IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR, HCJ 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE UMAR ATA BANDIAL 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
 
 
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH 
 
 
INTRA COURT APPEALS NO.4, 6, 8, 9, 18, 19, 21 TO 23 
OF 2017 AND 2 OF 2018 
(Against the judgment dated 29.3.2017 of this Court 
passed in Crl.O.Ps.No.33, 60, 55 and 62/2017) 
 
AND 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATIONS NO.43 TO 45 OF 2018 
(Applications for impleadment) 
 
AND 
 
CRL. REVIEW PETITIONS NO.42, 68 AND 523 OF 2017 
(On 
review 
of 
this 
Court’s 
judgments 
dated 
29.3.2017/28.3.2017 passed in Crl.O.P.60/2017 and 
C.M.A.687/2017) 
 
AND 
 
CIVIL MISC. APPLICATION NO.3347 OF 2017 IN CIVIL 
REVIEW PETITION NO.NIL OF 2017 IN CIVIL MISC. 
APPLICATION NO.687 OF 2017 
(Permission to file and argue review petition - On review of 
this 
Court’s 
judgment 
dated 
28.3.2017 
passed 
in 
C.M.A.687/2017) 
 
AND 
 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITIONS NO.138, 96, 121 TO 
127, 132, 139, 167 AND 217 OF 2017, 4 OF 2018, 92 
OF 2017, 152 OF 2016, 104 AND 214 OF 2017 
(Non-compliance of Court’s order) 
 
AND 
 
CRL. MISC. APPLICATIONS NO.1002 AND 937 OF 2017 
(Applications for impleadment) 
 
 
I.C.A.4/2017: 
Akhter Umar Hayat Lalayka Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed 
Sukhaira & others 
 
 
I.C.A.6/2017: 
Manzoor Ahmed Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sukhaira 
and others 
 
 
 
 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 2 :- 
 
I.C.A.8/2017: 
Awais Malik and others Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad 
Sukhera and others 
 
 
I.C.A.9/2017: 
Awais Malik and others Vs. Mushtaq Ahmad 
Sukhera and others 
 
 
I.C.A.18/2017: 
Mansoor Naji Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sukhaira and 
others 
 
 
I.C.A.19/2017: 
Malik Muhammad Sabir Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed 
Sukhera 
 
 
I.C.A.21/2017: 
Muhammad Sarwar Awan Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed 
Sukhaira and others 
 
 
I.C.A.22/2017: 
Muhammad Ashraf Chadder Vs. IGP, Punjab and 
others 
 
 
I.C.A.23/2017: 
Mian Shafqat Ali Vs. Capt. (R) Zahid Saeed and 
others 
 
 
I.C.A.2/2018: 
Muhammad Haseeb Vs. Muhammad Amin Vans 
and others 
 
 
Crl.M.A.43/2018: 
Impleadment application on behalf of Tahir 
Maqsood, DSP, CTD, Lahore 
 
 
Crl.M.A.44/2018: 
Impleadment application on behalf of Zulfiqar Ali 
Virk, Inspector 
 
 
Crl.M.A.45/2018: 
Impleadment application on behalf of Malik 
Muhammad Nawaz, Inspector 
 
 
Crl.R.P.42/2017: 
Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, 
Punjab Vs. Awais Malik and others 
 
 
Crl.R.P.68/2017: 
Kafayat Ullah Bajwa Vs. I.G. Police, Punjab 
 
 
Crl.R.P.523/2017: 
Mrs. Nasim Chaudhry Vs. Inspector General of 
Police/Provincial Police Officer, Punjab Lahore 
 
 
C.M.A.3347/2017: 
Jamil Ahmed Vs. Government of Punjab through 
Secretary etc. 
 
 
Crl.O.P.138/2017: 
Jamil Ahmed Vs. Capt. (R) Zahid Saeed and 
others 
 
 
Crl.O.P.96/2017: 
Zafar Iqbal and others Vs. Azhar Hameed 
Khokhar etc. 
 
 
Crl.O.P.121/2017: 
Fida Hussain Vs. Usman Khattak and others 
 
 
Crl.O.P.122/2017: 
Muhammad Shahbaz Vs. Usman Khattak and 
others 
 
 
Crl.O.P.123/2017: 
Muhammad Shahbaz Vs. Usman Khattak and 
others 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 3 :- 
 
 
 
Crl.O.P.124/2017: 
Muhammad Zaman Vs. Usman Khattak and 
others 
 
 
Crl.O.P.125/2017: 
Muhammad Ashraf Chadder Vs. Capt. Zahid 
Saeed and others 
 
 
Crl.O.P.126/2017: 
Khalid Farooq Khan Vs. Capt. Zahid Saeed and 
others 
 
 
Crl.O.P.127/2017: 
Mian Shafqat Ali Vs. Capt. Zahid Saeed and 
others 
 
 
Crl.O.P.132/2017: 
Yousaf Ali Vs. Israr Abbasi and another 
 
 
Crl.O.P.139/2017: 
Shaikh Muhammad Arshad Latif Vs. Major (R) 
Azam Suleman and another 
 
 
Crl.O.P.167/2017: 
Abdul Majid and others Vs. Khalil Ahmed and 
others 
 
 
Crl.O.P.217/2017: 
Athar Naveed Vs. Sultan Azam Temuri 
 
 
Crl.O.P.4/2018: 
Rana Mansoor Ahmad Khan Vs. Capt. (R) Zahid 
Saeed, Chief Secretary 
 
 
Crl.O.P.92/2017: 
Mansoor Naji Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sukhaira and 
others 
 
 
Crl.O.P.152/2016: 
Mansoor Naji Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed Sukhaira and 
others 
 
 
Crl.O.P.104/2017: 
Khalid Mahmood Afzal, DSP Vs. Syed Tahir 
Shahbaz and others 
 
 
Crl.O.P.214/2017: 
Abdul Majid and others Vs. Muhammad Akbar 
Harifal and others 
 
 
Crl.M.A.1002/2017: 
Impleadment application on behalf of applicant 
namely Muhammad Sarwar Awan 
 
 
Crl.M.A.937/2017: 
Impleadment application on behalf of applicant 
namely Shahid Pervaiz 
 
For the appellant(s)/ 
applicant(s)/petitioner(s): 
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Sr. ASC 
(In I.C.As.4 & 18/2017) 
 
Khawaja Haris Ahmed, Sr. ASC 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(In I.C.As.8, 9 & 17/2017) 
 
Mr. Talat Farooq Sheikh, ASC 
Mr. Maqbool Hussain Sheikh, ASC 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
(In I.C.As.6, 21, 22 & 23/2017) 
 
Mr. S. A. Mehmood Khan Sadozai, ASC 
(In I.C.A.19/2017) 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 4 :- 
 
Mr. Muhammad Ahsan Bhoon, ASC 
(In I.C.A.2/2018) 
 
Nemo 
(In Crl.M.As.43 to 45/2018) 
 
Mr. Shakeel-ur-Rehman Khan, A.G. Punjab 
Mr. Waseem Mumtaz Malik, Addl.A.G. 
(In Crl.R.P.42/2017) 
 
Mr. Qamar-uz-Zaman, ASC 
(In C.R.P.523/2017) 
 
In person 
(In C.M.A.3347/2017) 
 
In person 
(In Crl.R.P.68/2017) 
 
Mr. Talat Farooq Sheikh, ASC 
(In Crl.O.Ps.125, 126, 127, 139/2017 & 4/2018, 
Crl.M.A.1002/2017) 
 
Mr. M. Bashir Khan, ASC 
(In Crl.O.P.132/2017) 
 
Mr. Qausain Faisal, ASC 
(In Crl.O.P.217/2017) 
 
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed, ASC 
(In Crl.O.Ps.121 to 124/2017) 
 
Mr. Aziz Ahmed Malik, ASC 
(In Crl.O.P.96/2017) 
 
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, Sr. ASC 
(In Crl.O.Ps.92/2017 & 152/2016) 
 
Mr. Muhammad Faiz Ahmed Cheema, ASC 
(In Crl.O.P.214/2017) 
 
Malik Azmatullah Kasi, ASC 
(In Crl.O.P.167/2017) 
 
Nemo 
(In Crl.O.P.104/2017) 
 
Nemo 
(In Crl.M.A.937/2017) 
 
 
For the respondent(s): 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC 
(For respondent No.5 in I.C.As.4,6,8,18,21 & 23/2017) 
 
Nemo 
(In Crl.R.P.42, 68 & 523/2017, C.M.A.3347/2017 & 
Crl.O.P.138/2017) 
 
 
On Court’s notice: 
Syed Nayyar Abbas Rizvi, Addl.A.G.P. 
Mr. Shakeel-ur-Rehman Khan, A.G. Punjab 
Mr. Saif-ul-Murtaza, AIG Legal (For IGP Punjab) 
Rana M. Ashraf, SO (Police) Home Deptt. Pb. 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
21.2.2018 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 5 :- 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
Mian Saqib Nisar, CJ:- The titled cases, which we intend to 
decide through this consolidated judgment, pertain to the following three 
categories: 
i. 
Intra Court Appeals (ICAs) against the judgment 
dated 29.03.2017 reported as Interim Report by AIG 
Legal for I.G, Punjab (2017 SCMR 868);  
ii. 
Criminal Original Petitions (Crl.O.Ps) for violation of 
the judgment dated 30.12.206 reported as Shahid 
Perviaz Vs. Ejaz Ahmad (2017 SCMR 206), and orders 
dated 08.12.2016 & 26.01.2016; and 
iii. 
Review Petitions (Crl.R.P/C.R.P) against judgment 
dated 29.03.2017 reported as Interim Report by AIG 
Legal for I.G, Punjab (2017 SCMR 868). 
 
2. 
 
All these matters stem out of the judgments of this Court 
reported as Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh 
(2013 SCMR 1752) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch Vs. Province of Sindh 
(2015 SCMR 456). Through the former judgment inter alia the 
practice/concept 
of 
out 
of 
turn 
promotions 
was 
declared 
unconstitutional, being against Fundamental Rights as enshrined in the 
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Through the 
latter judgment the Review Petitions filed by the aggrieved persons were 
dismissed by this Court. Copies of both these judgments were ordered to 
be sent to the Chief Secretaries of all the Provinces as well as the 
Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad with the direction to 
streamline the civil service structure in line with the principles 
enunciated in the aforesaid judgments. On 26.01.2016, while hearing 
Civil Appeal No. 184-L of 2013 (Regional Police Officer Gujranwala and 
another Vs. Ejaz Ahmad and others), wherein the issue of anti-dated 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 6 :- 
 
seniority of a police official was involved, this Court observed that the 
directions issued by this Court through the above mentioned two 
judgments delivered in the year 2013 and 2015 were not being complied 
with, especially in the Punjab Police Department. Relevant para 
therefrom reads as under:- 
 
“3. 
 
The learned Additional Advocate General, 
Punjab, states that the Punjab Government has started 
implementing judgments of this Court reported as 
Contempt Proceedings Against Chief Secretary Sindh 
(2013 SCMR 1752) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch Vs. 
Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) and till date 
substantial portion of seniority of the Police personnel 
has been re-fixed. We must record our displeasure over 
the inaction on the part of the Punjab Government for 
the directions issued by this Court in 2013 and 2015. 
We expect that all out of turn promotions granted either 
to the police personnel on gallantry award or otherwise 
shall be undone within four weeks from today and their 
seniority be re-fixed with their batch mates in terms of 
the directions contained in the aforesaid judgments. Out 
of turn promotions ranging from Constable to any 
gazetted officers shall be streamlined in terms of the 
aforesaid two judgments. On completion of the exercise, 
the I.G Police Punjab, Home Secretary, Punjab and Chief 
Secretary, Punjab, shall submit compliance report with 
the Assistant Registrar of this Court for our perusal in 
Chambers. This order shall be communicated to the I.G, 
Punjab, Home Secretary, and Chief Secretary, Punjab, 
for 
their 
information 
and 
compliance 
and 
non-
compliance of this judgment shall expose the concerned 
officials to contempt proceedings.” 
 
3. 
 
