973 has been enacted through an Act of Parliament, therefore, the same should be 
saved.  
104. There can be no cavil with the proposition but the exception is that if any Act of 
the Parliament is found to be in derogation of any provision of the Constitution, it would 
not be allowed to hold the field because of the mandate of Constitution, which is supreme 
for all intents and purposes. 
105. Argument by Raja Muhammad Bashir, learned ASC seems to be convincing that 
there are many employees of statutory Corporations whose terms and conditions of 
service are regulated by statutory rules, therefore, they would fall  within the domain of 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, whereas the Government controlled Corporations, which 
have got no statutory backing nor any statutory rules governing the terms and conditions 
of service of their employees, they would not fall within the mischief of Section 2-A of 
the STA, 1973. Such persons have remedy before the Civil Courts and thirdly as far as 
the workers or workmen are concerned, can have recourse to the Labour Court, which is 
now a days being headed by a District & Sessions Judge, therefore, Section 2-A may not 
be declared ultra vires of the Constitution, in entirety.  
106. Mr. Muhammad Akram Sheikh, learned Sr. ASC contended that undoubtedly a 
category of the persons not covered under the definition of civil servant stands excluded 
from the definition of the civil servant, has been declared to be civil servant by virtue of 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 but it should not be treated as a discrimination in view of 
the judgment in the case of Inamur Rehman (ibid) because so far, no argument has been 
advanced that due to this discrimination, injustice has been caused to some of the persons. 
He further stated that if at all this Court declares Article 2-A of the STA. 1973 ultra vires 
CA.792-816/2005, etc. 
108
of the Constitution, in respect of those employees whose service conditions are not 
protected by statutory provisions, they would be governed by the rule of master and 
servant, a phenomena which has already undergone radical changes, because the intent of 
the Constitution is to establish an egalitarian society, where all citizens are equal and 
there should be no concept of master and servant between and employee and employer. 
Reference in this behalf has been made by him to R   v.  Civil Service Appeal Board  
[1988] 3 All E.R. 686 and Gunton   v.   London Borough of Richmond upon Thames  
[1980] 3 All E.R. 577.  
107. In this behalf it may be noted that in Farasat Hussain’s case (ibid), while placing 
reliance on Zahir Ullah’s case, it was held that “the concept of master and servant has 
undergone a radical change during the last couple of years mainly due to insertion of 
Section 2-A in Service Tribunals Act, 1973”.  It may be noted that in the said judgment as 
well, this Court had not examined the vires of Section 2-A of the STA, 1973, therefore, 
the argument of the learned counsel that this phenomena cannot be re-introduced, has no 
substance because if Section 2-A is declared to be un-constitutional then position prior to 
its insertion shall revive. So far as the judgments from the other jurisdictions, relied upon 
by the learned counsel are concerned, relevance of the same also depends upon the 
conclusion, which shall be drawn in respect of constitutionality of Section 2-A of the 
STA, 1973.  
   
 
  
108. The threadbare discussion on the subject persuades us to hold :--- 
1. 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 is, partially, ultra vires of 
Articles 240 and 260 of the Constitution, to the extent of 
the category of employees, whose terms and conditions of 
service have not been determined by the Federal 
Legislature and by a deeming clause they cannot be 
treated civil servants as defined under Section 2(1)(b) of 
the CSA, 1973 and they are not engaged in the affairs of 
the Federation. 
2. 
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 cannot be enforced in the 
absence of amendment in the definition of the civil 
servant under Section 2(1) (b) of the CSA, 1973.  
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. 
109. Now the question is as to what would be the effect of this judgment on the 
cases pending before this Court and Federal Service Tribunal. In this behalf it may 
be noted that following the rule of past and closed transactions, laid down in the 
case of Mehram Ali    v.  Federation of Pakistan  (PLD 1998 SC 1445), it is 
directed as follows:- 
a) 
The cases which have been decided finally by this Court 
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the 
Constitution shall not be opened and if any Review 
Petition, Misc. Application or Contempt Application, 
filed against the judgment is pending, it shall be heard 
independently and shall not be affected by the ratio of 
this judgment.  
b) 
The proceedings instituted either by an employee or by 
the an employer, pending before this Court, against the 
judgment of the Service Tribunal, not covering by 
category (a) before this Court or the Service Tribunal 
shall stand abated, leaving the parties to avail remedy 
prevailing prior to promulgation of Section 2-A of the 
STA, 1973  
c) 
The cases or proceedings which are not protected or 
covered by this judgment shall be deemed to have abated 
and the aggrieved person may approach the competent 
forums for redressal of their grievances within a period of 
90 days and the bar of limitation provided by the 
respective laws, shall not operate against them till the 
expiry of stipulated period.  
d) 
The cases in which the order of Service Tribunal has been 
implemented shall remain intact for a period of 90 days 
or till the filing of appropriate proceedings, which ever is 
earlier.  
e) 
The Service Tribunal shall decide pending cases under  
Section 2-A of the STA, 1973 in view of the above observations. 
However, if any of the cases is covered by clause ‘c’ (ibid), a period 
of 90 days shall be allowed to aggrieved party to approach the 
competent forum for the redressal of its grievance. 
