(Appellate jurisdiction)
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
Civil PetitionS No.4963 & 5021 of 2018
(Against the judgments of the islainabad igh Court both
H 
dated 04.102018 passed in Wt PetifiO No.1015/20i8  &
2132/2018)
Chief Executive Officer, PeshawarElectric
and power Company (PEPCO)
(in CP No.4963/201
WAPDA thr. its Chairman & others
(in CPNo.502h/20B
,pjtioner(S)
Sajeeda Begum & others
(in CP No4963/20
Gui Farah Jaan & others
(in CP No.5021/20
For PESCOV
For WAPDA:/Pt
For the Respondents:
Date ofHearing:
...gespondeflt)
Mr. ASadJ1A 
-. Cr.
(via video link from Peshawar)
Mir Adam Khan, AOR/Al.i.-fr
Syed Moam All 
ASCLCP.cO2t /}
Mr. Mehr Khan Malik, AOR/
Ms. Farhafla Naz MarWat, ASC
(via video link from peshawarl
17 .05 .2022
JUDGMENT
Through the instant
Petitions, the Petitioners have 
challenged two judgments of
the Islamabad High Court both dated 04.10.20 18 (hereinafter
referred to as the"Impugned Judgments"). rough the
Impugned Judgements, the Peshawar Electric and Power
Company (hereinafter referred as 'pESCO" as well as the
Water and power Development Authority (hereinafter referred
'F -
as "WAPDA") were directed to extend the Prime Minister's
Assistance Package of 2014 to the private Respondents in
their respective Civil Petitions (CPLA No.4963 of 2018 having
been filed by PESCO and CPLA No.5021 of 2018 filed by
WAPDA).
2. The brief facts leading to both these petitions are
that two writ petitions were filed by Mst. Sajeeda Begum and
Mst. Gui Farah Jaan (hereinafter referred to as the
"Respondents") against PESCO and WAPDA respectively
before the Islamabad High Court. Both of them prayed for
directions to PESCO and WAPDA respectively to compensate
them in accordance with the 2014 Prime Minister's
Assistance Package, Mst. Sajeeda Begum contended that she
was the widow of the deceased Ghani-ur-Rehman who, while
employed as a"Lineman-2" with PESCO, died in-service on
20.07.2013.Mst. Gui Farah Jaan, on the other hand, is the
widow of the deceased Rasheed Ahmed, who was employed as
a Chowkidar (BPS-2) with WAPDA. Rasheed Ahmed died on
24.06.2016. Instead of the Prime Minister's Assistance
Package, Mst. Gui Farah Jaan received WAPDA's own
Assistance Package as recompense. These writ petitions were
allowed by the Islamabad High Court vide the impugned
judgements and both PESCO and WAPDA were directed to
compensate the Respondents in accordance with the 2014
Prime Minister's Assistance Package in terms of office
memorandum dated 20.10.2014. The impugned judgements
have now been challenged before us by PESCO and WAPDA.
- (WI' PflTTPS O.-l%3 A 21 (If
3.
The Learned Counsel for PESCO contends that
PESCO is a public limited company incorporated under the
Companies Ordinance, 1984. While PESCO may be a
government-owned company, its employees cannot be treated
as government employees in the absence of any statutory law
or rules expressly classifying PESCOs employees as
government employees. Without any such statutory backing,
the employees of PESCO could not have been considered as
government employees. As a result, the Respondents were
barred from approaching the Islamabad High Court in its
constitutional jurisdiction for the enforcement of the 2014
Package. It is argued that, even otherwise, Respondent
Sajeeda Begum was not eligible to be granted the benefit of
the said package because her husband died before the 2014
Prime Minister's Assistance Package was granted. Finally, the
Learned Counsel contends that PESCO did not fall within the
territorial jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court having no
office or presence in territories falling within the jurisdiction
of the Islamabad High Court. He maintains that the High
Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide
the matter.
4.
The Learned Counsel for the WAPDA has raised
similar as well as other grounds. The Learned ASC contends
that WAPDA's case had been clubbed with the cases of other
government departments by the High Court. While other
respondents before the High Court may have been
government departments, WAPDA is a body corporate which
is related by its own Act and Rules i.e. the Pakistan Water
And Power Development Authority Act of 1958.He contends
that in the normal course of business, WAPDA exercises
independent autho rity 
and WAPDA'S Competent Authority
had already devised its own Assistance package for the
benefit of its employees. He contends that the Respondent,
Gui Farah Jaan had submitted 
an application for grant of
WAPDA'S assistance package after the death of her husband.
