Govt ends quota for deceased employee's relative
ISLAMABAD:
The government has officially terminated the facility that allowed a family member of a government employee who died in service to secure employment.
In line with a recent Supreme Court ruling, the Establishment Division has issued instructions to all ministries and divisions to implement the decision without delay.
However, an official memorandum confirms that government employees who die while in service will continue to receive other benefits under the PM's Assistance Package. The new directive will not apply to law enforcement personnel who are martyred in terrorist incidents.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
14 hours ago
- Business Recorder
SC highlights defects in Sindh Co-operative Societies Act
ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court highlighted defects in Sindh Co-operative Societies Act, 2020, and called for correction/ amendment by the Sindh provincial legislatures for appropriate rectification. The Sindh Co-operative Societies Act, 2020, which by virtue of Section 119 of the Act, repealed the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to cooperative societies in the Province of Sindh to facilitate the formation and working of co-operative societies for the promotion of thrift, self-help, and mutual aid among agriculturists and other persons with common economic needs, so as to bring about better living, better business, and better methods of production. The judgment of two-judge bench, comprising Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, which heard civil petition against the Sindh High Court (SHC) regarding immovable property dispute, noted that instead of providing right of appeal to the High Court in the Act, which is a substantive right, it is provided in the Rules. Furthermore, the nature/ categories of disputes required to be resolved or decided by the Special Court for Cooperatives are also provided in the Rules rather than being defined in the Act with a specific provision to deal with civil disputes, just as offences are properly described in the Act itself without any ambiguity. It stated; Some corrections in the nomenclature of the Act are also required in Section 104 of the Act, which articulates: '(1) No Court other than the Special Court for Cooperative Societies established under section 121 shall try offences under this Chapter and disputes referred to in section 78'. The judgment further noted; 'The Act ends at Section 119 and there is no Section 121 in the Act. While Section 78 is germane to transfer of property which cannot be sold, and the execution of an order sought to be executed under Sections 81 and 82.' The judgment said perhaps due to misprinting or inadvertence, instead of Sections 73 and 117, the wrong taxonomies of sections of the Act are printed, which is causing confusion and is open to correction/ amendment by the provincial legislatures/ government of Sindh for appropriate rectification. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Express Tribune
14 hours ago
- Express Tribune
'Cross-examination can't be denied'
The Supreme Court has ruled that denying the opportunity of cross-examination to a witness constitutes a violation of Article 10-A of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. A five-page judgment authored by Justice Salahuddin Panwar, while setting aside the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, noted that the cross-examination was the highest and most indispensable test known to the law for the discovery of truth. The top court said that the reliability of evidence can only be judged through cross-examination, which is essential to reveal the truth and test the credibility of allegations. This is especially important when the possibility cannot be ruled out in the inquiry that a witness may raise untrue and dishonest allegations due to some animosity against the accused, which cannot be accepted unless he undergoes the test of cross-examination, which indeed helps to expose the truth and veracity of allegations. The petitioner, who was serving as a superintendent of police (PSP-BS-18), was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. He was issued a charge sheet and a statement of allegations for committing acts of omission, thereby constituting inefficiency, misconduct and corruption in terms of Rule 3(a)(b) and (c) of the government servants (E&D) Rules, 1973. The proceedings against the petitioner were initiated pursuant to an order dated December 23,2015, passed by the Supreme Court, and the Sindh government forwarded the names of other PSP officers, including the petitioner, for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. However, during the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner was summoned, heard in person, and his statement/reply was recorded against the said charge sheet. The statements of 138 witnesses were recorded, but he was not allowed to cross-examine any of them. After completion of the inquiry, the report was submitted on 12.11.2018 to the authorised officer, who forwarded it to the Secretary (Establishment) with the recommendation to impose the major penalty of "Reduction to Lower Stage in Time Scale for Three Years" under Rule-4(b)(ii) of the government servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1973. The Federal Service Tribunal (FST) upheld the punishment. The petitioner later approached the Supreme Court. The order notes that the main objective of cross-examination is to rigorously scrutinise the witness's testimony, reveal any inconsistencies, uncover potential biases, and critically assess the reliability of the evidence presented.
Express Tribune
3 days ago
- Express Tribune
JCP to review tenure of CB
A crucial meeting of the Judicial Commission of Pakistan (JCP), chaired by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi, will be held on June 19 in the Supreme Court building. The meeting will discuss extending the tenure of constitutional benches. The matter was last addressed in the commission's session on December 21, 2024, where a majority approved a six-month extension for the nominated judges of the Supreme Court's constitutional benches. At present, 15 judges have been working for the constitutional benches. Among them, a committee led by Justice Aminuddin Khan and comprising Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Justice Ali Mazahar selects judges for the particular constitutional benches. Performance of CB The present CB led by Justice Aminuddin Khan has been able to issue only three reported judgement since it's creation through 26th constitutional amendment. The CB had issued first reported judgement in January. This two-page decision was related to the jurisdiction of CB itself. The order had held that regular benches could not hear matters related to the interpretation of law and constitution. Secondly, reported short order has been passed in military courts case. Likewise, another reported judgement was authored by Justice Jamal Khan Mandokhail. Lawyers are wondering as who will judge the performance of the constitutional bench. They are also raising question that why Justice Mandokhail is not being given independent CB. A lawyer says that the CB started by spending two months studiously avoiding the 26th Amendment case in favour of hearing cases of no importance which had already become infructuous. "It followed that by spending four months almost exclusively on the military courts case before passing a verdict which must surely have pleased the establishment. The only other order of note it passed in that period was to ensure that no regular bench of the Supreme Court could hear any case of importance. "Next, it took up the reserved seats review case in which most of the original judges were excluded and the few who were included seemed to have suddenly, and inexplicably, become of the opposite view from day one", says the lawyer. He said that when the idea of a CB elected by politicians was first floated; many said such a bench was fundamentally against the idea of judicial independence and predicted it would reduce the credibility of the SC to nothing. Nonetheless, judges in Pakistan have sometimes defied predictions. "Unfortunately, the CB's performance thus far has proved this is not one of those times." He also said that the stated rationale of the CB at the time of the 26th Amendment was to improve the constitutional jurisprudence of the SC. In its first six months, the number of detailed judgments it has issued can be counted on the fingers of one hand. And all of them have tended to take out jurisprudence backwards and closer to the desires of the establishment," he adds.