The above mentioned order of this Court dated 26.01.2016 
was challenged by the employees of the Punjab Police Department 
through Civil Review Petition No. 49 of 2016 etc. inter alia on the ground 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 7 :- 
 
that their out of turn promotions were earned by the acts of gallantry/ 
bravery during the performance of duties and they were promoted under 
Section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, read with Rule 14-A 
of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) 
Rules, 1974. These Review Petitions were heard by a Bench of five 
Honourable judges of this Court and after giving opportunity of 
exhaustive hearing to all the petitioners therein, these Review Petitions 
alongwith other connected applications were dismissed vide judgment 
dated 30.12.2016 (By majority of 4 to 1), and is reported as Shahid 
Pervaiz Vs. Ejaz Ahmed (2017 SCMR 206).  
4. 
 
In Para 111 of Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra), it was inter 
alia observed that the cases wherein ‘out of turn promotion’ was granted 
to individuals, pursuant to the judgments of the High Court, Service 
Tribunal and the Supreme Court, “shall remain intact unless reviewed”. 
The relevant portion of the said Para No. 111 reads as under:-  
 “111. Yet another anomalous consequence of this 
argument is that while two identical provincial laws are 
enacted and acted upon and one province repeals the 
law while the other continues with its operations. 
Subsequently, the vires of the law that continues on the 
statute books is examined by the Court and its 
provisions have found to be inconsistent with the 
Constitution or Fundamental Rights with the result that 
the benefits conferred or availed thereunder, unless 
protected 
by 
the 
category 
of 
past 
and 
closed 
transaction, have to be reversed and its deleterious 
effects undone. This category, quite obviously, consists 
of the cases wherein ‘out of turn promotion’ was 
granted to individuals, pursuant to the judgments of the 
High Court, Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court. 
They shall remain intact unless reviewed.” 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 8 :- 
 
5. 
 
Moreover, 
while 
dismissing 
the 
said 
Review 
Petitions/Applications, compliance report was also directed to be 
submitted by the concerned authorities, within one month for perusal in 
Chambers. This exercise was directed to be completed within a period of 
one month. Para 143 of Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra), wherein these 
observations were made is also being reproduced hereunder for ease of 
the reference:- 
“143. For the aforesaid reasons, all the listed Review 
Petitions and the Applications are dismissed. The I.G.P, 
Punjab, the Home Secretary, Punjab, and the Secretary, 
Establishment Division, are directed to comply with the 
judgment, by fixing the seniority of all the Police Officers 
who were given out of turn promotion along with their 
batch-mates, as if they were never given out of turn 
promotion. However, the orders of withdrawal of out of 
turn promotion passed by the Department/Competent 
Authority shall be recalled against the Police Officers 
who had earned out of turn promotions, pursuant to the 
judgments of superior Courts/Service Tribunals, as 
discussed in paragraph 111 of this judgment. For the 
purpose of compliance of this judgment, necessary 
D.P.C/Board, as the case may be, shall be immediately 
held without further loss of time and a compliance 
report be submitted to the Registrar of this Court for our 
perusal in Chambers. This exercise shall be completed 
within a period of one month. The Advocate General, 
Punjab, and the learned Attorney General for Pakistan 
shall communicate the directives of this Court to the 
relevant authorities.” 
6. 
 
In pursuance of the above directions, compliance report was 
submitted by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab (IGP) wherein, the 
IGP looked into each case of out of turn promotion after issuance of 
notices to all concerned and decided each case individually. The out of 
turn promotions given through the judgments of Court/ Tribunal were 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 9 :- 
 
also withdrawn and de-notified. However, the Home Department, 
Government of Punjab took a contrary view and objected to it (this action 
by the IGP) on the premise that under Para 111 read with Para 143 of 
Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra), there was an absolute protection afforded 
to such employees and their out of turn promotions could not be 
withdrawn. Against this withdrawal of out of turn promotion(s) various 
police employees again approached this Court by filing Criminal Original 
Petitions (Contempt Petitions) and various C.M.As, claiming, inter alia, 
that the IGP could not review their cases of out of turn promotions, 
which were already protected by this Court through the judgment in 
Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) in Para 111 whereby this Court had 
observed that the out of turn promotions granted to individuals pursuant 
to the judgments of High Court, Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court 
shall remain intact unless reviewed. These Criminal Original Petitions 
alongwith applications were disposed of vide judgment dated 29.03.2017 
in the terms that the view point of the Inspector General of Police, Punjab 
was correct and the officers should be de-notified in terms of the 
speaking orders passed by the Inspector General of Police, Punjab. This 
judgment dated 29.03.2017 is reported as Interim Report by AIG Legal 
for I.G. Punjab, Home Department, Govt. of Punjab and Inspector 
General of Police, Punjab respectively (2017 SCMR 868). 
7. 
 
After the judgments dated 30.12.2016 in the case of Shahid 
Pervaiz (Supra) and 29.03.2017 Interim Report by AIG Legal for I.G, 
Punjab (Supra), certain aggrieved persons have now again approached 
this Court by filing Intra Court Appeals, Review Petitions, Civil Review 
Petition and Criminal Original Petitions. Moreover, some other 
applications for impleadment as party have also been filed, which will 
follow the fate of the main cases in which they are filed. Some other 
petitioners have also invoked the contempt jurisdiction for violation of 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 10 :- 
 
orders dated 26.01.2016 and 08.12.2016 passed by this Court which we 
will discuss in the later part of this judgment. The police officials/officers 
from the Province of Balochistan have also invoked the contempt 
jurisdiction (Crl.O.P.No.167 and 214/2017) for non-implementation of 
orders dated 26.01.2016 and 30.12.2016 passed by this Court in the 
Province of Balochistan. 
 
8. 
 
The brief facts and relevant service profiles of the 
appellants/petitioners, who have claimed that the withdrawal of their out 
of turn promotions was against the judgments of this Court referred to 
above, are as under.  
I.C.A 4/2017 in Crl.O.P 33/2017 (Akhtar Umer Hayat Lalayka Vs. 
Mushtaq Ahmed Sukhaira & others) 
 
9. 
 
It was pleaded before us that Umer Hayat Lalayka was 
serving as Inspector in the Punjab Police and when he was posted at 
Police Station Piplan, Mianwali he displayed exemplary courage in an 
encounter with highly desperate elements including Ahmed Nawaz 
Barbari, who was killed by the appellant by putting his own life at risk. 
For this act of gallantry, he was recommended for out of turn promotion 
as Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) by the Superintendent of Police 
(SP), Mianwali to the Deputy Inspector General (DIG) on 27.07.1993. But 
he was denied the out of turn promotion by the Inspector General of 
Police (IGP), whereafter he approached Lahore High Court by filing Writ 
Petition No. 2445/1995, which was accepted on 03.12.1996. CPLA 
No.656/1995 was filed by the Government of Punjab before this Court 
against the said order, which was dismissed as being barred by time, 
however, the compatriots of the appellant filed CPLA No.1446-L/1997, 
which was dismissed on 18.04.1998 holding that the appellant was 
entitled to the out of turn promotion due to his act of gallantry. The 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 11 :- 
 
Review Petition against this order was also dismissed by this Court on 
08.07.1998. It is further pleaded that vide Notification dated 17.10.1997, 
appellant was promoted from the post of Inspector to DSP and now 
whilst he was serving as D.I.G Police, his out of turn promotion from the 
post of Inspector to DSP has been withdrawn vide Notification dated 
17.02.2016, in pursuance of the judgments of this Court in the cases of 
Contempt proceedings against Chief Secretary Sindh (2013 SCMR 1752) 
and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch Vs. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456).  
 
I.C.A 6/2017 in Crl.O.P 33/2017 (Manzoor Ahmed Vs. Mushtaq 
Ahmed Sukhaira and others) 
 
10. 
 
It was pleaded before us that the appellant in ICA No.6/2017 
namely, Manzoor Ahmed was appointed as Constable in the Punjab 
Police Department on 17.01.1987. He was granted out of turn promotion 
as Head Constable w.e.f 30.04.1990 in recognition of his performance in 
arresting five notorious criminals in Chiniot. Then he was granted out of 
turn promotion as Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) w.e.f 18.10.1993. 
Thereafter, he was granted out of turn promotion as (Sub-Inspector) SI 
w.e.f 05.01.2001. He filed departmental representation requesting ante-
dated promotion to the rank of SI w.e.f 22.12.1996 citing and relying 
upon the case of out of turn promotion of one Hussain Haider, S.I. His 
departmental representation was rejected on the ground that the benefit 
extended to Hussain Haider, SI had also been withdrawn by the IGP, 
therefore appellant’s claim had become infructuous. He filed Service 
Appeal No. 908/2005 before the Punjab Service Tribunal (PST), which 
was disposed of with the direction to the departmental authorities to 
consider his case on merits. But his case was considered and rejected by 
the department. He again filed CMA No.789/2012 in Appeal No. 
908/2005, which was rejected by the PST and decision of the department 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 12 :- 
 
was upheld. On 30.04.2007, he was granted regular promotion to the 
rank of Inspector. Now his promotions to the ranks of Head Constable 
and then ASI, SI and Inspector have been withdrawn and after re-fixation 
of his seniority his status is now ASI w.e.f 12.08.2004. 
 
I.C.A 8 and 9/2017 in Crl.O.P 33/2017 (Awais Malik and others Vs. 
Mushtaq Ahmad Sukhera and others) 
 
11. 
 
There are eight appellants in these ICAs. It was pleaded 
before us that Appellant No. 1 namely, Awais Malik joined the Punjab 
Police Department as ASI on 22.06.1982 and thereafter, he was 
promoted as SI on 22.08.1987 and subsequently promoted as Inspector 
on 27.08.1995. On 18.01.1997, he suffered injuries in a bomb blast, 
which took place in the premises of the Sessions Court, in which the 
Chief of a banned outfit and fifteen officers lost their lives. It was pleaded 
that in view of his excellent performance, the appellant was 
recommended for out of turn promotion as DSP, by the then IGP, Punjab, 
under section 8-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, read with Rule 
14-A of the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of 
Service) Rules, 1974, which recommendation was not executed, 
therefore, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition before the Lahore High Court. 
The learned High Court disposed of the Writ Petition of the Petitioner 
with the direction to issue formal notification of promotion of the 
Petitioner as DSP. Thereafter, the Department approached this Court 
through CPLA Nos.443 and 584-L of 2001, which were dismissed on the 
ground of limitation. After dismissal of the Petitions of the Department by 
this Court, the Petitioner made a representation to the Home Secretary, 
Punjab, and eventually he was given out of turn promotion as DSP w.e.f. 
18.01.1997 i.e. the date of incident and in due course he has been 
promoted as SP. 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 13 :- 
 
12. 
 
It was next pleaded that Appellant No. 2 namely, Ijaz Shafi, 
joined the Punjab Police Department as ASI in the year 1982 and he was 
promoted as SI on 09.09.1986. Due to his exceptional courage and 
outstanding performance shown in elimination of Wazir Khshk, a 
notorious Sindhi Dacoit, and recovering the entire looted amount, his 
name was admitted in List “F” as Inspector on 14.05.1992. But he was 
denied his regular promotion. He approached PST and vide judgment 
dated 21.03.2000 he was given ante-dated confirmation as Inspector 
w.e.f 06.04.1993. Pursuant to his representation before the competent 
authority regarding his seniority, he was given promotion as Inspector 
w.e.f 07.10.1990 instead of 14.05.1992 vide order dated 29.01.2003. 
Thereafter, in another incident, owing to his daring and persistent efforts 
and team work, the entire network of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, involved in 
various cases of sectarian terrorism, was broken and the Governor of 
Punjab on a visit to Vehari on 04.04.2002 appreciating the performance 
of the team was pleased to announce one step promotion to the members 
of the team and the appellant was to be promoted as DSP, but his 
promotion was deferred by the Provincial Selection Board in its meeting 
held on 08.01.2004. Thereafter, he filed Writ Petition No. 1257/2005 
before the Lahore High Court which was disposed of on 14.07.2005 
having borne fruit and he was promoted as DSP w.e.f 02.02.2007. 
Thereafter, due to his representation to the Home Department, Punjab 
his date of promotion was changed to 13.03.2002 instead of 02.02.2007. 
He was then promoted as SP on regular basis vide Notification dated 
31.01.2012. 
13. 
 
