PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Malik AMANAT RASUL vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Rr — 2025 PLC(CS) 262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2025 PLC(CS) 262 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2025
Reporter
PLC
Parties
Malik AMANAT RASUL vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Rr
Subject matter
Constitutional

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

Judgment text as reported

Malik AMANAT RASUL VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN Rr. 1(3), 5(1) & 5(2)(i)---Eligibility conditions for allotment of plots---Determination---Petitioner after his selection in Ministry of Population Welfare as Director claimed allotment of plot on the basis of his length of service rendered in POF Board Wah Cantt. after inclusion of period of probation and retaining the right of lien---Validity---Term "lien" has a statutory connotation and refers to a legal right of civil servants to hold a particular post, typically a higher one, to which they have been promoted or transferred, while still retaining a right on their original post, based on provisions provided for the same under the rules or regulations framed by the appropriate Government, thus, simply put, lien in service law is a right of a civil servant to return to his original position, based on the fulfilment of the conditions set out in the rules or regulations framed by the appropriate Government---Rules were promulgated on 31.05.2002 and R.1(3) of the Rules clearly speaks that the Rules shall come into force at once, thus, the same do not either expressly or impliedly, provide for any retrospective application and cannot operate to reverse or undo an action which took effect from the prior date of existence of the Rules---Petitioner claimed financial benefits of his previous service with POF and also claimed a residential plot on the basis thereof, however, his previous service rendered with the POF was allowed to be counted merely for pension purposes, but that was not solid ground for entitlement of plot under R.5 of the Rules as he was not the employee of the POF at the time of promulgation of the Rules---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English