Retrospective Operation of Government Notification
Retrospective Operation of Government Notification legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Not permissible. A notification which is ordered to take effect retrospectively is in the nature of legislation and legislation by notifications cannot be permitted because such legislation is a negation of the very basis of democracy.
"Retrospective Operation of Government Notification", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/15125
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Retrospective Operation of Government Notification"
P L D 1956 (W
MUHAMMAD BAKHSH and others‑Plaintiffs‑Appellants Versus GHULAM MUSTAFA KHAN‑Defendant‑Respondent
Court:1990 C L C 171
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHAN and 2 others‑‑Respondents
Court:1996 SCMR 83
and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus M/s. RAIS KHAN LIMITED through Muhammad Hashim‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 1965 (W
MESSRS MARDAN INDUSTRIES LTD., SAKHAKOT, MALAKAND AGENCY AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND ANOTHER — Respondents
Court:P L D 1978 Lahore 897
ABDUL GHANI-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD SULEMAN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 2011 Peshawar 120
KHALID MAHMOOD — Petitioner Versus N.-W.F.P. through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and 4 others — Respondents
Court: High Court2022 M L D 1056
Raja JUNAID RAFIQUE — Petitioner Versus REGISTRAR/DISTRICT JUDGE MUZAFFABAD and 2 others — Respondents
Court: High Court (AJ&K)2025 M L D 923
Dr. Abdul Hanan and 3 others — Petitioners Versus Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary and 25 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore1993 C L C 910
ASHRAF SUGAR MILLS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1987 S C M R 359
WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY‑‑Appellant Versus IRTIQA RASOOL HASHMI and another‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑Ss. 17(1‑A), 18‑‑Service Rules‑‑Change with retrospective effect‑ Validity of‑‑Amendment in Rules by executive notification, cannot be given retrospective effect‑‑Respondent removed from service under section 17(1‑A) of WAPDA Act in 1977, was denied pensionary benefits in August, 1982 by an amendment in Rules made with retrospective effect by a notification issued under S.18 of Act (XXXI of 1958) in June, 1982‑‑Order set aside by Service Tribunal‑‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑Held: Executive orders cannot be given retrospective operation 'which powers can only be enjoyed by Legislature‑‑Rule‑making power which is by way of statutory grant, does not possess such quality unless conferred by statute, which is of rare occurrence‑‑Provisions of S.18 of WAPDA Act does not grant such authority to WAPDA to alter or change Service Rules touching terms and conditions of employees with retrospective operation so as to rob them of vested rights already accrued in their favour.‑‑Civil services‑‑Interpretation of statutes.