IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
MR. JUSTICE YAHYA AFRIDI 
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.405/2020 
(Against judgment dated 09.12.2019 
passed 
by 
Lahore 
High 
Court 
(Rawalpindi Bench) in Writ Petition 
No.275/2018) 
 
National 
Saving 
Central 
Directorate, 
Islamabad through its DG & another 
 
 
 
… 
Petitioner(s) 
Versus 
 
Muhammad Farooq Raja 
 
 
 
… 
Respondent(s) 
For the Petitioner(s)  
: 
Molvi Ijaz ul Haq, DAG 
Mr. Saghir Ahsan Farooqi, Joint Director 
(CDNS) 
Mr. Fareed Nasir, Law Officer, National 
Savings 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s) 
: 
Mr. Zafar Mehmood Mughal, ASC 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
02.11.2020 
 
 
…. 
 
 
ORDER 
  
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, J: - Civil petition seeking leave 
to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of 
Pakistan, 1973 against the judgment dated 09.12.2019 passed by Lahore 
High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in Constitutional Petition No.275/2018. 
2. 
 
Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is born 
national of Pakistan who migrated to Denmark and as such at present he 
is permanent resident of Denmark while enjoying status of dual nationality. 
National Saving Centre Rawalpindi introduced a profit generating scheme 
under the title of “Bahbood Saving Certificate Scheme” (here-in-after 
referred to as) the“Scheme”. Though it was a profit scheme, but with 
special emphasis for senior citizens attaining the age of 60 years or above 
CP No.405/2020 
National Savings Central Directorate Islamabad Vs, Muhammad Farooq Raja  
2 
 
or widows unless, attains the status otherwise after re-marriage. The 
respondent deeming himself an eligible person to avail the benefits of said 
scheme invested rupees three millions in aforesaid scheme without any 
reservation at the part of the petitioner authority. The respondent 
continued to enjoy the benefit accrued to him in lieu of the purchase of 
scheme. As a consequent, he withdrew his monthly profit when it was 
intimated by the petitioner authority that the respondent was not eligible 
person to avail the benefits of said scheme on the basis of dual nationality. 
As a consequence, he was duly apprised by the petitioner authority to 
submit an application for irregular investment against the profit he already 
availed. It was further informed that the petitioner authority has transferred 
the amount of the respondent in regular profit scheme even without 
seeking any consent from him. The said avenue shown by the authority 
was agitated by the respondent with the petitioner authority; however, 
respondent was declined redressal of his grievance by the petitioner. The 
respondent being aggrieved readily approached “Wafaqi Mohtasib” with a 
complaint which was duly entertained and after due process it was 
acceded to in favour of the respondent.  The direction issued by “Wafaqi 
Mohtasib” in favour of respondent proved futile exercise. Ultimately 
respondent had no other option, except to file constitutional petition before 
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The said constitutional petition was 
entertained and decided by learned Single Bench of High Court vide order 
dated 09.12.2019. The gist of the said order is that the respondent is 
declared to be an eligible person to avail benefit of the “Scheme”. Being 
aggrieved by the order of learned Single Bench, the petitioner filed the 
instant petition before this Court. 
3. 
 
At the very outset, it has been argued by the learned Deputy 
Attorney General that the scheme issued by National Saving Centre was 
CP No.405/2020 
National Savings Central Directorate Islamabad Vs, Muhammad Farooq Raja  
3 
 
exclusively designed for a particular section of society. Contends that 
according to rule 5 of “Bahbood Saving Certificate Rules, 2003, twofold 
criteria was laid down which includes:- 
 
(i) 
Senior citizen aged 60 years or above. 
 
(ii) 
Widow if (she has not changed her status after re-marriage) 
 Contends that the sole purpose was to provide an incentive to those 
persons falling in these categories. Further contents that respondent never 
qualified to purchase the bonds and benefit accrued in consequence of 
the same as the respondent was disentitled due to his dual nationality. 
Finally argued that impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law 
as the question of dual nationality was not discussed by the learned Single 
Bench. He sought leave against the order. 
4. 
 
On the other hand, the contentions raised by the learned 
Deputy Attorney General are vehemently controverted by the learned 
counsel for the respondent. The crux of the arguments advanced by the 
learned counsel for the respondent is that primarily it was the duty of the 
petitioner to scrutinize all legal requirements prior to issuance of bonds 
enabling him to avail the benefits of the said scheme. Contends that at 
belated stage, the respondent cannot be deprived of the advantages of 
the said scheme which is hit by doctrine of promissory estoppel in all 
fairness and equity and as such any action at a belated stage by the 
petitioner is contrary to the dictates of justice. 
5. 
 
