Withdrawal

2024 PLC(CS) 1134 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Regln. 46(10), Chapter IVConstitution of Pakistan, Arts. 25 & 199Constitutional petitionDiscriminationIntelligible differentia, principle ofApplicabilityOrderly AllowanceWithdrawal

Petitioners were retired employees of respondent Authority and were aggrieved of withdrawal of Orderly Allowance to them which was available to other officials in similar situation

Validity

Categorization of both Executive Groups was at par in various allowances and were bracketed in the same Pay Group

Despite splitting PG-10 in EG-07 and EG-08, most of the allowances were identical and equal

Any discrimination in payment of Orderly Allowance after retirement amongst both the Executive Groups was not fair and justified; rather amounted to discrimination for no plausible reason whatsoever by non-inclusion of Orderly Allowance in their monthly pensionary benefits

Principle of equality before the law was applied in matters of pay and pension

Legislative act to nullify a judgment, without taking away its basis, was an impermissible exercise

High Court in another case had earlier directed respondent / Authority for inclusion of Orderly Allowance in pensionable emoluments of petitioners, under law

Respondent / Authority without taking away basis of the order omitted Regln. 46(10) of Civil Aviation Authority Employees Pay and Pension Regulations, 2014, which exercise amounted to nullifying the effect of earlier order, which was not permissible under the law

High Court placed petitioners at par with EG-08 retired officers and allowed Orderly Allowance to them from the date when they were receiving the allowance, without discrimination

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2019 CLD 1240 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 33AppealWithdrawalAppellant, on the date of hearing, neither appeared nor any request for adjournment was recieved

Appellant, later on, informed the Registry on phone call that he was not interested to pursue the appeal and requested to allow its withdrawal

Appellant had reiterated his request via email and letter

Appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.

2016 PLD 92 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(viii), 16, 17, 52, 54(a) & 63Election petitionWithdrawal

Retirement from election etc.

2016 PLC(CS) 491 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 16Special allowance for employeesWithdrawalJurisdiction of Board of TrusteesFederal Government, decision of

Petitioners were employees of Pakistan Science Foundation and their grievance was that Federal Government could not direct the Foundation to withdraw special allowance, which was awarded by Board of Trustees in the light of earlier decision of Federal Government

Validity

Letter issued by Federal Government was not binding on the Foundation or Board of Trustees and the same could be treated as an information or opinion to be considered by the latter for taking a decision or reviewing its earlier decision

Board of Trustees had yet to consider letter in question and to take decision independently as mandated under S.16 of Pakistan Science Foundation Act, 1973

Board had to determine whether special allowance granted by Federal Government related to corresponding class of employees of Federal Government in the context of granting the same allowance in case of employees of Foundation under S.16(2) of Pakistan Science Foundation Act, 1973

Board of Trustees could reconsider its decision taken in earlier meeting and was vested with power and jurisdiction to decide all matters under S.16 of Pakistan Science Foundation Act, 1973, independently having regard to all relevant considerations and pursuant to the purpose and object of statute

High Court observed that while considering letter issued by Federal Government, Board of Trustees would not be dictated by its contents but would treat it as an opinion or information and after considering the same would take a decision independently in a manner that was in consonance with legislative intent as envisaged under S.16 of Pakistan Science Foundation Act, 1973

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2013 PLC(CS) 760 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Chapter III, R.5Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionRetirement applicationWithdrawalPrinciples

Grievance of petitioner was that authorities did not let him withdraw application filed by him for pre-mature retirement

Validity

Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) employee, under Rule 5 of Chapter III of Water and Power Development Authority Pension Rules, 1977, could withdraw his application for premature retirement or modify date of retirement, before its acceptance

In the present case, not only the request of petitioner was accepted but the same had been acted upon and he had proceeded on Leave Preparatory to Retirement

High Court declined to interfere in the decision taken by authorities

Petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2012 YLR 1794 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

O. XXIII, Rr.1 & 2Withdrawal of suitScope

Plaintiff under O.XXIII, R.1, C.P.C., could at any time withdraw from the suit without prior permission of the court, but if he wanted to file a fresh suit, he had to make an application under R.2 of O.XXIII, C.P.C. for withdrawal of the same on the ground of some formal defect; or any other error

Purpose of R.2 of O.XXIII, C.P.C. was to prevent the plaintiff from filing fresh suit after having failed to conduct the first one with care and diligence

Plaintiff had a right to withdraw a suit whenever he desired, but he could not file fresh suit on the same subject, without permission of the court.

2010 SCMR 1425 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

R.3.5, Note-IESTACODE, 2003 Edition (Punjab), page 690Leave preparatory to retirementWithdrawalRespondent was employee of bank, who applied for voluntary retirement and had availed leave preparatory to retirement

After availing almost full period of leave preparatory to retirement, employee withdrew his option of retirement-Bank did not allow the employee to withdraw his option of retirement but High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction directed the bank to let the employee withdraw his option of retirement

Validity

Employee availed leave preparatory to retirement for almost 365 days in view of his acceptance of retirement by bank vide order dated 16-6-2006 coupled with the fact that employee had submitted application for withdrawal of his voluntary retirement just five days before his actual retirement on 30-6-2007

Employee had taken benefit of order dated 16-6-2006 and had mentioned his intended date of retirement as 30-6-2007

On 19-5-2008, competent authority dismissed his application for withdrawal of his resignation with cogent reasons in terms of law on the subject

Employee had failed to point out any illegality in the order passed by bank

High Court accepted Constitutional petition filed by employee, without adverting to relevant rules on the subject

Judgment passed by High Court was set aside by Supreme Court while the order dated 19-5-2008, passed by authorities was upheld

Appeal was allowed.

1981 SCMR 433 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 21.2-Appeal-Withdrawal-Interim relief-Appeal allowed to be withdrawn for being presented before appropriate forum (Service Tribunal)-Pending decision by Service Tribunal, interim relief (maintenance of present status and emoluments) granted but appropriate time limit fixed for presentation of appeal.-[Appeal (civil)].

1968 SCMR 43 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Petition for special leave to appeal - Withdrawal - Petition dismissed as withdrawn-Supreme Court Rules 1956, O. XIII, r. II.