WAPDA had processed her application and had already
compensated her according to WAPDA'S assistance package.
Therefore, she could not have approached the High Court
with a prayer seeking a direction for WAPDA to grant her an
additional package to pay additional compensation according
to the prime Minister's Assistance Package which in any event
was neither applicable to nor had been adopted by WAPDA.
5. 
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the
other hand, has defended the impugned judgements of the
Islamabad High Court. She contends that beneficial
legislation and! or policies apply retrospectivelyand that the
High Court had rightly extended the benefit of the 2014
Assistance Package to the Respondents. She has relied on two
urt passed in
judgements of this Co 
g12IQ! 
(2015 SCMR 1418 and pctOrSOQLI
yffj?s.Saaduh1 
(1996 SCMR 350).
Kha
IT
5
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the Parties
at length and gone through the case record with their
assistance.
7. 
We have noticed that the basic 
question of law on
which the structure of both the Learned 
Counsel for PESCo
and WAPDA'S arguments rests on is whether PESCo and
WAPDA are authorities against which the Islamabad High
Court could exercise Jurisdiction under Article 199 of the
Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 Before we proceed to discuss
the merits of the case, we consider it 
appropriate to first
examine the relevant constitutional articles d laws that
re
gulate the High Court's jurisdiction,the laws that 
re
late
PESCo and the laws that regulate WAPDA
8. 
Article 99(1) of the Constitutionof
lays down the Jurisdiction of the High Courts of P&cj 
It is
reproduced below for reference:
Article 199: Jurisdiction of the Nigh Court
I. Subject to the Const üon a High Court m if it
ay,
is satisfied that no other adequate rmedy is
Provided by law-
e
a. on the application of any aggrieved party Make an
order-
I. directing a person
e PCfloing, within the terntoal
urlsdlcbon of th Court, thnctjons in con0
with the airs of the Federation, a Province or a
local authoi-ity to refrain from doing 
anything he is
not permitted by law to do, or to do anything he is
required by law to do; or
b. on the application of any person, make an order
territorial
1. directing that a person 11 Custody within
Jurisdiction of the C 
the
ourt be brought before
being held
so that the Court may satjs itself that he is not
an unlawfulin Custody without lawful
manner; or 
authority or in
T
FcTt fllfllOM ftftSJ A Oh1 DY 2flfl 
6
ii. requiring a person within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Court holding or purporting to
hold a public office to show under what authority of
law he claims to hold that office; or
c. on the application of any aggrieved person, make
an order giving such directions to any person or
authority, including any Government exercisin g any
power or performing any function in, or in relation
to, any territory within the jurisdiction of that Court
as may be appropriate for the enforcement of any of
the Fundamental Rights conferred by Chapter 1 of
Part II. (Underlining is ours)
As was correctly pointed out by the ASC for PESCO, PESCO is
a body corporate that had been incorporated under the
Companies Ordinance of 1984. Therefore, for the purposes of
this instant petition, Section 7(1) of the Companies
Ordinance, 1984 is relevant. It is reproduced below for
reference:-
7. Jurisdiction of the Court
(1) The Court having jurisdiction under this
Ordinance shall be the High Court having
jurisdiction in the place at which the registered
office of the company is situate:
Provided that the Federal Government may, by
notification in the official Gazette and subject to such
restrictions and conditions as it thinks fit, empower
any civil Court to exercise all or any of the
jurisdiction by this Ordinance conferred upon the
Court, and in that case such Court shall, as regards
the jurisdiction so conferred, be the Court in respect
of companies having their registered office within the
territorial jurisdiction of such Court. (Underlining
and highlighting is ours)
WAPDA, as was contended by the Learned ASC for WAPDA, is
governed and regulated by the Pakistan Water And Power
Development Authority Act of 1958 (hereinafter referred to as
the "WAPDA Act"). The relevant sections of the WAPDA Act
need to be examined before we can come to the merits of the
case. Section 1 of the WAPDA Act is reproduced below for
reference:-
Section 1. Short title and extent
flTh PETflQS MO& II1I OF I! 
7
(1)This Act may be called the [Pakistan Water and
Power Development Authority Act, 19581;
(2) It extends to the whole of [Pakistan] except the
[Districts] of Karachi.]
Section 3 of the WAPDA Act concerns the constitution of the
WAPDA. It is reproduced below for reference:-
Section 3. Constitution of the Authority
(1) There shall be established an Authority to be
known as the [Pakistan Water and Power
Development Authority] for carrying out the purposes
of this Act.
