Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 260. In this matter between Const. P. 3976/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Nadeem Anwar (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.

Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 3976/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 260 PARTIES: Nadeem Anwar (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 02-FEB-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI C.P. No.D-3976 of 2025 (Nadeem Anwer v Province of Sindh & others) ________________________________________________________________ Order with signature of Judge ________________________________________________________________ Before:- Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi

Date of hearing and order:- 02.02.2026

Ms. Shamim Akhtar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Ali Safdar Deepar, Assistant Advocate General Sindh. Mr. Masroor Ahmed, Advocate for KW&SB along with M.Ashfaq, Superintendent KW&SB. ---------------------------- O R D E R Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J- The petitioner filed the present constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking release of post -retirement benefits, including gratuity, GP Fund, leave encashment, monthly pension, mark -up on delayed payments, fixation of responsibility upon del inquent officers, costs of litigation, and any other appropriate relief.

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that the amounts claimed under serial Nos. (ii) and (iii) of prayer clause “B” (GP Fund and leave encashment) had already been received. However, it was contended that the gratuity amount of Rs.28,14,765/ - had not been paid, and that an amount of Rs.1,17,130/ - remained unexplained. Reference was made to an application dated 17.12.2025 submitted to the Director Accounts and Chief Finance & Law Officer, KW&SB, wherein observations regarding the alleged shortfall were raised.

3. Conversely, learned counsel for KW& SB refuted the claim, asserting that the petitioner had misconstrued internal financial adjustments as manipulation. It was explained that the initially mentioned amount of Rs.28,14,765/ - was provisional and subject to audit. Upon verification, certain pa y and allowance components were found to have been erroneously included, and excess pension had been paid during the interim period. After lawful adjustment in accordance with audit requirements, the correct payable amount was determined as Rs.26,97,635/ -, which was duly communicated. It was further contended that such adjustments are routine and lawful, and that no amount remains outstanding.

4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, prima facie, no outstanding amount is found payable by the respon dents at this stage. If there is any amount outstanding, the petitioner should avail his remedy as per law. Consequently, no case for further indulgence is made out, and the petition is accordingly dismissed.

J U D G E

J U D G E

Shafi

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant