Equal treatment

2026 PLD 32 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O.XIII, R.3(1-A) & O.XLIIIAzad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), Art.42-AProvision(s) regarding proceedings before Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court (the Court)Court dispensing with a provision / requirementPowersEqual treatmentScope

Argument raised by the petitioners was that the Court had dismissed numerous appeals for non-compliance of the provisions of Order XIII, Rule 3(1-A) of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978, but in the present case, the rules were dispensed with, amounting to discriminatory treatment and a violation of the fundamental right to equality before the law

Validity

Pertinently, the Court is vested with inherent powers under Article 42-A of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, read with Order XLIII of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Supreme Court Rules, 1978 to dispense with the requirements of rules and pass any order necessary to do complete justice in a case

The exercise of such powers is intended to ensure that procedural technicalities do not obstruct the delivery of substantive justice

Furthermore, the rules have not been dispensed with solely in this single case

The Court has exercised its discretion to dispense with procedural requirements in a number of cases

Moreover, the principle of equal treatment before law does not require identical treatment in every situation but mandates fairness and reasonableness in the application of laws

Circumstances of each case are unique, and the Court is obligated to assess procedural lapses in the light of the facts, the nature of the case, and the overarching principles of justice

Dismissal of appeals in other cases for non-compliance of rules occurred underdistinct factual contexts and cannot serve as a blanket standard for challenging the discretion exercised in the present case

Thus, the petitioners' argument was devoid of merit and was accordingly repelled

Petition, lacking substance, was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 PLC(CS) 855 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss.2-A, 3 & 5Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.2-A, 4 & 25Notification vide SO (Budget)HD/15-29/2016 Vol-II dated 08-04-2020Regularization of constables appointed on contract basis in Special Police ForceScopeEqual treatment

Petitioner (constable) was reinstated into service from the date of his dismissal, however, vide impugned notification ,his name was omitted and replaced by another person who was at lower number than the petitioner in the list

Department contended that the petitioner was not in service at the time of issuance of impugned notification and thus was not entitled for regularization

Contention of the petitioner was that as he was reinstated into service, so Department had violated his vested rights by not including his name in the list for the regularized employees

Held, that 94 Special Police Officers (SPO) were, admittedly, regularized vide Notification (dated 08-04-2020)

Said Notification was issued in pursuance of the provisions contained in Ss.3 & 5 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Special Police Officers ( Regularization of Services) Act, 2019) ('the Act 2019') after the recommendation of Provincial Police Officer and the approval of provincial cabinet and concerned department

Petitioner was appointed as constable (Special Police Force) however, he was discharged from service on the basis of allegation leveled against him to be involved in notorious activities

Petitioner filed appeal and during proceedings it was found that the allegation leveled against him did not warrant an extreme action of dismissal from service

Petitioner was finally re-instated into service from date of his dismissal

Petitioner was claiming equal treatment as the other SPOs had been regularized

Plea of the Department was ill-founded and without force as the date when the impugned notification was issued , the petitioner was being proceeded departmentally under disciplinary proceedings and his fate had not been determined yet

Department could not, thus, decide at their ends that the petitioner was not in service

Impugned notification was issued in the intervening period of dismissal and reinstatement of the petitioner, when the guilt of the petitioner was tested departmentally and ultimately he earned exoneration which led that he was in service right from the date of his dismissal

Exoneration of the petitioner fetched him the benefits of notification-in-question and had made the plea of the respondents as unfounded

No distinction existed between the petitioner and those who stood regularized under the Act, 2019 and he deserved the same treatment

Petitioner had succeeded in making out a case for indulgence of the High Court

High Court directed the Department to regularize the services of the petitioner as Constable Special Force under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Special Police Officers (Regularization of Services) Act, 2019, right from the date of issuance of Notification dated 08-04-2020

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

2021 PLC(CS) 705 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Contract employeeRegularization of serviceDiscriminationEqual treatmentScope

Petitioners (ex-Army personnel) were employed as constables in Provincial police in their respective districts on contract basis

Provincial government vide notification had directed regularization of services of all the contract employees except the petitioners (police officials)

Provincial government contended that the said notification was not applicable to the petitioners as they being contract employees had no right of regular appointment

Validity

Said notification showed that its benefit was extended to various departments of provincial government and if the intention of the competent authority was to exclude the provincial police from it then the same might have been specifically incorporated in the said notification

Pursuant to satisfactory performance of the petitioners , their contract had been extended from time to time which was sufficient to believe that there was nothing adverse on their part

Government notification for regularization of services of all the contract employees was issued without any distinction, therefore, employees of one particular class/department could not be deprived of getting the benefits of said notification merely at the whims or caprice of the authority at the helm of affairs

Services of some of equally placed colleagues of the petitioners had already been regularized , therefore, the petitioners were also entitled to get the said benefit

High Court deprecated that the tendency of running the affairs of institutions on day to day basis and exploiting services of the employees for an indefinite period

Constitutional petitions were allowed.

