FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION vs EDNAN SYED Ss — 2022 PLD 273 ISLAMABAD

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION VS EDNAN SYED Ss. 2(o), 3 & Preamble---President's (Supreme Court Judges Leave, Pension and Privileges) Order (II of 1997)---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3---Intra Court Appeal---Policy matter---Judicial review---Judges of Supreme Court and High Court---Entitlement of plot---Specified group---Question was with regard to Revised Policy with regard to allotment of plots to Judges of Supreme Court and High Court in Federal Government Employees Housing Schemes---Validity---Privileges and entitlements of judges of Supreme Court and High Courts were described in relevant Presidential Order---Like a civil servant or other Federal Government employee, a judge of Supreme Court or High Court had no right nor entitlement to a plot costing less than its market value---Judge of Supreme Court or High Court was not entitled under Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020, to become beneficiary in a scheme unless such Constitutional bodies were declared and notified as one of the 'specified groups' by Executive Board or Federal Government---Participation of a Court or its judges in any scheme of FGEH Authority or accepting its benefits were contrary to public interest and not in conformity with impartiality and independence of judiciary as an institution---Inclusion of Supreme Court and High Courts and its judges by FGEH Authority, was inappropriate and not in conformity with the Constitutional status of exalted courts---Such was not permissible under the Constitution for a judge or a court to be seen as usurping fundamental rights of people at large and become complacent to a policy formulated in breach of public interest---FGEH Authority nor Federal Government was vested with power or jurisdiction under FGEHA Act, 2020 or Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, to launch a scheme or frame policy contrary to public interest and violative of Constitutionally guaranteed rights of people at large---Scheme launched by FGEH Authority, pursuant to a policy framed by Federal Government, could withstand Constitutional scrutiny if it was to benefit people at large rather than benefiting and enriching a few powerful classes---Assets of State acquired through inherent intrusive power of eminent domain could only be used for benefit of people at large and in public interest---Revised Policy and scheme pursuant thereto, intended to be launched were in derogation of public interest and violative of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of people at large---Division Bench of High Court declared revised policy in question as illegal, unconstitutional, void and without jurisdiction and declined to interfere in order passed by Judge in Chambers of High Court as revised policy was contrary to public interest, unconstitutional and violative of rights of public at large---Intra Court Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES HOUSING FOUNDATION vs EDNAN SYED Ss — 2022 PLD 273 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 PLD