We have heard the learned Deputy Attorney General as well 
as learned counsel for respondent and gone through the record. 
 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the respondent being a 
national by birth is also holding nationality of Denmark, as a consequent 
he is enjoying status of dual nationality. National Saving Centre, 
Rawalpindi introduced profit generating scheme with high rate but it was 
CP No.405/2020 
National Savings Central Directorate Islamabad Vs, Muhammad Farooq Raja  
4 
 
solely designed to provide a special relief to senior citizens and widows. 
The criterion laid down by the petitioner authority is clearly mentioned in 
rule 5 of “Bahbood Saving Certificate Rules 2003” duly framed by the 
Federal Government. Rule 5 is reproduced as under:- 
 
 
“5. A certificate may be purchased by a single widow only.” 
Rule 5 was substituted vide notification vide notification No. F.12(1)DM-
11/2003-243 dated 20th January, 2004 which is reproduced as under:- 
“5. A certificate may be purchased by any of the following 
namely:- 
(a) A citizen of Pakistan aged sixty years or above: and 
(b) A single widow so long as she does not re-marry.” 
It was further substituted vide notification No. 25(1)GS-1/2005-1273 dated 
23rd June, 2008 which reproduced as under:- 
 
 
“A certificate may be purchased by any of the following 
citizens of Pakistan namely:- 
(a) a senior citizen aged sixty years or above. 
(b) a single widow so long as she does not re-marry and 
(c) two eligible persons as in clause (a) and (b) in their joint 
names:- 
(i) payable to the holders jointly or payable to either with the 
written consent of the other (joint class-A); and 
(ii) payable to either (Joint class-B)”. 
It was further substituted vide notification No.25(1)GS-I/2020-1350 dated 
1st August, 2011 and the words “Citizens of Pakistan” was inserted in 
clause (a). However, rule 8 deals with any profit or payment which have 
been made in contravention of these rules. Rule 8 is reproduced as 
under:- 
“8. Any profit or payment which may have been made in 
contravention of these rules or by mistake shall be refunded 
to the Government on demand and in the event of failure to 
refund, may (in addition to other remedies for the recovery 
thereof by the Government) be deducted from any money 
payable by the Government to the person who received the 
profit or payment or from her estate, or be recovered as 
arrears of land revenue.” 
Rule 8 was substituted vide notification No. F.25(1)GS-I/2010-1350 dated 
1st August, 2011 which is reproduced as under:- 
CP No.405/2020 
National Savings Central Directorate Islamabad Vs, Muhammad Farooq Raja  
5 
 
“8. Any profit or principle payment which may have been 
made in contravention of these rules or by mistake shall be 
refunded to the Government in lump-sum and in the event of 
failure to refund the amount, shall be deducted from any 
money payable by the Government to the person who 
received the profit or principal payment. In case no money is 
payable by the Government to the person(s), (in addition to 
other remedies for the recovery thereof by the Government), 
the recovery shall be got effected from his or her or their 
estate, or be recovered as arrears of land revenue.” 
The respondent under the impression that he is eligible to purchase bonds 
duly issued by the petitioner under the scheme applied for the same, in 
response to the acceptance shown by the petitioner, he invested an 
amount of rupees three millions in the said scheme as a bonafide 
claimant. The incentive arising out of the said investment was extended in 
favour of the respondent in accordance with the rules framed under 
“Bahbood Saving Certificates Rules 2003”. During smooth continuation of 
said scheme in favour of the respondent, on one fine morning, petitioner 
intimated respondent that now he cannot claim the privileges of scheme 
as during scrutiny of the record, it has transpired that according to rule 5 of 
“Bahbood Saving Certificate Rules 2003, he was ineligible to avail said 
scheme. He was further informed that authority of his own has converted 
the amount of three millions affixed under the scheme into regular 
investment even without the consent of the respondent. The respondent 
was further intimated to deposit the amount incurred out of the profit 
scheme till it was scrutinized that respondent was not competent to 
purchase the same because of dual nationality. The act of the petitioner 
was agitated by the respondent before the petitioner authority but it proved 
without any success. The respondent made a representation to “Wafaqi 
Mohatasib” for the redressal of his grievance. As a consequent, a direction 
was issued by the said office to the petitioner to resolve the issue of the 
respondent in accordance with law. The petitioner did not paid any heed to 
the direction issued by said office, hence, the respondent had no other 
CP No.405/2020 
National Savings Central Directorate Islamabad Vs, Muhammad Farooq Raja  
6 
 
option, except to file constitutional petition against the petitioner for 
resolution of his grievance. 
6. 
 