It was next pleaded that the Appellant No. 3 namely, 
Muhammad Umer Virk joined the Police Department as ASI on 
31.03.1985 and thereafter, he was promoted to the rank of Sub-
Inspector on 01.11.1990. Pursuant to his outstanding performance, he 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 14 :- 
 
was promoted as Inspector. Thereafter, again on account of gallantry 
performance in an operation at Thokar Niaz Beg, Lahore he was 
recommended for promotion to the rank of DSP. However, these 
recommendations did not materialize and he filed Writ Petition No. 
17232/1997 before the Lahore High Court which was allowed and he 
was directed to be treated at par with those who had participated in the 
operation. The Department assailed the said order before this Court by 
filing CPLA No. 1226-L/1998, which was dismissed being barred by time, 
vide order dated 09.09.1998. Thereafter, the appellant filed contempt 
petition before the High Court for implementation of its orders which was 
disposed of as he was promoted as DSP by the Department. Now the 
appellant is serving as SP w.e.f 30.12.2007. 
14. 
 
Appellant No. 4, namely, Rana Shahid Pervaiz was appointed 
as ASI on 04.03.1984 in the Punjab Police; he was promoted as SI on 
05.07.1987 and then as Inspector on 05.03.1990. In the year 1996, while 
he was posted as SHO Hanjarwal, he participated in an operation for the 
arrest of notorious outlaws Mujahid @ Musa and others, who were 
involved in the murder of deceased Mureed Abbas Yazdani. The accused 
were alleged to have started indiscriminate firing at the time of Fajar 
Prayer in Masjid Alkhair at Multan, which resulted in the murder of 
many people and injuries to others. It was pleaded that as a corollary of 
this gallant performance, he was recommended for promotion as DSP, 
but not promoted hence he approached the Lahore High Court, by filing 
Writ Petition No. 28879 of 1997, with the prayer that he may also be 
given out of turn promotion like the other members of the raiding party. 
This Writ Petition was clubbed with an identical Writ Petition No. 8147 of 
1998, and both were allowed and the learned High Court directed the 
Respondent-Department to grant one step out of turn promotion to the 
appellant. However, the Department did not accept the decision of the 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 15 :- 
 
High Court and approached this Court through Civil Appeal No. 259-L of 
2000, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. It was pleaded 
that on dismissal of Appeal of the Government by this Court on the 
ground of limitation, the relevant committee was formed under section 8-
A of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 read with Rule 14-A of the 
Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 
1974 which also recommended out of turn promotion of the appellant 
and thus he was granted one step out of turn promotion as DSP, vide 
Notification dated 24.05.2001, with a rider that he would be allowed to 
wear the rank of DSP subject to the condition that his substantive 
promotion would be allowed in due course after his seniors got 
promotion. It was further pleaded that against the above condition, the 
appellant filed another Writ Petition before the Lahore High Court, which 
was allowed and it was directed that as a civil servant is entitled to 
promotion from the date he performed his duties as recognized by section 
8-A ibid, therefore, the condition incorporated in the Notification dated 
24.05.2001 was in violation of section 8-A ibid. The Department filed 
CPLA before this Court, which was dismissed. After dismissal of the 
Petition of the Department by this Court, the appellant made a 
representation to the Government and accordingly he was given out of 
turn promotion vide Notification dated 16.08.2007, w.e.f 24.10.1996. 
Now he is working as SP. 
15. 
 
It was next pleaded that Appellant No. 5 namely, Mr. 
Muhammad Usman Anwar joined the Punjab Police Department on 
23.05.1988 as ASI and then was promoted as SI on adhoc basis w.e.f 
29.05.1991. He filed departmental representation before IGP for his 
confirmation as ASI and promotion as SI on regular basis w.e.f 
22.08.1990 instead of 29.05.1991. No decision was made on his 
representation, as such he filed Appeal No. 929/1995 before the PST, 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 16 :- 
 
which was allowed and it was observed that the appellant should be 
confirmed as ASI and promoted as officiating Sub-Inspector w.e.f 
22.08.1990 (instead of 29.05.1991) i.e. from the date of the act of 
gallantry performed by him and he should be confirmed as Sub-Inspector 
w.e.f 22.08.1990. Then due to change in the law, the judgment of the 
PST became ineffective and due to his seniority the appellant became 
eligible for further promotion. He submitted representation for his 
admission in List “F” and promotion as Inspector w.e.f 16.11.1995. His 
representation was rejected and he filed Appeal before the PST which was 
allowed on 15.04.2008 and he was directed to be confirmed as Inspector 
w.e.f 16.11.1995. Subsequently, a seniority list was issued, wherein his 
date of appointment as Inspector was not shown as 16.11.1995, 
therefore, he filed Writ Petition No. 9780/2014 before the Lahore High 
Court, which was allowed on 24.04.2014 and respondents were directed 
to show the seniority of the appellant w.e.f 16.11.1995 as already 
declared by the PST in its judgment dated 15.04.2008. Against this 
judgment CPLA No. 820-L/2014 was filed by the government before this 
Court, which was dismissed and thereafter, Review Petition No. 9/2015 
was also dismissed by this Court. 
16. 
 
It was further pleaded that the Appellant No. 6 namely, 
Naeem-ul-Hassan Babar joined the Police department on 10.03.1981 as 
ASI and thereafter, he was promoted as SI on 04.12.1985 and further 
promoted as Inspector on 08.04.1991. He was promoted as DSP vide 
Notification dated 29.04.1998 with immediate effect, in recognition of his 
extraordinary performance and exemplary courage in securing the arrest 
of hardcore sectarian terrorists of Lashkar-e-Jhangvi namely Nadeem 
alias Deemi and Muhammad Ali alias Ashfaqa. He filed representation 
with the Home Department, Government of Punjab for his promotion 
from the date of the act of gallantry i.e 04.08.1997. His representation 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 17 :- 
 
was not decided by the department, so he filed Writ Petition No. 
4816/2007 before the Lahore High Court, wherein on 13.05.2008 the 
Court directed that an appropriate order preferably before next date of 
hearing should be passed in his representation pending before the 
department. Thereafter, on 21.06.2008 the Writ Petition was disposed of 
by observing that the “Learned Additional Advocate General submits that 
representation filed by the petitioner has been accepted. Perhaps for the 
said reason, the petitioner is no more interested in following-up this 
petition. Disposed of accordingly.” He was promoted as SP w.e.f 
31.01.2012. 
17. 
 
It was next pleaded that Appellant No. 7 namely Jamat Ali 
Bokhari, joined the Punjab Police Department as ASI on 08.03.1982 and 
was promoted to the rank of SI on 12.01.1985 and then promoted as 
officiating Inspector on 15.11.1990. On 14.03.1998 he was granted out 
of turn promotion as DSP and allowed to wear the rank of DSP on the 
condition that his substantive promotion would be allowed in due course 
after his seniors got promotion. He filed departmental representation 
which was not decided and he then approached Lahore High Court by 
filing Writ Petition No. 1848/2007, which was disposed of on 22.04.2008 
as having borne fruit, because the department had promoted him. 
Thereafter, appellant was promoted as SP w.e.f 31.01.2012. 
18. 
 
It was also pleaded that the Appellant No. 8 namely Karamat 
Ullah Malik, joined the Punjab Police Department as ASI on 07.11.1988, 
was promoted as SI on 12.02.1991 and then promoted as Inspector on 
05.05.1996. During his posting as Inspector on 05.03.1998 he arrested 
notorious Lashkar-e-Jhangvi terrorist namely Aziz Gujjar and also 
arrested the kidnapper of Dr. Bashir Ahmad, a renowned Neurosurgeon. 
On account of these achievements the then Chief Minister, Punjab on 
06.03.1998 announced his one-step promotion from the rank of 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 18 :- 
 
Inspector to DSP. Thereafter, he was again recommended for out of turn 
promotion on account of an encounter with Abdul Rauf alias Googa 
Sheesh Naag and notorious outlaws. On account of delay in his 
promotion he filed Writ Petition No. 4483 of 2006 before the Lahore High 
Court and during pendency of this Writ Petition he also filed 
C.M.No.539/2008 praying for decision of already filed departmental 
representation for his ante-dated promotion as DSP. Directions were 
passed in the Writ Petition for disposal of his departmental 
representation. Thereafter, his departmental representation was accepted 
on 21.06.2008 and on 30.06.2008 the Court was pleased to dispose of 
the said Writ Petition as having borne fruit. It was also pleaded that on 
account of his gallantry, the President of Pakistan was also pleased to 
confer upon him the President Police Medal on 12.10.2007. Later on, he 
earned his regular promotion as SP vide Notification dated 03.07.2015. 
 
I.C.A 18/2017 in Crl.O.P 33/2017 (Mansoor Naji Vs. Mushtaq Ahmed 
Sukhaira and others) 
 
19. 
 
It was pleaded before us that the Appellant Mansoor Naji, 
Inspector in the Punjab Police, while posted in FIA on deputation on 
28.08.1998, smashed a gang of smugglers and recovered 5 Kg heroine 
from a passenger. DG, FIA on 21.05.1999 recommended his accelerated 
promotion as DSP in view of his excellent performance and the two 
employees of FIA, who were deputed with him during the said incident 
were given out of turn promotion by the FIA, but the appellant was not 
promoted. He approached PST by filing Service Appeal No. 1788/2004 
which was accepted on 27.12.2004. Although he was promoted as SP on 
his own turn but when his appeal was accepted by the PST, then he was 
granted ante-dated promotion w.e.f 24.06.1998 and on that basis his 
seniority was re-fixed. His seniority was affirmed in the C.P.No.1486-
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 19 :- 
 
L/2007 filed before this Court. It was further pleaded that apart from the 
judgment of the PST, there were two decisions of this Court in 
C.P.No.1486/2007 dated 15.07.2009 and C.A.No.293/2008 dated 
08.09.2008 in favour of the appellant and he was entitled to the 
protection granted by the judgment dated 30.12.2016 in Shahid 
Pervaiz’s case (supra). 
 
I.C.A 19/2017 in Crl.O.P 55/2017 (Malik Muhammad Sabir Vs. 
Mushtaq Ahmed Sukhera) 
 
20. 
 
It was pleaded that the Appellant Malik Muhammad Sabir 
was appointed in the Punjab Police Department in the year 1980 and 
when in the year 1993 he was Sub-Inspector and not promoted with his 
batch-mates, he filed an appeal before the PST, which was accepted on 
27.03.2000, by holding that he should be promoted along-with his 
batch-mates. Then he was promoted from Sub-Inspector to Inspector. 
Later on in the year 2009 he was promoted as DSP as a matter of 
routine.  
 
I.C.A 21/2017 in Crl.O.P 33/2017 (Muhammad Sarwar Awan Vs. 
Mushtaq Ahmed Sukhaira and others) 
 
21. 
 
It was submitted that the Appellant Muhammad Sarwar 
Awan was appointed as ASI in the year 1998 and was promoted as 
officiating Sub-Inspector in the year 1991. Later on, he was 
recommended for one step out of turn promotion as Inspector under 
section 8-A (supra) read with Rule 14-A (ibid), which was not 
implemented, therefore, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.8147 of 
1998, which was allowed, by judgment dated 22.06.1996. However, the 
Department challenged the judgment of the learned High Court before 
this Court through Civil Petition No.226-L of 2000, which was dismissed, 
vide judgment dated 26.04.2000. In the intervening period, the Petitioner 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 20 :- 
 
was promoted as DSP and now has been reverted to the post of 
Inspector. 
 
I.C.A 22/2017 in Crl.O.P 33/2017 (Muhammad Ashraf Chadder Vs. 
IGP, Punjab and others) 
 
22. 
 
It was next pleaded before us that the Appellant in ICA No. 
22/2017, Muhammad Ashraf Chadder, joined the Punjab Police 
Department as ASI on 20.07.1986. He was granted out of turn promotion 
from the post of ASI w.e.f 07.10.1989, but it was withdrawn by the 
competent authority, which was challenged by the appellant through 
Writ Petition No. 8588/2008 before the Lahore High Court and the same 
was allowed on 20.11.2008. Thereafter, the out of turn promotion of the 
appellant was confirmed on 01.07.2009 and he was deemed to be 
promoted from that date. His date of promotion/confirmation as Sub-
Inspector was modified as 07.10.1989 from 21.07.1998. Then he was 
promoted as Inspector in routine and also granted promotion as DSP. 
Now his out of turn promotion as SI has been withdrawn by the 
Department and he has been reverted back to the post of Inspector. 
 
