Tenure

2021 PLC(CS) 777 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Srl. No.28DeputationTenureFailure to report to parent departmentEffect

Upon completion of maximum permissible deputation period of five years, it is obligatory upon borrowing department to repatriate a deputationist to parent department

Failure on the part of borrowing department to repatriate a deputationist who completes maximum permissible deputation period of five years is an actionable wrong

High Court observed that payment of salary to a deputationist beyond maximum deputation period of five years is an unnecessary and unjustified burden on exchequer and has to be made good from personal coffers of public functionaries in borrowing department who are derelict in their duty in not relieving a deputationist upon completion of the period.

2014 PLD 210 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 4Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Ombudsman (Amendment) Act (XXVI of 2013), S. 5 & PreambleConstitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionProvincial Ombudsman, office ofTenurePeriod of four years

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Ombudsman (Amendment) Act (XXVI of 2013) making amendment in the tenure of office of Provincial Ombudsman by adding that Provincial Ombudsman would hold office for four years or till the age of sixty-two years, whichever was earlier

Constitutionality

Whether amendment introduced through Amending Act in respect of age limit would have retrospective effect

When the competent legislature had enacted a statute, prescribing a particular age (limit), the same could not be struck down on the grounds of mala fides of Provincial Government

Provincial Legislature was competent to prescribe the age limit for tenure of the office of Ombudsman, which would be having retrospective effect as and when an incumbent of the office attained the age of sixty-two years, whether before completion of the period of four years or thereafter

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

2012 PLC(CS) 1344 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 5-ANational Judicial Policy, Chapter AConstitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionJudge of Accountability CourtTenurePre­mature terminationIndependence of judiciary

Petitioners were District and Sessions Judges who were appointed as Judges of Accountability Courts for a period of three years on contract

After issuance of National Judicial Policy, contract of petitioners were terminated pre-maturely on their retirement

Plea raised by petitioners was that National Judicial Policy referred to the members of superior judiciary only

Validity

Authorities in compliance of National Judicial Policy issued termination letter in question

Petitioners were not retired Judges of Superior Judiciary and were retired Judges of District Judiciary but authorities wrongly treating petitioners retired Judges of Superior Judiciary terminated petitioners contract of service prematurely

Petitioners were awarded three years contract under S.5-A(3) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, commencing from their initial appointment, when they were members of District Judiciary and after their retirement from District Judiciary

Petitioners were not retired members of Superior Judiciary and as such National Judicial Policy was not applicable to them

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction declared the notification illegal and without lawful authority

Petition was allowed accordingly.