2020 PLC(CS)N 5 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

Resident Medical Officers and Demonstrators having equivalent education seeking increase in the salaryEqual treatmentScope

Proposal for increase of salary of Resident Medical Officers and Demonstrators was approved but notification for the same was issued only for Demonstrators

Resident Medical Officers filed writ petition to High Court which was accepted

Contention of respondents was that Demonstrators were whole time faculty members whereas Resident Medical Officers were trainees

Validity

Proposal for increase in salary of Resident Medical Officers and Demonstrators was moved but governing body only considered and approved the matter of increase in salary of Demonstrators

Nothing was on record as to why proposed increase in the salary of Resident Medical Officers had been denied by the Government

Petitioners had been treated with discrimination which could not be allowed

Resident Medical Officers and Demonstrators had equal qualification and their nature of job was also the same

High Court had rightly accepted the writ petition and directed the authorities for issuance of notification for increase of salary of Resident Medical Officers

No infirmity or jurisdictional defect had been pointed out in the impugned order passed by the High Court

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2019 PLC(CS) 1511 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Advertisement for appointment of Police ConstableEqual treatmentAppointment of petitioners were recommended but authorities refused to issue appointment orderValidity

Petitioners having qualified the requisite test and interview were recommended by the selection committee for appointment

Authorities, without assigning any cogent and plausible reason declined appointment to the petitioners despite they obtained higher marks than those who had been appointed

Petitioners being similarly placed should have been given similarly treatment

Authorities were directed to adjust the petitioners against the vacant posts

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

2019 PLC(CS)N 28 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Equal treatmentScope

Equal treatment to its citizens was the onerous duty of the government.

2019 PLC(CS)N 41 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Employees of Company functioning with the affairs of PakistanContract employeeRegularization of serviceEqual treatmentScope

Plea of petitioners-employees was that they had secured more than 35% marks in National Testing Service and qualified for permanent absorption in the employer-Company

Validity

Regularization of employees was not part of terms and conditions of their service for which statutory rules were required but regularization would depend upon the length of service

Performance of employees in the employer-Company had not been called in question throughout their service period

Employees had secured more than 35% marks in National Testing Service

Petitioners were entitled to permanent absorption in accordance with Recruitment Policy, 2013 in the manner identical to one adopted to regularize their colleagues

Employer-Company had enhanced qualifying marks to 60% for permanent absorption but no policy framed in 2017 enhancing the benchmark from 35% to 60% had been brought on record

Any subsequent change in the criteria could not be applied retrospectively to the serving employees who were subjected to Recruitment Policy, 2013

Conduct of employer company was discriminatory in circumstances

Employees were entitled to similar treatment which was extended to their similarly placed colleagues for their regularization and absorption

Employer-Company could not act whimsically while making fresh appointments against the posts already held by the petitioners who were appointed in a transparent manner

Petitioners had served the Company for a period from five to seventeen years and had acquired expertise in the respective fields

Federal Government had directed Ministries/Divisions/Companies to regularize the Services of all the contract employees who had rendered minimum one year service in continuity as on 01-01-2017

Petitioners were in continuous service of the Company for long time and were paid salary as well

Employer-Company was directed to consider the case of petitioners for regularization of their service in accordance with law within a period of two months

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

2019 PLC(CS)N 38 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Work charge employeeRegularization of serviceEqual treatmentScopePetitioner-employee reached the superannuation age but his services were not regularized

Contention of petitioner was that some of the employees of the department appointed on contract basis filed constitutional petition and they were regularized

Validity

Where a question of law stood determined the principles of equity and justice would always demand to extend the said principle if one succeeded in bringing his case within such determined principle of law

Case of the petitioner-employee did fall within the four corners of decided question of law

Petitioner could not be denied or deprived of the same treatment which otherwise was demand of equity

Petitioner was to be treated as a regular employee on the day when he completed five years as work-charge employee and all benefits including pension were to be awarded to him

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2019 YLR 975 Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court Judicial Precedent

Ss. 8 & 33Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self-Governance) Order, 2009, Art. 71 (2)Educational institutionNomination against reserved seats for MBBS and BDSEqual treatmentScope

Contentions of candidate were that he scored aggregate marks but had not been nominated for reserved seat of MBBS and BDS

Validity

No passing marks limit in the entry test of Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan had been fixed and nomination was to be made on the basis of eligibility of respective Province

Forty three seats for MBBS and five seats for BDS were filled on open merit among the candidates of Gilgit-Baltistan while forty three seats were distributed on the basis of population of each district

Seven seats had been reserved which were to be filled amongst the candidates belonging to District Diamer

Petitioner and three respondents were hailing from District Diamer

Last merit list for Punjab closed at 78.51 and one candidate was nominated and last nominated candidate from District Diamer scored 58.44 marks while one of the petitioners scored 50.77 marks

Petitioner did not appear in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa entry test which was a pre-requisite and she could not be adjusted against any seat of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province

Every one could not be treated alike and reasonable classification if based on an intelligible differentia could be recognized

Policy matters required expertise and experience which were made keeping in view the social, political and other allied matters according to changing circumstances

If policy was initiated by the government then Court was not to interfere until and unless same was in conflict with any provision of law or was violative of Fundamental Right of a citizen

No flaw was pointed out in the nomination made by the authorities

Writ petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 PLC(CS)N 163 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

PreambleAppointment on temporary basisTermination from serviceEqual treatmentScopeServices of petitioners were terminated within cut-off date i.e. 1st day of November 1996 to 31st day of December 1998

Similarly placed persons had been given the benefit of reinstatement by the High Court which decision had been upheld by the Supreme Court

Petitioners, held, deserved to be given the same benefit of reinstatement being similarly placed

Department was directed to consider the case of petitioners for their reinstatement under Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Sacked Employees (Appointment) Act, 2012 coupled with the fact of being similarly placed persons subject to their eligibility for the requisite posts

Constitutional petition was disposed of in circumstances.

2018 PLC(CS)N 132 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Rr. 13, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30 & 31Constitution of Pakistan, Art.25Workers Welfare BoardContract employeesRegularization of serviceEqual treatmentScopeEducational qualification and experience of petitioners not disputedIf anyone was not qualified for the post, he could be removed from service by issuing show-cause noticePetitioners were appointed on contract basis after proper advertisementAgreement with regard to regularization was executed between the petitioners and elected representativeRecommendation for regularization of all contract employees was made by the Secretary Workers' Welfare BoardColleagues placed in similar situation had been regularized and discrimination had been done to the petitionersPetitioners were performing their duties and claiming their regularization on sanctioned postsDepartment reserved the right to apply formula of retrenchment as and when required

Employer had prerogative to issue show-cause notice to any of its employees if found deficient on the requisite qualification

Petitioners were serving the department since 2009 and there was no complaint whatsoever with regard to performance, efficiency and conduct of employees

Employees deserved for regularization against the post which they were holding

Claim of employees who fell within the promotion zone be placed before the competent authority for a decision

If any illegality/irregularity had been committed by the employer then employees could not be made scapegoat

Employees had become overage and could not seek employment elsewhere

Petitioners could not be kept for indefinite period on contract

Right of employment was the right of livelihood

High Court observed that petitioners who were in service stood regularized and those who were restrained/dispensed with but appointed on contractual basis stood reinstated

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2018 PLC(CS)N 96 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Up-gradation of postEqual treatmentScope

Contention of petitioners-employees was that despite being eligible for up-gradation they had not been considered for the same like other employees of the department

Validity

Employees who had stayed in the same scales for the last ten years and having no future prospects for promotion had been held entitled for up-gradation in next scale

Nothing was on record for refusal of such up-gradation of the petitioners

Petitioners had completed ten years service in the same scale in the year 2014 and there was no chance of their future promotion as there was no service structure for their progression, promotion or up-gradation

Department could not put forward any intelligible differentia between the case of petitioners-employees and those whose post was up-graded

When there was no intelligible differentia between the one set of employees against the others of the same department, they had to be treated alike

Department was directed to place the case of petitioners-employees before the "Up-gradation Committee" for their up-gradation like other employees who had already been up-graded

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2018 PLC(CS)N 165 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 25Equal treatmentScopeAll citizens should be treated equally

All citizens are to be treated equally and there cannot be any discrimination including gender discrimination, however, the State may make special provisions for protection of women and children

Constitution allows positive classification for the protection of the women and children

Where a provision is made for the benefit of women and children the State may provide them some benefits but cannot deprive them of the same

Positive discrimination in favour of women and children is permissible and negative discrimination is barred.

2017 PLC(CS) 1418 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Pensionary benefits, grant ofRule of proprietyEqual treatmentScopeIdentical issue had been decided by the High Court which was approved by the Supreme Court

Rule of propriety was applicable to the petitioners-employees as their junior was benefited and they should have been benefited at part by extending equal treatment in terms of judgment of the Supreme Court

Objection of authorities that petitioners being civil servants should approach the Service Tribunal was never raised by them in the case of their junior

Authorities had denied benefits to the petitioners which was discriminatory and required interference by the High Court

Authority were directed by the High Court to award the pensionary benefits as well as increments in terms of the order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of their junior

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

2013 PLC(CS) 717 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 25 & 199Constitutional petitionEqual treatmentNational Judicial Policy Making Committee (NJPMC), recommendations ofPetitioners (employees) were working in different courts established under Federal laws

Grievance of petitioners was that they had not been given benefits which similarly placed employees working under different provincial High Courts were getting on recommendations of NJPMC

Validity

Authorities did not deny that establishment of High Courts of Lahore, Sindh and Quetta were getting allowances detailed in recommendations of NJPMC

Petitioners were admittedly placed in similar category in which employees of district judiciary and establishment of High Courts of provinces were working and as such petitioners were entitled for the same treatment

Similarly placed employees of District Judiciary, establishment of High Courts were getting benefits under recommendations of NJPMC but petitioners were being deprived of the same

Such denial of authorities was in violation of Art.25 of the Constitution and the same was declared without lawful authority

Petitioners were entitled to get benefits under recommendations of NJPMC as confirmed by authorities

Petition was allowed accordingly.