 
I.C.A 23/2017 in Crl.O.P 33/2017 (Mian Shafqat Ali Vs. Capt (R) 
Zahid Saeed and others) 
 
23. 
 
The appellant in ICA No. 23/2017 namely Mian Shafqat Ali 
(Hockey Player) joined the Punjab Police Department on 22.12.1990 as 
temporary ASI, on the basis of Sports Policy and was confirmed w.e.f 
12.06.1993. He was promoted as Sub-Inspector on 24.10.1993 and 
confirmed w.e.f 25.10.1995. He filed representation before IGP for 
promotion to the rank of officiating Sub-Inspector w.e.f 01.05.1991 i.e 
the date of victory at the National Junior Hockey Championship. He also 
filed 
representation 
before 
Addl.IGP 
seeking 
ante-dated 
promotion/confirmation as SI w.e.f 01.05.1991 instead of 24.10.1993 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 21 :- 
 
which was refused. Thereafter, he filed Appeal No. 1149/2007 before the 
PST, which was disposed of on 20.02.2008 and the department was 
directed to decide his representation. He was granted out of turn 
promotion/confirmation as Inspector w.e.f 17.10.2009 but later on his 
date of promotion was revised and he was promoted as Inspector w.e.f 
22.10.1997. Now his out of turn promotion as ASI, confirmation as ASI, 
ante-dated out of turn promotion as SI and promotion to the rank of 
Inspector have been withdrawn by the department. 
 
I.C.A 2/2018 in Crl.O.P 62/2017 in C.R.P 89/2016 (Muhammad 
Haseeb Vs. Muhammad Amin Vans and others) 
 
24. 
 
It was pleaded before us that the Appellant in ICA No. 
2/2018 Muhammad Haseeb Anjum was appointed as Constable in the 
year 1980 and in due course he was promoted as Head Constable (HC) 
and on 26.12.1990 he was promoted temporarily as ASI. He was 
confirmed as ASI in the year 1998 and was then promoted from the date 
of appointment as temporary ASI. He filed a representation before the 
department, which was rejected vide order 07.04.2006 thereafter, he filed 
appeal before the PST, which was allowed vide order dated 13.10.2006 
and 
he 
was 
granted 
promotion 
from 
the 
date 
of 
his 
confirmation/appointment which has now been withdrawn by the 
department.  
 
Crl.O.P.96/2017 (Zafar Iqbal and others Vs. Azhar Hameed Khokhar 
and others) 
 
25. 
 
It was pleaded before us that the Petitioners in these 
contempt petitions were never promoted out of turn on the basis of 
gallantry rather they were promoted in accordance with the Rule 13.6 (2) 
of the Police Rules, 1934 as they stood either first or second in order of 
merit in the training. Their grievance is that their cases pending before 
the Punjab Service Tribunal may be decided expeditiously. 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 22 :- 
 
 
Crl.O.P 121/2017 (Fida Hussain Vs. Usman Khattak and others) 
26. 
 
It was pleaded before us that the petitioner in Crl.O.P 
121/2017, namely Fida Hussain was appointed as Constable on 
08.10.1990 and thereafter, he passed the lower class course in the year 
1995. He approached PST through Appeal No. 2678/2008 for ante-dated 
promotion, which was accepted on 30.03.2010 and the department was 
directed to consider him for anti-dated promotion as ASI and SI w.e.f the 
date when his juniors were granted the same benefit and then he was 
given anti-dated promotion w.e.f 12.07.1993 in pursuance of PST 
Judgment dated 30.03.2010. He passed training Intermediate Class 
Course in the year 2008 and was promoted as ASI on 12.08.2008 and 
was then promoted as Sub-Inspector on 05.01.2012. Now he has been 
reverted to the rank of Head Constable.  
 
Crl.O.P 122 /2017 (Muhammad Shahbaz Vs. Usman Khattak) 
27. 
 
The petitioner in Crl.O.P 122/2017 namely, Muhammad 
Shahbaz was granted promotion in pursuance of the judgment of PST 
dated 17.05.2012 in Service Appeal No. 48/2011, whereby the 
department was directed to consider his case for promotion and 
confirmation as ASI w.e.f 18.07.1998 and S.I w.e.f 26.11.2004. The 
department approached this Court by filing CPLA No. 2094/2012, which 
was disposed of on 28.02.2013 having become infructuous as the 
department had considered him for promotion. 
 
Crl.O.P 123 /2017 (Muhammad Shahbaz Vs. Usman Khattak) 
28. 
 
The petitioner in Crl.O.P 123/2017 namely, Muhammad 
Shahbaz joined the Punjab Police Department as Constable and then 
was granted out of turn promotion as Head Constable in recognition of 
his good performance w.e.f 13.07.1993 and thereafter he filed Service 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 23 :- 
 
Appeal before Punjab Service Tribunal for ante-dated promotion to the 
rank of ASI/SI being senior in rank to some other officials and his Appeal 
was accepted by Punjab Service Tribunal vide judgment dated 
28.05.2010. He was given ante-dated promotion to the rank of ASI w.e.f 
18.07.1998 and then promoted as SI w.e.f 26.11.2004.  
Crl.O.P 124 /2017 (Muhammad Zaman Vs. Usman Khattak and 
others) 
 
29. 
 
The petitioner in Crl.O.P 124/2017 namely, Muhammad 
Zaman was appointed as Constable on sports basis on 19.03.1995. On 
winning Gold Medal in National Games, 1995 he was promoted as Head 
Constable w.e.f 30.04.1995. On winning Gold Medal in National Games, 
1998 he was again promoted to the rank of ASI w.e.f 27.04.1998 on 
sports basis. He was then sent for Intermediate Class Course on 
acceptance of Service Appeal No. 1131/2007 by the PST vide judgment 
dated 15.04.2008. After qualifying the Intermediate Class Course, his 
case for confirmation in the rank of ASI, admission of name to promotion 
list “E” and promotion to the rank of Officiating SI was considered by the 
DPC. On recommendation of DPC he was granted confirmation in the 
rank of ASI w.e.f 07.04.1998 i.e. the date of promotion on sports basis, 
he was admitted to promotion list “E” w.e.f 04.08.2009 and further 
promoted to the rank of Officiating S.I w.e.f 04.08.2009. 
Crl.O.P 125/2017 (Muhammad Ashraf Chadder Vs. Capt. Zahid Saeed 
and others) 
 
30. 
 
Crl.O.P 125/2017 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner 
Muhammad Ashraf Chadder against the judgment dated 30.12.2016 i.e. 
Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra). He has also filed ICA No. 22/2017 
against judgment dated 29.03.2017 reported as Interim Report by AIG 
Legal for I.G, Punjab (supra). The detail of his service profile is given in 
the ICA 22/2017 above and need not be repeated. 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 24 :- 
 
Crl.O.P 126/2017 (Khalid Farooq Khan Vs. Capt. Zahid Saeed and 
others) 
 
31. 
 
Crl.O.P 126/2017 has been filed on behalf of petitioner 
Khalid Farooq Khan. It was pleaded that he joined the Punjab Police 
Department as Constable on 24.10.1989. On the basis of ‘family claim’ in 
the year 1993, the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable w.e.f 
08.08.1993 on ad-hoc basis, keeping in view the services rendered by his 
elder brother late Sub-Inspector Mushtaq Ahmad, who breathed his last 
on duty, while serving in Karachi and was declared as “Shaheed”. It was 
pleaded that in the year 1994-1995, the petitioner underwent Lower 
Class Course and was enlisted in list “E” on 08.09.1998 and then was 
enlisted in list ‘C” on 01.02.1995 and then in list “D” in the year 2002. 
He was granted promotion as ASI on 08.09.1998 in routine and then as 
SI in the year 2007. The petitioner claimed that he should have been 
appointed initially as ASI on the basis of family claim, therefore, he filed 
Service Appeal No. 1853/2006 which was allowed on 15.12.2006 in 
which it was inter alia held that the petitioner should have been granted 
promotion as ASI form the date his next junior and others were 
promoted. Thereafter, he was promoted by the order of PST, which was 
got implemented by filing Writ Petition No. 11383/2007 before the 
Lahore High Court. He was granted promotion as ASI w.e.f 08.09.1998 as 
per entitlement on family claim basis and Sub-Inspector w.e.f 
04.12.2004.  
 
Crl.O.P 127/2017 (Mian Shafqat Ali Vs. Capt. Zahid Saeed and 
others) 
 
32. 
 
Crl.O.P 127/2017 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner 
Mian Shafqat Ali for violation of the judgment dated 30.12.2016 reported 
as Shahid Pervaiz (supra). He has also filed ICA No. 23/2017 against 
judgment dated 29.03.2017 Interim Report by AIG Legal for I.G, Punjab 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 25 :- 
 
(Supra). The detail of his service profile is given in the ICA 22/2017 above 
and need not be repeated. 
 
Crl.O.P 132/2017 (Yousaf Ali Vs. Israr Abbasi and another) 
33. 
 
It was pleaded that in the year 2003 when the petitioner was 
working as Head Constable in Rawalpindi, there was an attack on the 
President of Pakistan in Rawalpindi. He identified and arrested the 
accused and due to this performance on 26.05.2005 the DIG granted 
him shoulder promotion as ASI, but no seniority or salary of ASI was 
given to him, thereafter on 05.07.2011 after six years his shoulder 
promotion was withdrawn. He filed Service Appeal before the PST, which 
was accepted on 19.07.2012. The Department approached this Court by 
filing CPLA against this decision, which was dismissed by this Court and 
his rank was restored. Now again w.e.f 03.10.2016, he has been reverted 
to the rank of Head Constable.  
 
Crl.O.P 139/2017 (Shaikh Muhammad Arshad Latif Vs. Major (R) 
Azam Suleman and another) 
 
34. 
 
Crl.O.P 139/2017 was filed on behalf of petitioner Shaikh 
Muhammad Arshad Latif. It was pleaded that he joined the Police 
Department as ASI in the year 1984. He was confirmed as such in the 
year 1989 and was promoted as SI in the same year. He was confirmed 
as SI in 1991 and admitted to list “F” in the year 1993. He was 
considered for out of turn promotion as Inspector and back dated 
confirmation as SI. He was promoted as Inspector on officiating basis 
w.e.f 17.10.1990 in view of the recommendations made for his 
accelerated promotion. He filed Service Appeal No. 2128/2005 before the 
PST which was accepted on 19.07.2006 and the competent authority was 
directed to consider him for confirmation as ASI from the date of his 
appointment and it was further directed that he should also be 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 26 :- 
 
considered for ante-dated benefits provided his service record during the 
period of probation as ASI had remained satisfactory and if the seniority 
of anyone essentially senior to him was not compromised. He filed 
W.P.No.12998/2012 before the Lahore High Court, for implementation of 
order of PST dated 19.07.2006 and for confirmation as Inspector w.e.f 
04.04.1991, which was disposed of on 24.11.2015 due to the fact that 
the judgment had been complied with as he was considered for 
promotion and his case was rejected, but in pursuance of some other 
judgment he was again considered for promotion and promoted as DSP. 
Now he has been reverted to the post of Inspector. 
 
Crl.O.P 4/2018 (Rana Masroor Ahmad Khan Vs. Capt. (R) Zahid 
Saeed, Chief Secretary) 
 
35. 
 