(2) The Authority shall be a body corporate, shall
be entitled to acquire, hold and dispose of] property,
shall have perpetual succession and a common seal
and shall by the said name sue and be sued.
(Underlining and highlighting is ours)
Section 17 of the WAPDA Act deals with the employees of
WAPDA and their employment. The relevant portions of
Section 17 are reproduced below for reference:-
17. Employment of officers and servants
(1) The Authority may from time to time employ such
officers and servants, or appoint such experts or
consultants, as it may consider necessary for the
performance of its functions, on such terms and
conditions as it may deem fit:
[Provided that all persons serving in connection with
the affairs of [a Province] in the Electricity and
Irrigation Department shall be liable to serve under
the Authority, if required to do so by the Provincial
Government] on such terms and conditions as
the [Provincial Government] may, in consultation
with the Authority, determine but shall not be
entitled to any deputation allowance:
Provided further that the [Provincial Government]
may, in relation to any such person as aforesaid,
delegate such administrative, disciplinary and
financial powers to the Authority as the [Provincial
Government] may deem fit:
Provided also that the terms and conditions of
service of any such person as aforesaid shall not be
varied by the Authority to his disadvantage.]
[(1-A)
[(1-B) Service under the Authority is hereby
declared to be service of Pakistan and even' person
holding a post under the Authority, not being a
O S3 
IW rm 
8
person who is on deputation to the Authority from
any Province, shall be deemed to be a civil servant
for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973
(LXX of 1973).]
[(1-C)
[(l -D)
(2)
Section 29 of the WAPDA Act deals with the Regulations of
WAPDA. It is reproduced below for reference:-
29. Regulations
For the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions
of this Act, the Authority may, with the approval of
the Government, frame such Regulations as it may
consider necessary or expedient.
9. Having gone over the relevant laws, we will now go
over the Prime Minister's Assistance Package. According to
the record, the 2006 Prime Minister's Package, passed by the
Cabinet Office vide office memorandum dated 13.06.2006,
was a package meant to compensate the families of those
government employees [underlining is ours] who died during
their employment as government employees. The said
assistance package took effect from 01.07.2005 and there was
a bifurcation between the beneficiaries of the Assistance
Package. One class of beneficiaries were those whose
relative(s) died in-service and the other class were those
whose relative(s) died in security-related deaths. Going over
the 2006 memorandum, we have noted that the 2006
Assistance Package was meant expressly and exclusively for
government employees only. A perusal of the 2014 Assistance
Package office memorandum (dated 20.10.20 14) shows that
the intent of the memorandum is similar to its 2006
I CTVt PE1T1WS l44'3 ni grin',
counterpart inasmuch as it pertains to the beneficiaries of
such a package. The 2014 package as well as the 2006
packages were both meant for families of Government
employees who died in-service or security-related deaths.
10.
Having gone over all the relevant laws and policies
on record, we will now go over the merits of each petition.
11.
As far as the merits of PESCO's petition are
concerned, PESCO is regulated by the Companies Ordinance
of 1984 and therefore, the relevant High Court for the
purposes of issuance of any directions under Article 199 of
the Constitution is the High Court where the main office of
PESCO is situated. PESCO's headquarters are situated in
Peshawar, KPK and none of its activities are undertaken
within the territorial jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court.
It has no place of business, branch office or presence in any
of the territories that fall within the jurisdiction of the
Islamabad High Court. Therefore, in the absence of anything
to the contrary, reading Article 199 of the Constitution with
Section 7 of the Companies Ordinance of 1984, brings us to
the un-escapable conclusion that the relevant High Court for
the purposes of issuing any directions (if at all any High
Court could assume jurisdiction) would have been the
Peshawar High Court and not the Islamabad High Court.
12.
The next question requiring determination is
whether the employees of PESCO are government employees
for the purposes of 2014 PM's Assistance Package. The
rfllflOiS M) SO & IPll Of ml! 
10
Learned Counsel for the Respondents could not point out any
law or rule that would lead us to the conclusion that despite
being incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984,
PESCO's employees were governed by any law making them
government servants. They are employees of a statutory
corporation and the terms and conditions of the service of
their employees are determined by their own rules and
regulations. We therefore conclude that the Islamabad High
Court could not have directed PESCO to release funds in
terms of the 2014 Prime Minister's Assistance Package in
light of the fact that PESCO's employees were not government
employees and that PESCO did not fail within the territorial
jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court for the purposes of
Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.
