Pakistan Railways Ways and Works Manual

2003 PLC(CS) 1185 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Para. 513(a)Big city allowance, grant ofDispute between the parties was with regard to grant of big city allowance

Claim of the civil servants was that as their headquarter was within the limits of city therefore, they were entitled to big city allowance

Authorities asserted that since the headquarter of the civil servants was outside the municipal limits of the city, civil servants were not entitled to the allowance

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction accepted the claim of the civil servants

­Authorities without denying the location of the headquarter of the civil servants being within the limits of municipal corporation, had contended that the civil servants were not entitled to the big city allowance

Validity

High Court repelled the contention of Authorities with the observation that no policy or instruction was shown in support of the contention that the big city allowance was not admissible to the civil servants

No substantial question of law of public importance being involved in the case Supreme Court maintained the judgment by High Court.

2003 SCMR 1766 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Para.5.13(a)Big city allowance, grant ofDispute between the parties was with regard to grant of big city allowance

Claim of the civil servants was that as their headquarter was within the limits of city therefore, they were entitled to big city allowance

Authorities asserted that since the headquarter of the civil servants was outside the municipal limits of the city, civil servants were not entitled to the allowance

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction accepted the claim of the civil servants

Authorities without denying the location of the headquarter of the civil servants being within the limits of municipal corporation, had contended that the civil servants were not entitled to the big city allowance

Validity

High Court repelled the contention of Authorities with the observation that no policy or instruction was shown in support of the contention that the big city allowance was not admissible to the civil servants

No substantial question of law of public importance being involved in the case Supreme Court maintained the judgment by High Court.

1996 SCMR 406 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 1Pakistan Railways Ways and Works Manual, 1969, para.. 16.6 (j)Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)

Damages on account of death due to accident at unmanned railway level crossing by running train Damages awarded by Trial Court were maintained by High Court

Validity

Primary responsibility of Railway would be the same whether there was manned level crossing or unmanned level crossing

Where there were manned level crossings, Authorities have to post employees for closing and opening of gates at the time train passed through it

Where there were unmanned level crossings, always could not throw entire responsibility on persons crossing it

In such cases, whistle boards were required to be erected at 1320 feet away from level crossing and from such point onwards driver of approaching train was duty bound to whistle continuously till train passed level crossing

Where such precaution was not proved to have been taken by Railways, plea of contributory negligence would raise question of fact which should be proved by party alleging same

Defendant should establish that plaintiff had failed to take reasonable care for his safety

Defence of contributory negligence would arise where damage was caused partly by negligence of person who had suffered and partly by fault of alleged wrongdoer

Where contributory negligence was proved, claim for damages would not be defeated but damages would be reduced to such extent as Court might think just and equitable considering plaintiff’s share in the negligence and his responsibility in the occurrence of accident

Defendants had failed to establish facts necessary to prove contributory negligence

Compensation had been granted to plaintiffs on well-recognised principles and was thus, not excessive

No case was made out for grant of leave to appeal against such order

Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.

[Damages].