It was pleaded that the Petitioner Rana Masroor Ahmad 
Khan joined the Punjab Police Department as ASI on 13.03.1983. He was 
promoted as Sub-Inspector on 03.10.1986 and thereafter, granted out of 
turn promotion as Inspector on 08.10.1989, which was withdrawn and 
he was promoted as confirmed Inspector w.e.f 14.06.1991 and then vide 
Notification dated 30.04.1997 he was promoted as DSP. He filed Service 
Appeal No. 2583/2005 before the Punjab Service Tribunal for anti-dated 
seniority, which was allowed vide judgment dated 11.03.2008 and the 
petitioner was deemed to be promoted from the year 1997. Thereafter, 
the department approached this Court through Civil Appeals No. 627 to 
631 & 1753/2008 against the petitioner and other employees of the 
Department assailing the judgment rendered by the PST dated 
11.03.2008; the said Appeals were dismissed by this Court on 
18.05.2009 having become infructuous and the order was got 
implemented by filing Writ Petition No. 25940/2010 before the Lahore 
High Court, which was disposed of on 10.05.2012 having fructified. The 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 27 :- 
 
petitioner was promoted as SP on 10.05.2012 and now stands reverted to 
the post of DSP. 
 
Crl.R.P.68/2017 (Kafayat Ullah Bajwa Vs. IGP, Punjab) 
36. 
 
Kafayat Ullah Bajwa (in person) was promoted as Inspector 
w.e.f 20.12.1991 due to his participation and gallant performance in a 
police encounter, which took place in the area of P.S Bhikki, District 
Sheikhupura on 20.12.1991, wherein one DSP and a Constable were 
martyred and four proclaimed offenders were killed. He was confirmed as 
Sub-Inspector due to a decision of this Court reported as Inspector-
General of Police, Lahore Vs. Qayyum Nawaz Khan (1999 SCMR 1594), 
wherein it was settled that the date of confirmation cannot be other than 
the date of promotion. Therefore, he was granted date of confirmation as 
07.10.1990 instead of 20.12.1991. During the interregnum period he 
was also promoted as DSP w.e.f 05.08.2005. He approached PST, Lahore 
by filing Service Appeal No.604/2008, which was accepted vide judgment 
dated 09.06.2009, but it was not implemented. Therefore, for its 
implementation he filed Writ Petition No. 3862/2010 before the Lahore 
High Court which was accepted on 25.05.2010. The said judgment 
attained finality when CPLA filed by the department before this Court 
was dismissed on the point of limitation. It was pleaded that when he 
was not being considered for promotion by the competent authority, he 
filed contempt petition before the Lahore High Court and it was in 
pursuance of that contempt petition that he was promoted from the rank 
of DSP to that of SP w.e.f 10.05.2012. He has been reverted to the post of 
DSP vide notification dated 28.06.2016.  
 
C.R.P 523/2017 in CMA. 687/2017 (Mrs. Nasim Chaudhry Vs. 
IGP/Provincial Police Officer, Punjab, Lahore) 
 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 28 :- 
 
37. 
 
It was pleaded that the petitioner Mrs. Nasim Chaudhry was 
originally appointed as Sub-Inspector on 27.11.1986 and was confirmed 
on 01.07.1987 and in due course she became officiating Inspector on 
27.11.1991 after five years. She was confirmed as Inspector on 
20.11.1992. In the year 1993, she was given ante-dated seniority w.e.f 
1988 on account of some outstanding action/ gallant act on her part 
when she had arrested some desperado in 1988. However, in 1997 the 
ante-dated seniority given in the year 1993 was withdrawn. Meanwhile 
DPC was held for promotions as DSP but she was not considered for the 
promotion. She approached the Punjab Service Tribunal and it was 
observed by the PST that she should be promoted along-with her juniors 
and she had not superseded anyone. IGP filed CPLA No.1617-L/1997 
before this Court, which was dismissed on 15.04.1999. The petitioner 
approached Lahore High Court for implementation of the orders of this 
Court and in the contempt petition learned High Court vide order dated 
27.09.1999 directed that the petitioner should be given promotion, but 
the IGP again approached this Court by filing Petition against the order 
dated 27.09.1999. This Court dismissed the petition vide order dated 
20.10.1999 which is reported as Ziaul Hassan Vs. Naseem Chaudhry 
(2000 SCMR 645). Finally on 02.11.1999 the petitioner was promoted as 
DSP. Now in pursuance of judgments of this Court the Department has 
withdrawn her promotion as DSP and she has been reverted to the post 
of Inspector w.e.f 2014. 
 
C.M.A 3347/2017 in C.R.P Nil/2017 in C.M.A 687/2017 in 
C.R.P.51/2016 (Jamil Ahmed Vs. Capt. (R) Zahid Saeed and others) 
38. 
 
It was pleaded that the Petitioner Jamil Ahmed was 
appointed as ASI in the year 1998. Being instrumental in causing arrest 
of wanted terrorists, he was granted out of turn promotion in the year 
1991 as Sub-Inspector and then out of turn promotion as Inspector in 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 29 :- 
 
the year 1998, under Section 8-A ibid. It was further pleaded that even in 
the year 1999, the Petitioner was recommended for out of turn promotion 
as DSP, which recommendation was not considered, therefore, he filed 
numerous writ petitions and Contempt Applications before the Lahore 
High Court and eventually he was promoted as DSP on 20.09.2010. It 
was pleaded that after an observation made by this Court vide order 
dated 26.01.2016, in Civil Appeal No.184-L of 2013, the Petitioner has 
been relegated to the post of ASI. 
39. 
 
Khawaja Haris Ahmad, learned Sr.ASC, appeared for the 
appellants in ICA Nos. 8, 9 & 17/2017 and Crl.M.A.937/2017 in Crl.O.P 
104/2017.  He contended that the issue of out of turn promotions was 
first taken up in the case of Contempt Proceedings against the Chief 
Secretary Sindh  (2013 SCMR 1752) and two things which come into 
focus in the said judgment are:  i) the manner in which out of turn 
promotions were granted alongwith the legal frame work which governed 
them in the province of Sindh; and ii) that the concept of out of turn 
promotions 
was 
declared 
unconstitutional 
being 
against 
the 
Fundamental Rights of others whose smooth promotion was hampered. 
He next contended that in the Review Petition of this case i.e. Ali Azhar 
Khan Baloch Vs.  Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456), again the concept 
of out of turn promotions was considered and while considering the issue 
of retrospective application of the judgment the cut-off date of 1994 given 
in the earlier judgment i.e Contempt Proceedings against the Chief 
Secretary (Supra) was left open. He next submitted that the present 
appellants filed Review Petitions before this Court, in light of the laws 
applicable to the Province of Punjab, but ultimately their Review Petitions 
were dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 30.12.2016 in Shahid 
Pervaiz’s case (supra) inter alia on the ground that the law of out of turn 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 30 :- 
 
promotions was unconstitutional and any person who had benefited from 
it, could not be allowed to continue taking that benefit. He also 
contended that two exceptions were created in the said judgment of 
Shahid Pervaiz (supra) i.e. i). the persons who had retired or died; and ii). 
as per 111 of the said judgment, the employees who got their out of turn 
promotions in pursuance of some judgments, whether of the Service 
Tribunal, High Court or the Supreme Court, were protected unless their 
cases were reviewed. 
 
40. 
 
He next submitted that in pursuance of this judgment dated 
30.12.2016, the IGP, Punjab as well as Home Department, Punjab 
undertook an exercise and made a report regarding persons whose out of 
turn promotions were to be protected and then there arose the difference 
of opinion between the IGP and the Home Department, Punjab. The first 
difference was that the Home Department was of the view that all those 
who had any judgment in their favour had absolute protection but the 
IGP went into greater details and stated that if some judgment was 
passed on the ground that the petitioner was being discriminated against 
in comparison to some other employee who had been granted out of turn 
promotion (without having any judgment in his favour) and now when 
that other person was no longer protected, therefore, the out of turn 
promotions of those petitioners (having judgments in their favour) also 
could not be protected as the very basis of the judgment(s) i.e 
discrimination stood removed. He submitted that the other factor which 
was taken into consideration by the Home Department and not agreed to 
by the IGP, Punjab was the fact that seven out of the eight appellants 
had already been encadred and had become Superintendent of Police 
(SP) in the normal course and now they were part of the Police Service of 
Pakistan (PSP) which was not a matter, wherein the jurisdiction lay with 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 31 :- 
 
the IGP, as the Home Department had to move the Establishment 
Division for withdrawal of their out of turn promotion. He went on to 
submit that once a Police officer becomes DSP he is part of the Provincial 
cadre and then a Provincial Selection Board has to be convened to 
consider whether he is fit to be promoted as SP and when he becomes SP 
then he becomes part of the Police Service of Pakistan. 
41. 
 
He also contended that in the given circumstances, the 
appellants took this protection as an absolute protection. Moreover, in 
each and every order passed by the Service Tribunal/Courts, whether 
decided on merits or otherwise, their rights were protected. Therefore, in 
terms of the judgment in the case of Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) itself, 
their cases were protected. He next contended that in Shahid Pervaiz’s 
case (supra) mainly two sets of Criminal Original Petitions (Contempt 
Petitions) were filed. In first set the petitioners were those who had 
judgments of judicial fora in their favour; and in the second set were 
Petitioners who sought implementation of the above mentioned 
judgment.  
42. 
 
The learned counsel, after referring briefly to the Service 
Profiles of all the eight appellants, further contended that the law itself 
had provided for the out of turn promotions and Section 8-A was inserted 
in the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 on 08.11.1987 through an 
amendment and then correspondingly on 09.02.1989 Rule 14-A was also 
introduced in the Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of 
Service) Rules, 1974. He further contended that section 8-A ibid provided 
for promotion in case of exceptional and extra ordinary performance on 
the basis of gallantry and honesty etc., but this section was omitted on 
17.10.2006 and similarly, Rule 14-A ibid was also omitted through a 
Notification dated 02.11.2007. The learned counsel next contended that 
neither the appellants/petitioners were instrumental in enacting this law 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 32 :- 
 
nor did they have any role in its omission. Furthermore, all of the 
appellants/petitioners before this Court earned their out of turn 
promotions whilst this law was intact and even in the report of the IGP 
Punjab, there is no indication whatsoever that the promotion granted to 
any of the individuals before this Court was against the law or in breach 
of any rule. Learned counsel also submitted that when the Review 
Petitions were dismissed by this Court vide Judgment dated 30.12.2016 
in Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra), the five member bench protected past 
and closed transactions through a saving clause. He claimed that the 
present appellants/petitioners fall in that saving clause as provided in 
para 111 of the judgment in Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra). 
43. 
 
He further submitted that the appellants/petitioners are 
exceptional police officers and there is no element of fake/illegal police 
encounters, manipulation or corruption on their part. They have also 
won awards and medals. He went on to argue that it was the law of the 
land in terms of Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan and there is long 
chain of judgments of this Court, starting from the case of Capt. (Retd). 
Abdul Qayyum v. Muhammad Iqbal (PLD 1992 SC 184) to Farhat Abbas 
Vs. Inspector General (2009 SCMR 245), wherein the law of out of turn 
promotions has been upheld. In all these cases the out of turn 
promotions were either upheld or the departmental authorities were 
directed to act according to law and grant the out of turn promotions to 
the employees and the Service Tribunal/ High Court/this Court never 
decided the merits, suitability or fitness of the employees. Moreover, he 
contended that most of these cases were decided mainly on two grounds; 
firstly, that if once the out of turn promotion was announced under the 
valid law and the procedure was followed then the concerned authorities 
had to abide by that and the petitioners could not be denied the out of 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 33 :- 
 
turn of promotion; and secondly, when the other employees were given 
out of turn promotions then claimants were also held entitled.   
44. 
 
His next contention was that in terms of Article 189 of the 
Constitution, the judgments of this Court are binding on all other Courts 
and it was for the first time in the case of Muhammad Nadeem Arif v. 
Inspector General of Police (2011 SCMR 408), that the concept of out of 
turn promotions was declared against the Constitution and Islam, but 
even in this Judgment the out of promotion was not set-aside. He then 
referred to the case of Ghulam Shabbir v. Muhammad Munir Abbasi (2011 
PLC (C.S.) 763), to substantiate that the law on the point of out of turn 
promotions was never struck down, despite observing it unconstitutional 
and against the injunctions of Islam and it was only so done in the case 
of Contempt proceedings against Chief Secretary Sindh (2013 SCMR 
1752) on 12.06.2013, but none of the above referred judgments were 
either recalled or specifically discussed and held to be per incuriam.  
45. 
 