13. As far as the merits of WAPDA's case are
concerned, the Learned ASC for WAPDA has not denied that
WAPDA was amenable to the jurisdiction of the Islamabad
High Court. Instead, he has argued that the Learned High
Court could not have directed WAPDA to release the funds in
the presence of WAPDA's own assistance package, which the
Respondent GuI Farah Jaan had already availed. Adverting to
the WAPDA Act, we have noticed that WAPDA, for the
purposes of conducting its affairs, acts as a body corporate.
Adverting to a 3-member bench's order dated 13.09.20 12
passed in Muhammad Y usuf Khan us. WAPDA thr. its
Chairman etc., it was held by this Court that it would be
appropriate for WAPDA itself to decide whether granting or
11
declining such financial relief to its employees would be in its
interests or not. We have gone over WAPDA's office
memorandums annexed by the Learned Counsel for WAPDA
and note that WAPDA had, of its own volition, and according
to its own rules which have a different genesis, granted its
employees an assistance package similar in spirit to the Prime
Minister's Assistance package. The said package had been
ranted by WAPDA vide its office memorandum dated
05.07.2007 and has periodically been updated by WAPDA in
order to cater to changing conditions and circumstances.
WAPDA had internally assessed the compensation the
Respondent Gui Farah Jaari was entitled to and had
compensated her accordingly. This assessment was never
challenged by GuI Farah Jaan before WAPDA or any
competent forum. The matter had, for all intents and
purposes, attained finality. Even if Respondent Gui Farah
Jaan were to challenge the matter, the relevant forum would
have been the relevant Service Tribunal since the Assistance
Package would have formed part of the terms and conditions
of service. Therefore, adjudication of the matter by the High
Court would have been subject to the constitutional bar
under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Even
otherwise, while WAPDA may have been amenable to the
jurisdiction of the Learned High Court, the Learned High
Court in passing the impugned judgement has not
appreciated the fact that WAPDA is an independent Authority,
with its own Rules, and that while the Federal Government
may appoint WAPDA's Chairman and Members, WAPDA has
'civil Ptnh1ONsNO.49s3 
j OF2S1! 
12
the authority to frame independent Regulations under Section
29 of the WAPDA Act (with approval from the Federal
Government). WAPDA had granted its employees its own
Assistance Package, keeping into consideration its own
financial considerations and interests. This Assistance
package had been approved by Competent Authority in
WAPDA and then passed on the Federal Government which
accorded its approval before the funds were disbursed.
Therefore, in principle, it would be unconscionable for an
employee of any department to benefit from two Assistance
Packages if, after availing a department's indigenous
Assistance Package(which had already been sanctioned and
approved by the Competent Authority and the Federal
Government), they subsequently sought a direction for grant
of another (better)Federal Assistance Package. Further, as
noted above, employees of WAPDA are not government
servants and the 2014 Assistance Package was announced for
the benefit of government servants only. There was no bar on
the board of WAPDA against adopting the package of 2014.
But the fact remains that it was not adopted and the High
Court had no legal basis to foist the said package on WAPDA.
For these reasons, we find that whilst WAPDA was amenable
to the High Court's jurisdiction, the Learned High Court failed
to appreciate this aspect of the case and could not have
imposed another Assistance Package on WAPDA without
allowing WAPDA to deliberate on it both financially and
logistically.
--
• CTVa. t1TT1fl\ ft&41 A p2I p 2flI 
13
14.
We have gone over the cases relied on by the
Learned Counsel for the Respondents in support of her
contentions and find that law settled in the said judgements
is not applicable to the cases of the Respondents and is of no
help to them. The cases relied on were concerning matters
pertaining to government departments and their employees as
opposed to dealing with either PESCOs or WAPDAS
employees. The same are therefore distinguishable on law as
well as facts. The question of whether or not PESCO's or
WAPDA's employees were government servants was not
examined by the High Court. We therefore find that the
Impugned Judgement of the High Court proceeded on
erroneous grounds and the reasoning is not in consonance
with the relevant provisions of law and principles settled by
this Court. Hence, the said Judgements are unsustainable.
15.
In light of our aforenoted reasons, we convert both
these petitions into appeals and allow the same. Both
Impugned Judgements dated04.10.2018 passed by the
Islamabad High Court which are the suict matter of tpese
Petitions are accordingly set aside.  
ISLAMABAD. THE
17th of May, 2022
Kh Sahihzada, LC1926/*
Nel Approved for Reping*