We have noticed that the petitioner was under incumbent 
duty to scrutinize the status of the respondent prior to issuing acceptance 
which has accrued a right in favour of respondent, any slackness at the 
part of the petitioner at belated stage cannot be burdened to the 
respondent and the same is hit by principle of locus poenitentiae. In a 
similar case reported as (PLD 1992 SC 207) “The Engineer-in-Chief 
Branch through Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi and another Vs. 
Jalaluddin” this court while adjudicating the matter has held which is 
reproduced as under:- 
“However, as the respondent had received the amount on 
the bona fide belief, the appellant is not entitled to recover 
the amount drawn by the respondent during this period when 
the letter remained in the field…. We consider that as far as 
the recovery of amount in question is concerned, the 
principle of locus poenitentiae would be applicable and the 
appellants are not entitled to recover the amount. The 
appellants have themselves taken a liberal view and the 
recovery of only 12 months is being made” 
Otherwise the case of the respondent is also covered by section 24-A of 
General Clauses Act, 1897, which clearly reflect that once a right is 
accrued, the same cannot be withdrawn unless and until it is established 
that the scheme was obtained by practicing fraud or misrepresentation. 
Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, is reproduced as under:-  
“24-A. Exercise of power under enactments.— 
(1) Where, by or under any enactment, a power to make any 
order or give any direction is conferred on any authority, 
office or person such power shall be exercised 
reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the 
purposes of the enactment. 
(2) The authority, office or person making any order or 
issuing any direction under the powers conferred by or 
under any enactment shall, so for as necessary or 
appropriate give reasons for making the order or, as the 
case made be for issuing the direction and shall provide 
a copy of the order or as the case may be, the direction 
to the person affected prejudicially.” 
 
CP No.405/2020 
National Savings Central Directorate Islamabad Vs, Muhammad Farooq Raja  
7 
 
The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that the doctrine 
of promissory estoppel is squarely applicable has force. It is well settled 
that where the Government control functionaries make promise which 
ensues a right to anyone who believes them and acts under them, then 
those functionaries are precluded from acting detrimental to the rights of 
such person/citizen. Otherwise the case of the respondent is also hit by 
doctrine of “legitimate expectation”. Justice (Retired) Fazl Karim, in his 
book, “Judicial Review of Public Actions” at page 1365 has equated the 
aforesaid doctrine to the “fairness” and equity which is legitimate attribute 
of a public functionary. The relevant passage reads like this:- 
“The justification for treating “legitimate expectation” and 
‘promissory estoppel’ together as grounds for judicial review 
is, one, that they both fall under the general head ‘fairness’; 
and too, that ‘legitimate expectation’ is akin to an estoppel.” 
 
This very doctrine has a history of appreciation by this Court in a various 
judgments including (1986 SCMR 1917) “Al-Samrez Enterprise vs. The 
Federation of Pakistan” wherein it is held as under:- 
“It is a settled rule that an executive authority cannot in 
exercise of the rule-making power or the power to amend, 
vary or rescind an earlier order, take away the rights vested 
in the citizen by law.”  
 
7. 
 
During the course of proceedings, it has been brought in our 
notice that the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan (Directorate 
General of Immigration & Passports) has issued the list of 20 countries, 
the citizen of those countries mentioned in the said document are eligible 
to keep dual nationality without any deprivation of any legal rights under 
the protection of law of the land. Admittedly the respondent is citizen of 
Denmark which is marked at serial (19) in the list duly issued by the 
Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan and as such the respondent 
enjoys the facilitation of law. Otherwise it has been held by learned Single 
Bench of the High Court that the petitioner has already crossed the age 
CP No.405/2020 
National Savings Central Directorate Islamabad Vs, Muhammad Farooq Raja  
8 
 
required of 60 years which otherwise make him eligible to seek advantage 
of the said scheme. 
8.  
 
In view of the facts and circumstances narrated above, we 
are of the considered view that the case of the petitioner is without any 
legal substance. The findings of the learned Single Bench of Lahore High 
Court (Rawalpindi Bench) are quite in accordance with law. We do not find 
any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Leave to appeal 
is declined. 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, B-III 
02.11.2020/*Athar 
Approved for reporting