He next argued that certain exceptions were created by the 
Court itself in Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra), e.g. in para No. 111 the 
judgments of judicial fora were protected; in para No. 119 an exception 
was created to save retired/ dead employees; and in Para No. 143 this 
Court observed that “the orders of withdrawal of out of turn promotion 
passed by the Department/Competent Authority shall be recalled against 
the Police Officers who had earned out of turn promotions, pursuant to the 
judgments of superior Courts/Service Tribunals, as discussed in 
paragraph 111 of this judgment”. He next referred to para No. 123 of 
Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) regarding past and closed transactions 
wherein it was observed that:- 
“123. We are clear in our view that the issue of past 
and 
closed 
transaction 
(except 
what 
has 
been 
concluded in paragraph 111) does not arise in the 
instant case as we have already declared void ab initio 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 34 :- 
 
the legislative instruments that provided for out of turn 
promotions.” 
 
 
 
 
 
The learned counsel contended that nowhere in the 
judgment were the legislative instruments declared void ab initio, and if 
these legislative instruments had been void ab initio then why were the 
exceptions created? 
 
46. 
 
He then submitted that both in terms of Articles 4 and 189 
of the Constitution of Pakistan sanctity and certainty is attached to the 
orders of the Court. When law is made by the legislature, thereafter 
interpreted and declared by this Court and followed by the department 
then the rights of the parties should be protected. He also contended that 
in these cases the out of turn promotions were granted 15-20 years prior 
to the striking down of this law. There will be no judgment on the merits 
of the out of turn promotions because the law had itself provided that the 
recommendations made for out of turn promotion would be placed before 
the Selection Board, for its determination and only thereafter, the out of 
turn promotion would be granted. He next submitted that the judgments 
rendered by the Courts are mostly those, wherein the out of turn 
promotions in the first instance were provided, promised and/or being 
processed, but thereafter, were either withheld or delayed or the IGP was 
transferred and the next IGP, who followed, thought differently. 
47. 
 
Khawaja Haris Ahmad, learned Sr.ASC also contended that 
the phrase “in pursuance of” as used in para 111 of Shahid Pervaiz’s 
case (supra) should be given concrete meaning, because through this 
phrase a saving clause was created for the employees who had judicial 
verdicts in their favour and in most of the Notifications while granting 
out of turn promotions under the orders of Service Tribunal /Court this 
phrase has been used. He next contended that when the judgment dated 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 35 :- 
 
30.12.2006 was delivered by the five member bench then nothing could 
be added or subtracted in that judgment but this Court through 
judgment dated 29.03.2017 reported as Interim Report by AIG Legal for 
I.G, Punjab (supra) while upholding the view point of IGP added 
something new which was not there in the main judgment. He further 
submitted that while considering interim report of IGP, a Bench 
consisting of two Hon’ble Judges also passed an order dated 14.02.2017, 
wherein certain additional observations were made which were not there 
in the original order. He added that this Court vide judgment dated 
30.12.2016 had directed that the seniority of all those having earned out 
of promotion be fixed with their batch-mates, but in the order dated 
14.02.2017 reference was also made to the earlier judgments of this 
Court and the compliance of all those judgments was sought by 
observing that in no case would out of turn promotions be upheld, so it 
was an addition to the judgment dated 30.12.2016 rendered in the case 
of Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra). He also contended that although the 
judgment dated 29.03.2017 itself clarifies that this Court is not reviewing 
the judgment dated 30.12.2016, but in essence the judgment was 
reviewed. 
48. 
 
Adding to the above contention the learned counsel next 
submitted that the other ground on which the judgment dated 
29.03.2017 was passed, was that these cases could be reviewed because 
these matters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court under 
Article 212, and the employees should have approached the Service 
Tribunal and these orders of the High Court are nullity in the eyes of law. 
This according to the learned counsel was an additional reason given for 
denying the out of turn promotions. He also contended that this was not 
a case of promotion in terms of eligibility, rather it was case of fitness & 
suitability and it has been held by the Courts that fitness and suitability 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 36 :- 
 
does not come within the jurisdiction and domain of the Service 
Tribunal. 
49. 
 
Learned Counsel next submitted that the orders passed by 
the IGP for withdrawal of the out of turn promotions are not the speaking 
orders for the reason that he also took into account the order of this 
Court dated 14.02.2017, whereby this Court had directed that the earlier 
judgments of this Court be adhered to and since the judgment in Shahid 
Pervaiz’s case (supra), which had created exceptions, was not referred to 
in the order dated 14.02.2017 of this Court, therefore, the IGP was made 
to follow and implement the earlier judgments, which was against the 
mandate of Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) and an addition in the main 
judgment. 
50. 
 
He lastly submitted that the appellants have been enjoying 
these offices for a long period of time and are not responsible for 
whatever benefit they have gained or acquired through out of turn 
promotions. They approached the Courts of law and the Courts granted 
them the benefit of an out of turn promotion. Now it is a matter of 
human dignity that their rights may be protected as they are going to be 
adversely affected. While concluding his arguments he prayed that as in 
Para 119 of Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) dead and retired employees 
were saved by creating an exception, in the same lines, keeping in view 
the spirit of Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan, an option 
to retire may be given to these persons within a reasonable period of 
time. 
51. 
 
Malik Muhammad Qayyum, learned Sr.ASC appeared in ICA 
Nos. 4 & 18/2017 on behalf of Appellants Akhtar Umer Hayat Lalayka 
and Mansoor Naji respectively. He has also appeared in Crl.O.P.Nos.92 
and 152/2016 filed on behalf of Mansoor Naji. The learned counsel after 
giving the service profile of both appellants contended that in the 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 37 :- 
 
judgment dated 30.12.2016 rendered in Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) 
an exception was created by this Court itself and the out of turn 
promotions earned through judicial orders were protected and this 
exception should be implemented,. He also contended that the out of 
promotions already granted were to be protected under the principle of 
past and closed transactions and these past and closed transactions 
could not be hit by some new interpretation and now by way of changing 
the interpretation the benefit of out of turn promotion earlier granted, 
under the valid law at that time and thereafter validated through 
judgments, could not be taken away especially by the judgments in 
which the appellants were not a party, despite the fact that section 8-A 
supra was omitted in the year 2006. Regarding doctrine of past and 
closed transactions he referred to the cases of Income Tax Officer Karachi 
v. Cement Agencies (PLD 1969 SC 322), Pir Baksh and another v. 
Chairman Allotment Committee (PLD 1987 SC 145). He further added that 
if an exception is correctly created then there is no need to review it. The 
learned counsel lastly submitted that the appellant Mansoor Naji did not 
want to exercise the option of retirement. However, Umer Hayat Lalayka 
wanted to exercise the option of retirement, if it was so provided. 
52. 
 
Mr. Tallat Farooq Sheikh, ASC appeared for appellants in 
ICA Nos. 6, 21, 22 & 23/2017 on behalf of appellants Manzoor Ahmed, 
Muhammad Sarwar Awan, Muhammad Ashraf Chadder and Mian 
Shafqat Ali, respectively. He has also appeared in Criminal Original 
Petition Nos. 125, 126, 127, 139/2017 & 4/2018 on behalf of petitioners 
namely Muhammad Ashraf Chadder, Khalid Farooq Khan, Mian Shafqat 
Ali, Shaikh Muhammad Arshad Latif and Rana Mansoor Ahmad Khan, 
respectively. The learned counsel submitted that the promotions of the 
appellants/petitioners were protected in light of Para 111 of Shahid 
Pervaiz’s case (supra). He further added that Khalid Farooq Khan was 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 38 :- 
 
never granted out of turn promotion and his promotion as Head 
Constable was based on a family claim as his brother was martyred, 
while serving as SI in the Sindh Police, therefore the same could not be 
withdrawn. He further submitted that the out of turn promotion granted 
to Rana Masroor Ahmad Khan had already been withdrawn, therefore, 
the Department had violated the judgment dated 30.12.2016. He also 
contended that the out of turn promotions granted through the 
judgments of the Service Tribunal / Courts were protected under Para 
111 of Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) and Article 264(c) of the 
Constitution which provided that the rights accrued under a repealed law 
would not be affected. He has also prayed that contempt proceedings be 
initiated against the Respondents for not implementing the judgment of 
this Court in Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) in its letter and spirit.  
53. 
 
Mr. S.A Mehmood Khan Saddozai, ASC appeared on behalf 
of Malik Muhammad Sabir appellant in ICA 19/2017 and submitted that 
in the year 1993, when appellant was Sub-Inspector and not promoted 
with his batch-mates, he filed appeal before the PST which was accepted 
on 27.03.2000, by holding that he should be promoted alongwith his 
batch-mates. Then he was promoted from Sub-Inspector to Inspector. 
Later on in the year 2009 he was promoted as DSP as a matter of 
routine. The learned counsel contended that the appellant never got out 
of turn promotion and now the department had reverted him under the 
garb of implementation of judgments of this Court. He added that the 
appellant was inducted in 1980 in the police department and now having 
36 years of service, he was on the verge of retirement.  
54. 
 
Mr. Ahsan Bhoon, learned ASC appeared for the appellant 
Muhammad Haseeb Anjum in ICA No. 2/2018 and submitted that the 
appellant was appointed as Constable in 1980 and in due course he was 
promoted as Head Constable and on 26.12.1990 he was promoted 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 39 :- 
 
temporarily as ASI. He was confirmed as ASI in 1998 and was then 
promoted from the date of appointment as temporary promotion. He filed 
a representation before the department, which was rejected vide order 
07.04.2006 thereafter, he filed an appeal before the PST which was 
allowed vide order dated 13.10.2006 and he was granted promotion from 
the date of his confirmation/appointment which has now been 
withdrawn by the department.  
55. 
 
The learned counsel contended that during the hearing of 
these matters earlier, IGP was directed to submit a report of all those 
cases which were protected by Court orders and in response to that 
direction, the IGP had filed a list of 129 persons whose cases were 
protected, as falling in the exception created by para 111 in Shahid 
Pervaiz’s case (supra) and the name of the petitioner was present in that 
list. 
He 
further 
submitted 
that 
the 
appellant 
had 
filed 
Crl.O.P.No.62/2017 against the judgment dated 30.12.2016, which was 
dismissed vide judgment dated 29.03.2017. Now he has filed this ICA 
against the judgment dated 29.03.2017. 
56. 
 
Mr. Aziz Ahmed Malik, learned ASC appearing for the 
petitioners in Crl.O.P No. 96 of 2017 submitted that the petitioners in 
this case were never promoted out of turn on the basis of gallantry rather 
they were promoted in accordance with the Rule 13.6 (2) of the Police 
Rules, 1934 as they stood either first or second in order of merit in 
training. He further submitted that the petitioners had earlier 
approached this Court by filing review petition (C.R.P.No.285/2016 in 
C.A.No.184-L/2013) against the order of this Court dated 26.01.2016 
which was disposed of by this Court in the following terms: 
“We have heard the learned ASCs for the review 
Petitioners. Their prime contention is that the judgment 
under review dated 26.01.2016, and the ratio of other 
two judgments in the case of Contempt Proceedings 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 40 :- 
 
against Chief Secretary Sindh (2013 SCMR 1752) and 
Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs. Province of Sindh (2015 
SCMR 456), was not at all applicable or attracted in 
their cases, however, through different Orders, they 
have been non-suited by the departmental authority, 
solely on this account. 
2. 
When confronted with this position, Mr. Kamran 
Adil, AIG (Legal), Punjab, states that the departmental 
authority will be ready to examine such contentions of 
the petitioners in case representations are made in this 
regard. 
3. 
With the above statement, the learned ASCs for 
the review petitioners are satisfied, but they request for 
some fixed time frame to avoid inordinate delay in such 
exercise.  
4. 
In view of the above, these petitions are disposed 
of with the observation that in case representations are 
made by the petitioners before the competent authority, 
that shall be heard and disposed of as expeditiously as 
possible.” 
 
 
The learned counsel next contended that the petitioners had 
approached the departmental authorities in light of the above 
observations, but as their representations did not receive any positive 
response, they approached the PST and now their matters are pending 
before the said forum. He further submitted that he will be satisfied if 
directions are given for decision of these cases expeditiously before the 
said forum. 
57. 
 
