West Pakistan Rules/Ordinances


West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules,

R. 2(5)—Expression
“misconduct”—interpretation—Violation of Government instructions not relatable
to service discipline—Does not constitute ‘misconduct’—Words, “instructions
issued by Government” used in r.2(5)(ii), West Pakistan Government Servants
(Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960 not to be read separately but with the
preceding words “breach of service discipline”—Expression “grave misconduct”
appearing in r. 1.8(a), West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963—
Interpretation something which must be in nature of an offence with guilty
intent—Mere negligence or carelessness—Does not constitute ‘grave misconduct’.

Md. Said Khan Vs. Govt. of West Pakistan (1969)21 PLD (Peshawar) 147.


West Pakistan Government Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service)
Rules, 1963


Provision for retirement on completing 55th year of age made by Art.
178(4)(c) can be enforced only prospectively and not retrospectively.

Orders of retirement of the respondents (who are employees under the
West Pakistan Provincial Government) from service were passed by the Provincial
Administration under the authority of rules framed under Article 178(2) of the
Constitution by the Governor of West Pakistan.

The orders were passed after the incumbents in question had passed the
stage of 25 years qualifying service or, in some cases, even after he had
passed his 55th year of age and before anyone of them had reached the
superannuation age of 60.

On the 23rd of October, 1960, clause (9) was added Lo Article 6 of the
Order. By sub-clause (a) of this clause it was enacted that the superannuation
age of a person would be the age on which he attains his sixtieth birthday. The
position earlier was that the superannuation age had been fixed at fifty-five.

Purporting to act under Article 178(2) of the1962 Constitution, the
Governor of West Pakistan made Rules, called the West Pakistan Government
Servants (Further Usefulness in Public Service) Rules, 1963.

On the basis of the Rules framed by the Governor, it was argued that the
Provincial Government servants were under the liability of having their cases
dealt with in the manner provided by the proviso to rule 4, even under clause
(9) of Article 6 of the Laws (Continuance in force) Order.

Held: We arc unable to accede to this argument
as correct. It is undoubted true that under the Order the Governor could have
framed rules under sub-clause (d) of clause (9) of Article 6, providing for a
power to retire officers even after they had passed the two stages of
twenty-five years qualifying service and the fifty-fifth year of age. This
amounted, however, merely to the possibility of a law being framed, under which
the respondents could have become liable to such action. No such liability,
could be said to have accrued unless the law had been properly framed and

Govt. of West Pakistan Vs. Karamatullah Khan Muslim (1968) 20 DLR (SC)


Rule 4, proviso—Proviso to rule 4 violative of Arts. 178(3) and 234 of the Constitution
of Pakistan, 1962.

Till the commencing day of the new Constitution, no law existed, under
which orders of retirement of the respondents could have been passed, after any
one of them had passed the twenty-five years qualifying stage of service or the
fifty-fifth year of age, as the case may be. The position clearly was that till
that day, the only liability of the respondents was one of being retired at
either of the two preliminary stages mentioned above or failing that to
continue in service fill the normal superannuation age of sixty.

The proviso to rule 4 must be held to be violative of the provisions of
clause (3) of Article 178 and Article 274 of the Constitution, which contain
solemn guarantees of continuity of the old terms and conditions, obtaining
prior to the enforcement of the Constitution, to the respondents.

Govt. of West Pakistan Vs. Karamatullah Khan Muslim (1968) 20 DLR (SC)


West Pakistan (Non-Gazetted) Civil Service Pay Revision Rules, 1959


R. 18—Service Pay Revision Rules, 1959 revised
the pay scales of all Govt. Servants (non- gazette) giving retrospective effect
from 14th October 1955.

—Respondents post not being included in the list, Govt. by a
notification included his post in the list revising his pay scale in pursuance
of the Pay Revision Rules, 1959 but denied to give the benefit of retrospective
effect of the revised scale to the respondent with effect from 14th October,

Held: Government cannot deny the benefit of
retrospective effect of the revised pay scale to the respondent.

West Pakistan Govt. Vs. Abdul Khaliq. (1970) 22 DLR (SC) 243.


West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance (XXXI of 1960)


Ss. 3 and 5—When detention is challenged as illegal
provision under Article 98 can be invoked. Court not to question the
sufficiency of the case which was the basis of the authority’s satisfaction,
but the Court can look into the grounds of detention to satisfy itself that on
the grounds which are the basis of detention the authority could be satisfied
as to the correctness of order of detention and the Court must satisfy itself
that authority has not exceeded its limit.

No reasons for detention have been made out in the present
case—Detentions held to be without Lawful authority.

Farid Ahmad Vs. Government of West Pakistan (1965) 17 DLR (WP) 81.


West Pakistan Union Councils and Town Committees (Election of Chairman)
Rules, 1965


Voter’s reference to the Presiding Officer to show where to mark the
ballot paper does not violate secrecy.

The voter’s reference to the Presiding Officer for assistance as to how
he should mark his paper clearly does not constitute violation of secrecy. His
appearance before the Controlling Officer and the evidence he gave does indeed
expose the fact that the disputed vote was cast by him, but this was for a
subsequent and collateral purpose, namely, the election petition, and does not,
in any way, affect the secrecy under which the vote was cast.

Muhammad Asghar Vs. Altaf Hussain (1967) 19 DLR (SC) 370.


West Pakistan Use Of Loud-Speakers (Prohibition) Ordinance (XXXI of


S. 2—The right to use parks for discussion or
communication of view on public matters, especially those relating to national
affairs, cannot be denied by the State to the citizens, though these rights are
subject to the exigencies of law and order and the maintenance of peace and

The use of loud-speakers is a necessary accompaniment of public speaking
and indispensable instrument of effective public speech. The denial of
permission to use a loud speaker means a denial of the right to communicate
one’s views and thoughts even to those who want to hear them.

The right of citizen to be heard and to communicate one’s views on
religious, political and other subjects is placed in the uncontrolled
discretion of the Deputy Commissioner which renders the power conferred
violative of the guarantee provided in the ninth fundamental right.

Khawaja Muhammad Safdor Vs. Province of West Pakistan (1965) .17 DLR (WP)1.