Peshawar High Court. PHOTO: PPI/FILE
This was directed on Wednesday as a two-member bench of the Supreme Court (SC), comprising Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Maqbool Baqar, as they heard a case filed by Advocate Gul Rehman Mohmand regarding the verdict of the high court.
During Wednesday’s proceedings, the court accepted the petition and suspended the verdict issued by the Peshawar High Court (PHC).
The counsel for the petitioner argued before the court that the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) government had issued a notification on February 2, 2018, in which it allowed greater allowances for government officials from the Provincial Civil Services (PCS), Provincial Management Services (PMS), and Provincial Administrative Services (PAS) cadres which amounted to more than their actual salaries.
Explaining the order, the lawyer said that after the notification, a government employee hired on a basic salary of Rs30,000 was receiving Rs45,000 in allowances. Similarly, a person who was drawing a salary of Rs76,000 would receive allowances worth more than Rs100,000.
The counsel maintained that the decision had forced the government to spend an additional Rs2 billion every year.
Justice Ahmed inquired whether it was the government's discretion to pay as much allowance as it wanted?
At this, the lawyer responded by stating that the question which should be asked is whether the government can pay more in allowances than the employee’s basic salary.
“What if we approve your petition for hearing and you withdraw it later?” the court asked the counsel.
The court, though, issued notices to the K-P chief secretary and the finance secretary and asked them to submit a response.
Bail suspension plea dismissed
In a separate case, the top court on Wednesday dismissed a plea to suspend the bails of suspects charged with killing a woman in the name of honour.
This was directed on Wednesday by a three-member bench of the SC, headed by Chief Justice Asif Saeed Khosa.
At the outset of the hearing, CJP Khosa remarked that whether the court should start awarding punishment to the suspects nominated in such cases without evidence.
“Should the nominated suspects in the honour killing case be jailed just based on allegations?” asked Chief Justice Khosa.
The petitioner’s counsel responded by stating that the victim’s father had registered a case for murder on June 26, 2018.
At this, Justice Khosa asked who was the petitioner in the case?. The counsel replied that it was the victim’s father, Pir Rehman.
“Is it true that the first information report (FIR) for the murder was registered five months after the incident took place?” the court inquired, following up by asking, “Is there a witness of the murder?”.
The counsel said that there has been no progress in the case so far to which Chief Justice Khosa remarked that it was because there were no witnesses to the incident.
“The victim, Saeeda, was killed in the name of honour,” the lawyer asserted, adding that the PHC had approved bails for the suspects on April 24, 2019.
The counsel continued that the brother of the victim’s husband, Pirzada, accused his sister-in-law of committing the murder.
At this, the chief justice asked about her whereabouts.
At this, the lawyer said that he did not know and that she has been missing for a long time.
He asserted that Pirzada had confessed before a Jirga that he and his accomplice Jan Badshah had murdered Saeeda.
Responding to a question, the lawyer replied that the murder weapon had not been recovered from the suspects.
After concluding his arguments, the court dismissed the application and upheld the bails of the suspects.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 19th, 2019.
-(1)1714378140-0/AliAminMaryam-(4)-(1)1714378140-0-270x192.webp)
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