Mr. Mushtaq Ahmed, ASC appeared on behalf of petitioners 
in Crl.O.P.No.121 to 124/2017 and contended that the petitioners were 
protected under Para 111 of Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) and the 
respondents have committed contempt of this Court by not implementing 
the judgment dated 30.12.2016 and the petitioners despite having 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 41 :- 
 
judicial orders in their favour have been reverted/ demoted, therefore, 
contempt proceedings be initiated against the Respondents. 
58. 
 
Mr. Qausain Faisal, learned ASC appeared for the petitioner 
in Crl.O.P.No.217/2017 and contended that the appellant’s case was 
protected under para 111 of Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) as the 
petitioner had a judgment of the PST dated 28.02.2008 in Appeal No. 
2549/2007 in his favour, whereby he was granted seniority as confirmed 
Inspector w.e.f 21.04.1999 which was implemented and the said 
judgment having not been assailed before any higher fora had attained 
finality and was protected under the principle of past and closed 
transaction. He prayed that contempt proceedings be initiated against 
the Respondents for not implementing the judgment of this Court in 
Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) in its letter and spirit. 
59. 
 
Yousaf Ali appeared in person in Crl.O.P.No.132/2017 and 
submitted that his case was also protected as having been decided upto 
the level of this Court and now when he has been reverted to the rank of 
Head Constable, the department has committed contempt of the 
judgment of this Court. He has prayed that contempt proceedings be 
initiated against the Respondents for not implementing the judgment of 
this Court in Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) in its letter and spirit. 
60. 
 
Mr. Shakil-ur-Rehman Khan, learned Advocate General 
Punjab through Crl.R.P. No.42/2017 seeks review of judgment dated 
29.03.2017 reported as Interim Report by AIG Legal for I.G, Punjab 
(supra), whereby the view point of IGP, Punjab was considered as correct 
as against that of the Home Department, Government of Punjab which 
was of the view that all the persons having judicial decisions in their 
favour were protected by the judgment of this Court in Shahid Pervaiz’s 
case (supra). The learned law officer contended that when this Court in 
Para Nos. 111 & 143 of Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) had directed that 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 42 :- 
 
the cases decided by the judicial forums will not be opened and will be 
treated as past and closed, then how could the executive authority i.e. 
IGP, Punjab review the judgments passed by the judicial fora? He next 
submitted that although the Government of Punjab had no cavil with the 
implementation of the judgment, but the remarks in Para 17 of the 
judgment dated 29.03.2017 Interim Report by AIG Legal for I.G, Punjab 
(Supra), may be expunged, wherein this Court was pleased to observe 
that:  
“17.  
….…….However, now before us the Home 
Department and the learned AG have taken a complete 
u-turn and support the very same out of turn promotions 
that were earlier opposed by them of the pretext of the 
judgment in the Shahid Pervaiz case.” 
 
61. 
 
Kafayat 
Ullah 
Bajwa 
appeared 
in 
person 
in 
Crl.R.P.No.68/2017 in Crl.O.P.No.60/2017. He seeks review of the 
judgment dated 29.03.2017. He submitted that his case was protected 
under Para No. 111 read with Para No.143 of the judgment dated 
30.12.2016 and the three member Bench could not withdraw the 
protection given by Para 111 in Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) by 
endorsing the view point of IGP.  
62. 
 
Mr. Jamil Ahmed appeared in person in the two petitions i.e. 
C.M.A.No.3347/2017 in C.R.P.No.Nil/2017 in C.M.A.No.687/2017 in 
C.R.P.No.51/2016 and Crl.O.P.No.138/2017. Through the first one 
which is an impleadment application, wherein after being impleaded he 
seeks review of the judgment of this Court dated 29.03.2017 in the case 
of Interim Report by AIG Legal for I.G, Punjab (Supra), whereas, through 
the second one he has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court 
alleging that contempt of judgment dated 30.12.2016 has been 
committed. He has submitted that the three member bench of this Court 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 43 :- 
 
vide judgment dated 29.03.2017 could not review the judgment dated 
30.12.2016 passed by 5-Member Bench and moreover the IGP Punjab 
had no authority whatsoever, under the law to review the orders of this 
Court as the out of turn promotions earned through judicial orders were 
protected under Para 111 of Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra). He also 
contended that the then IGP Punjab committed contempt of this Court 
by not protecting his out of turn promotion and the IGP could not sit in 
appeal over the judgment of this Court and review a matter which was 
already decided by the High Court and protected through the judgment 
of this Court. He prayed that contempt proceedings be initiated against 
the Respondents for not implementing the judgment of this Court in 
Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) in letter and spirit. 
63. 
 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Sr.ASC appeared on behalf 
of Respondent No.5 in ICA Nos.4, 6, 8, 18, 21 and 23 of 2017. He 
contended that the main line of arguments before this Court by the 
appellants / petitioners (in the Intra Court Appeals or the Contempt 
Petitions) has been the gallant record of the appellants/petitioners and 
that they were deservedly promoted out of turn. According to the learned 
counsel this argument was already considered in Shahid Pervaiz’s case 
(supra) and rejected and against that judgment no Review or Intra Court 
Appeal is pending before this Court, therefore, that judgment has become 
final. Learned counsel referred to Para 118 of Shahid Pervaiz’s case 
(supra) relevant part of which is reproduced hereunder: 
“118. The contention of the learned Counsel that the 
effect of the aforesaid judgments which declares the 
concept of out of turn promotion unconstitutional cannot 
be extended to apply retrospectively on the cases where 
law granting out of turn promotions was omitted, is 
without force…………….. Thus, there is neither any 
reason in principle nor any precedent which bars the 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 44 :- 
 
Courts from examining the provisions of a repealed 
statute in a case pending before it on the touchstone of 
its inconsistency with the provisions of the Constitution 
or the Fundamental Rights, as enumerated in the 
Constitution.” 
 
 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, learned Sr.ASC next contended that the 
argument regarding prospective or retrospective application of the 
judgment and the principle of past and closed transactions was also 
considered and rejected with a few carve outs and it was observed by this 
Court that the officers, who are presently serving the department cannot 
seek shelter under the doctrine of past and closed transactions. He 
further submitted that this view of the Court was in line with the case of 
Pensionary benefits of Judges reported as Application by Abdul Rehman 
Farooq Pirzada v. Begum Nusrat Ali Gonda (PLD 2013 SC 829). Moreover, 
he added that the learned Bench itself observed that there were two 
carve outs from the principle of past and closed transactions and the 
retrospective application of the judgment. These carve outs were the 
employees who had retired or died. He relied on Para No. 119 of the 
judgment in the Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra). 
64. 
 
The 
learned 
counsel 
next 
contended 
that 
regarding 
employees who are still in service, there was a further carve out in the 
judgment and it was observed that the cases decided by the Service 
Tribunal/Courts would be protected unless reviewed. He pointed out that 
the cases decided by the Service Tribunal /Courts were mostly decided 
on the basis of limitation and there were no orders on the merits of the 
cases. He further contended that these cases decided by the judicial 
forums were either decided on the ground of discrimination or merely 
disposed of without discussing the merits of the case on the ground that 
the petition/appeal had borne fruit as during pendency of the matter, the 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 45 :- 
 
employee was promoted out of turn by the department itself. He also 
contended that the cases which were decided on the basis of 
discrimination were again divided into two parts i.e. One, the cases 
wherein the persons were granted out of turn promotion on the basis of a 
gallant act in the same incident; and second, the cases wherein the 
appellants were relying on each other’s case. He also added that in one 
case all that the Service Tribunal said was to decide the case on merits 
and nothing further, so all these cases did not belong to the category, 
which could be said to be protected by a Court order. 
65. 
 
He further contended that when the report of IGP, Punjab 
came up before the three member bench then there were two options i.e. 
either the IGP had the power or did not have the power to review. In 
either case it would end up giving meaning to the words “they shall 
remain intact, unless reviewed”. The meaning which the 3-Member Bench 
of this Court placed on this phrase was that the review had to take place 
at the departmental level and this was the interpretation of the Bench 
given in the judgment dated 29.03.2017.  
66. 
 
He lastly, contended that now even this Court can Suo Moto 
review the matter and remove the exception given in Para 111 read with 
Para 143 of the judgment dated 30.12.2016, whereby the out of turn 
promotions granted in pursuance of any judicial order were protected. He 
added that the Court would be absolutely justified to review it on account 
of three reasons: 
i. These cases were decided on the basis of discrimination with 
some other person/officer and those persons themselves 
have now been reverted; 
ii. In some of the cases there was no protection given at all 
because the matter was disposed of due to the reason that 
the petition had borne fruit or it was directed that the case 
should be decided on merits by the department; and  
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 46 :- 
 
iii. The cases pertaining to the Sports category were never part 
of the carve out either in para 111 or 119 of Shahid 
Pervaiz’s case (supra).  
 
 
 
The learned counsel while concluding has prayed that these 
cases may be dismissed with costs. 
67. 
 
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused 
the record with their able assistance. 
68. 
 
 First of all we would like to deal with the argument of past 
and closed transactions, which is the core issue in the instant matter. In 
Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra), this argument was also raised and 
considered, wherein it was inter alia observed that:- 
“116. As to the claim that the out of turn promotions are 
covered by the doctrine of past and closed transaction, 
the infirmity of the argument is self-evident. Sometimes 
there are wrongs without individual victims while in 
other cases there are identified individual victims. The 
brunt of out of turn promotions is always borne by the 
individual officers who were bypassed due to out of 
turn promotions. The damaging effect on the careers of 
deserving officers who suffered due to these out of turn 
promotions continue during service and even after 
retirement in terms of pensionary benefits. If the 
beneficiaries of this illegal exercise are reverted to the 
positions to which they would have been entitled to, on 
their respective merit and promotion, on their turn, this 
would immediately open up vistas of promotion for 
those deserving officers who were earlier bypassed due 
to out of turn promotions. 
117. In the light of the rules and principles laid down 
by this Court, we with respect are not inclined to agree 
with the proposition that vested rights that were created 
under a law subsequently declared unconstitutional by 
this Court have attained finality under doctrine of past 
and closed transaction, and that they are immune from 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 47 :- 
 
the application of the aforementioned judgments of this 
Court. We have maintained that vested rights are 
generated only under 
a valid 
and uncontested 
instrument of law. An instrument that was still born or 
treated by this Court as non est is barred from creating 
any vested rights, let alone being protected under the 
doctrine of past and closed transactions. We believe 
that it is our duty to protect the rights and interests 
created under a law and also to deny the enjoyment of 
rights created under an invalid law. In the instant case, 
the Petitioners are claiming the protection of rights that 
were created under a law that has failed to pass the 
test of constitutionality, as determined by this Court; 
hence, they cannot take the plea of past and closed 
transaction.” 
 
However, in Para 111 it was further observed that, “……the cases 
wherein ‘out of turn promotion’ was granted to individuals, pursuant to 
the judgments of the High Court, Service Tribunal and the Supreme 
Court. They shall remain intact unless reviewed.”  
69. 
 
