MUHAMMAD ZAMAN VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance Division (Regulation Wing), Islamabad.
statutory or non-statutory nature, determination of—Test of whether rules /regulations were statutory or otherwise was not solely whether their framing required the approval of the Government or not, rather it was the nature and efficacy of such rules /regulations—Court had to see whether the rules /regulations dealt with instructions for internal control or management, in which case they would be non-statutory , or they were broader than and were complementary to the parent statute in matters of crucial importance, in which event they would be statutory .
2017 SCMR 206 Statutory and Non-Statutory Service Rules Judgment
SHAHID PERVAIZ VS EJAZ AHMAD
Rules framed under a statute—Scope—Operation of a statute or any statutory provision was not dependent upon framing of the rules —Absence of rules may affect the enforceability or operation of the statute, however, for considering the constitutionality or otherwise of a statute on the touchstone of the Constitution or Fundamental Rights, framing or non-framing of the rules under that statute could hardly be relevant.
2017 PLC 1 Statutory and Non-Statutory Service Rules Judgment
NEMAT ULLAH VS CHAIRMAN GOVERNING BODY, WORKER WELFARE BOARD/SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KPK, LABOUR DEPARTMENT
Permanent post having statutory rules —Probationary/contractual period— Employer could not put the employee on contract basis/ probation for an unreasonably long period when the appointment was made against a permanent vacancy/sanctioned post—Such practice was deprecated by the Supreme Court.
S. 8(3)—Workers’ Welfare Fund (Employees Service) rules , 1997—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199—Employees of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Workers Welfare Board (“Employees”)—statutory rules of service—Workers’ Welfare Fund (Employees Service) rules , 1997 were applicable with full statutory force to the service of the employees of the Workers’ Welfare Board of the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—Moreover after the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution, said rules enacted by the Federal Government were exclusively within the domain of the Provincial Government/Provincial Workers’ Welfare Board—Employees could file a Constitutional petition before the High Court if there was any invasion on their service benefits and rights by the authorities.