ASADULLAH KHAWAJA vs INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (ICP) Ss — 2025 PLC(CS) 902 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation: 2025 PLC(CS) 902 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court: Sindh High Court
Year: 2025
Reporter: PLC
Parties: ASADULLAH KHAWAJA vs INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (ICP) Ss
Subject matter: Civil
Provisions referred to: S. 42---C; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908); Pakistan Ordinance; ICP Ordinance

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

ASADULLAH KHAWAJA VS INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (ICP) Ss.12(1)(d) & 14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr.1 & 2---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S.42---Civil service---Retirement benefits---High Court appeal against order passed in suit for declaration and recovery---Retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) in Scale M-1---Doctrine of promissory estoppel, applicability of---Dispute regarding retirement benefits on the basis of salary drawn on the cutoff date---Effect of revision of fixation of salary in scale M-1 by the Federal Government and Investment Corporation of Pakistan (ICP) on the retirement benefits of the appellant---Scope---appointment of appellant as Managing Director was made by the Government of Pakistan and the applicable law at the time of appointment was Investment Corporation of Pakistan Ordinance, 1966 (ICP Ordinance, 1966)---Since the appointment was made in pursuance of ICP Ordinance, 1966, therefore, the governing law, as of now, could only have prospective effect, unless the specific law in this regard was expressed---Since the appointment terms and conditions of the appellant were provided by the Federal Government, his terms and conditions could only be determined by the Federal Government---appointment under the Banks (Nationalization) act, 1974 [as amended by the Banks (Nationalization) (amendment) act, 1997] is to apply only on new appointments, made in pursuance of and in accordance with the criteria laid down in the amendment act, 1997---appellant on his own acceptance was also stopped from seeking such privileges and the doctrine of promissory estoppel would also come in his way---appellant failed to make out a case, therefore, appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC

2025 PLC(CS) 1593 SUPREME-COURTPROVINCE OF SINDH VS AMANULLAH 'Mutatis mutandis'---Connotation---Expression mutatis mutandis generally applies for making certain adjustmen…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION R. 11---Identical cases, entertaining of---Scope ---Petitioner, while relying on R. 11 o…
2025 PLC(CS) 606 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRGHAZANFAR ALI VS VICE-CHANCELLOR, UNIVERSITY OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR Principle---adequate alternate remedy----Under common law, remedy of…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Conduct of the party invoking writ jurisdiction of High Court---Scope and effect ---Peti…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION administration of justice---Points ascertained at time of admission of case---Subsequent…
2025 PLC(CS) 1663 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRSHEHROZE RAHEEM MUGHAL VS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Doctrine of laches---Indolence of aggrieved party---Effect---Petitioner filed the writ p…

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