Similarly, other argument advanced by the learned counsel 
for the parties was that the out of turn promotions were earned when 
section 8-A ibid was a valid law, and the rights created under the said 
law are protected in light of Article 264(c) of the Constitution, moreover, 
it was not the fault of the appellants/petitioners that they were promoted 
out of turn, so they have vested rights which need to be protected. This 
argument was also considered in Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra), and it 
was observed that:- 
“118. The contention of the learned Counsel that the 
effect of the aforesaid judgments which declares the 
concept of out of turn promotion unconstitutional cannot 
be extended to apply retrospectively on the cases where 
law granting out of turn promotions was omitted, is 
without force. Insofar as the issue of examining the 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 48 :- 
 
provisions of a repealed statute is concerned, such an 
exercise is carried out by Courts in routine in the context 
of section 6 of the General Clauses Act, as well as 
Article 264 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Whenever 
any right, obligation, privilege or liability acquired, 
accrued or incurred under the repealed law is raised, 
the Courts are necessarily required to examine the 
provisions of the repealed statute. Thus, there is neither 
any reason in principle nor any precedent which bars 
the Courts from examining the provisions of a repealed 
statute in a case pending before it on the touchstone of 
its inconsistency with the provisions of the Constitution 
or the Fundamental Rights, as enumerated in the 
Constitution. Any other conclusion would lead to the 
absurd consequences that while the statute remains on 
the statute book, the Courts can examine its vires but 
once it was repealed by a subsequent statute, its effect, 
even if ex facie inconsistent with the Constitution or 
Fundamental Rights goes beyond the realm of judicial 
review. If such were the effect of repeal, then all that 
would be required to create a protected class of 
legislation is promulgation of patently unconstitutional 
statutes creating rights in favour of certain interested 
persons which though completely destructive of the 
Fundamental Rights of others, stood protected behind 
an impenetrable wall by the mere repeal of the statute 
through such unconstitutional Act. Such would not only 
be a fraud upon the statute but would be completely 
destructive of the rule of law and constitutional 
governance. Thus, there is no reason which compels the 
Court to sustain such an absurd proposition. As and 
when a repealed statute is invoked or raised in support 
of any claim, right, office or act, before the Court, the 
Court would always be entitled to examine its validity 
on the touchstone of the Constitution and Fundamental 
Rights. We have not been able to discover any instance 
from our own history as well as that of other legal 
systems with entrenched judicial review on the 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 49 :- 
 
touchstone of the Constitution, where the Courts have 
refrained from examining the vires of the statute on the 
mere ground that at the time of review such law stood 
repealed by a subsequent statute.” 
 
70. 
 
With respect, we do not agree with the learned counsel for 
the appellants/ petitioners that the exception created in Para 111 read 
with Para 143 in the judgment of Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra), is an 
absolute one. It was observed that “the cases wherein ‘out of turn 
promotion’ was granted to individuals, pursuant to the judgments of the 
High Court, Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court. They shall remain 
intact unless reviewed.” The Court in judgment dated 29.03.2017 has 
taken the word “Review” in its general meaning, whereby the 
Department/ IGP could also re-examine the individual cases. Seen from 
another angle if we take it to mean that the review was to take place by 
the judicial authorities then this itself would be contrary to the judgment 
itself. In Para 119, it was observed that the employees who are still in 
service cannot seek refuge in the doctrine of past and closed transaction. 
It was held that:-  
 “119. ……………the case of an employee who had 
enjoyed an out of turn promotion pursuant to a law 
found to be ultra vires the Fundamental Rights, who 
now stands retired and or died, it would constitute a 
past and closed transaction inasmuch as it would be a 
futile exercise to re-open the case of such an employee. 
On the other hand, employees who were so promoted 
under such a statute and who continue to remain in 
service, would be liable to be restored to the position 
that existed prior to the benefit conferred under the 
statute found inconsistent with Fundamental Rights. 
Indeed, once a statute has been declared as being 
unconstitutional for any reason, all direct benefits 
continuing to flow from the same are to be stopped. 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 50 :- 
 
Reference in this behalf may be made to the case of Dr. 
Mobashir Hassan v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 
SC 265)…..” 
71. 
 
When the very concept of out of turn promotion was declared 
to be unconstitutional then the exception created in Para 111 could not 
be said to be extended to the in service employees whether they had any 
judicial verdict in their favour or not. They were not protected under the 
doctrine of past and closed transaction as observed above. Moreover, no 
such protection was provided in the cases of Contempt Proceedings 
against the Chief Secretary Sindh (Supra) and Ali Azhar Khan Baloch 
(Supra), which were required to be followed by all the provinces to 
streamline the civil service structure. It would not be justified if any such 
benefit were to be extended to the employees of the Punjab Police. 
Although no one has sought review of this exception and the judgment in 
Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) was already passed under the review 
jurisdiction. Second review is barred by law and no party can now 
approach this Court for a second review, however, this Court has 
absolute power to re-visit its earlier judgments/orders by invoking its 
Suo Motu Jurisdiction under Articles 184(3), 187 or 188 of the 
Constitution. This Power is not dependant upon an application of any 
party and it was so held in the case of Khalid Iqbal Vs. Mirza Khan 
(PLD 2015 SC 50), in the following words:-  
“12. The question of maintainability of the 2nd 
Criminal Review Petition on the ground that this Court 
has to do complete justice by invoking Article 187(1) of 
the Constitution is also misconceived. The provisions of 
Article 187(1) cannot be attracted in the present case, 
as this Court has already recorded findings against the 
petitioner by the Judgment dated 28-2-2001, against 
which review was also dismissed and there was no ‘lis’ 
pending before this Court warranting exercise of its 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 51 :- 
 
jurisdiction under Article 187(1) of the Constitution, 
besides Rule 9 of the Order XXVI of the Supreme Court 
Rules, bars 2nd Review Petition. There is a distinction 
between right of a party to approach the Court and 
jurisdiction of the Court to do complete justice on its 
own. Once this Court has finally determined the right of 
the petitioner in the judgment dated 28-2-2001, holding 
him guilty, the petitioner through 2nd Review Petition, 
cannot re-agitate it. If such a Review Petition is allowed 
to be entertained, it will land in a situation where 
findings of this Court against a party will never attain 
finality. 
13. 
This, however, does not mean that the jurisdiction 
of this Court is barred by any restriction placed by the 
Constitution; there is no Article in the Constitution which 
imposes any restriction or bar on this Court to revisit its 
earlier decision or even to depart from them, nor the 
doctrine of stare decisis will come in its way so long as 
revisiting of the judgment is warranted, in view of the 
significant impact on the fundamental rights of citizens 
or in the interest of public good. ... …  
On perusal of the paragraphs referred to hereinabove, 
we can safely reach a conclusion that this Court has 
absolute powers to re-visit, to review and or to set aside 
its earlier judgments/orders by invoking its Suo Motu 
Jurisdiction under Articles 184(3), 187 or 188 of the 
Constitution. The Powers of this Court to exercise its 
inherent jurisdiction under the above referred Articles of 
the Constitution are not dependant upon an application 
of a party.” 
The same view has been reiterated in a recent judgment dated 
5.1.2018 passed in the case of Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi Vs. 
Federation of Pakistan (Const.P.No.1/2016).  
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 52 :- 
 
72. 
 
The acts of gallantry in no way justify out of turn 
promotions. However, in order to increase the morale of the police 
personnel, we support the proposition that on exhibiting exceptional acts 
of gallantry, they should be given awards and rewards on merits and this 
concept is in line with the spirit of Article 259 (2) of the Constitution.   
73. 
 
The contention of Khawaja Haris Ahmad, learned Sr.ASC 
that in Para No. 123 of  Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) this Court had 
wrongly observed that “we have already declared void ab initio the 
legislative instruments that provided for out of turn promotions.”  because 
nowhere in the earlier judgment was such a declaration made, is also 
without force. Suffice it to say that in Para 104 of Shahid Pervaiz’ Case 
(Supra), it was observed that: 
 
“104. Through the successions of its orders, this Court 
has consistently maintained the unconstitutionality, 
and the consequential nullity of the instruments 
providing for the out of turn promotion.” 
 
 
Moreover, in Para 129 of the judgment of Ali Azhar Khan Baloch’s 
case (supra), this Court was pleased to observe that when any legislative 
instrument is declared unconstitutional, the effect of such declaration is 
that such legislative instrument becomes void ab initio. The relevant part 
of Para 129 is being reproduced hereunder: 
 
 
“129. ……………….. Now, it is a settled law of this Court 
that no right or obligation can accrue under an 
unconstitutional law. Once this Court has declared a 
legislative instrument as being unconstitutional, the 
effect of such declaration is that such legislative 
instrument becomes void ab initio, devoid of any force of 
law, neither can it impose any obligation, nor can it 
expose anyone to any liability.” 
 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 53 :- 
 
74. 
 
Regarding the Sports Policy it has already been observed in 
Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra) that this policy to the extent of 
accelerated promotions is not sustainable, being violative of “the 
provisions of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, and the rules framed 
thereunder, and which Act itself is created pursuant to the provisions of 
Articles 240 and 242 of the Constitution”. However, it was further 
observed in the said judgment that “it would be open to the government to 
frame rules providing a Sports Group within police in order to encourage 
and incentivize sports, which will not form part of the regular police force. 
In other words, the members of Sports Group shall not be assigned field 
posting, but will be restricted to their specialized Group.” We are in 
agreement with these observations. 
75.   
As far as the Review Petition filed by the Advocate General 
Punjab for expungement of remarks in Para 17 of the Interim Report by 
AIG Legal for I.G, Punjab (2017 SCMR 868) is concerned, it is clear that 
the Court had rightly observed in judgment dated 29.03.2017 that “It 
should also not be lost sight of that the competent authority/the IG had 
decided not to grant out of turn promotion to the officials/officers who then 
went to court/tribunal. At that juncture the Government of Punjab had 
resisted these cases, but, had belatedly filed appeals before this Court 
against the orders/judgments granting out of turn promotions. However, 
now before us the Home Department and the learned AG have taken a 
complete u-turn and support the very same out of turn promotions that 
were earlier opposed by them on the pretext of the judgment in the Shahid 
Pervaiz case….”. The learned Advocate General Punjab has placed no 
material on record to show that such observations were incorrect rather 
he has objected to the words “u-turn” used in these observations. These 
words were used in their common meaning and when there is no denial 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 54 :- 
 
of the fact that the petitions/appeals filed by the Government of Punjab 
were mostly dismissed by this Court on the point of limitation, therefore, 
we do not find any reason to expunge these remarks. 
76. 
 
Keeping in view the above we hold as under:- 
i. 
The exception, created in para No.111 of the Shahid 
Pervaiz’s Case (Supra) read with para No.143 thereof, 
wherein the protection was extended to the category of 
cases “wherein ‘out of turn promotion’ was granted to 
individuals, pursuant to the judgments of the High 
Court, Service Tribunal and the Supreme Court”, is 
hereby withdrawn by exercising Suo Moto Review 
Jurisdiction; 
ii. 
The Intra Court Appeals filed against judgment dated 
29.03.2017 and the Criminal Original Petitions filed 
for violation of judgment dated 30.12.2016 are 
dismissed. Furthermore, the Review Petitions filed 
against 
judgment 
dated 
29.03.2017 
are 
also 
dismissed. As the main cases have been decided 
hereinabove, the applications for impleadment as party 
are dismissed; 
iii. 
The Criminal Original Petition No. 96/2017 filed for 
violation of order dated 08.12.2016 is disposed of with 
the direction that the Punjab Service Tribunal shall 
proceed to decide the cases of the petitioners pending 
before it expeditiously, preferably within a period of 
two months of the decision of this case; 
iv. 
It would be open to the government to frame rules 
providing a Sports Group within the police in order to 
encourage sports but it will not form part of the 
regular police force and the members of Sports Group 
shall not be assigned field posting, and will only be 
restricted to their specialized Group; as already 
observed in Shahid Pervaiz’s case (supra); 
Intra Court Appeals No.4 of 2017 etc. 
 
-: 55 :- 
 
v. 
The I.G.P, Punjab, the Home Secretary, Punjab, and 
the Secretary, Establishment Division, are directed to 
comply with the judgment, by fixing the seniority of all 
the Police Officers/Officials who were given out of turn 
promotions along with their batch-mates, as if they 
were never given out of turn promotion; 
vi. 
For the purpose of compliance of this judgment, 
necessary D.P.C/Board, as the case may be, shall be 
immediately 
held 
and 
a 
compliance 
report 
be 
submitted to the Registrar of this Court for our perusal 
in Chambers within a period of one month. The 
Advocate General, Punjab, and the learned Attorney 
General for Pakistan shall communicate the directives 
of this Court to the relevant authorities. 
 
77. 
 
Before parting with this judgment, we acknowledge the 
assistance rendered by all the learned counsels for the parties and the 
learned Law Officer on the issue at hand. 
78. 
 
Criminal Original Petitions No.167 and 214 of 2017 relate to 
the province of Balochistan, wherein it has been complained that the 
judgments of this Court dated 26.01.2016 and 30.12.2016 have not been 
implemented in letter and spirit in the Province of Balochistan. The same 
are, therefore, separated and office is directed to fix them before the 
appropriate Bench.  
 
 
CHIEF JUSTICE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Announced in open Court 
on 13.5.2018 at Islamabad 
Approved For Reporting