Interpretation

  1. Decision of the Selection Board is not open to two interpretations. Muhammad Sarwar Ahmad  v. The University of AJ&K and 6 others 1998 SCR 350 (D)
  2. Courts of law are bound to interpret a law as it is and not as it should be. Azad Govt. and 3 others v. Genuine Rights Commission AJK and 7 others 1999 SCR 1 (F)
  3. It is a cardinal canon of interpretation that when the meanings of a word or term used in a statute are clear and unambiguous the Court cannot go beyond them and has to take them in their ordinary meanings — Without amending the Constitution no ‘‘qualification’’ can be added in section 24(1) of the Constitution Act. Muhammad Yousaf  v. The State and 4 others 2001 SCR 380 (B)
  4. The contract of appointment is to be interpreted as a whole, not on the basis of a condition in isolation — The employer is vested with powers of abolition of posts and termination of services of contract employees — Held: Law does not favour issuance of prayed writ. Kh. Manzoor Qadir v. Azad Govt. & 5 others 2010 SCR 215 (G)
  5. Words ‘apparent’ and ‘appear on face’ — Definition of.  Haji Nazir Ahmad v. Raja Muhammad Saeed and 11 others 2010 SCR 231 (G)  Black’s Dictionary, 6th edition ref.
  6. The term  cannot be so liberally interpreted to include salary and pension — The notification through which the terms and conditions of service of the appellant as Chairman Service Tribunal, Chairman Zakat Council and the Chairman Public Service Commission have been determined only granted  (Conditions and privileges) equal to Judge of the High Court — Whereas according to Constitutional provision the pay and pension of Judges of the High Court are independent and of different expression, which have not been granted to the appellant — The legislature or authority where intended to grant the same salary, allowances, privileges and pension as are admissible to a Judge of High Court, it has clearly and expressly applied the specific terms and phraseology. Bostan Ch. v. Audit and Accountants Deptt.& 6 others 2011 SCR 279 (B)
  7. The application of term  with reference to Judge of the High Court doesn’t mean that remuneration is also included — The principle of law enunciated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in relation to interpretation of scope of legal expression “terms and conditions”  has laid down a yard stick, that it should be understood in a narrow and limited sense according to the spirit of the relevant instrument, so as to refer to concrete matters while the post is occupied and not for the future prospects. Held: The appellant was granted conditions and privileges of a Judge of the High Court excluding the remuneration specially the pension which has not been mentioned in the relevant instrument. Bostan Ch. v. Audit and Accountants Deptt.& 6 others 2011 SCR 279 (D) PLD 1964 SC 17 rel.
  8. It is almost settled principle of law that while interpreting the expression terms and conditions, it should be under stood in narrow, concrete and actual sense. Bostan Ch. v. Audit and Accountants Deptt.& 6 others 2011 SCR 279 (E)
  9. It is an admitted rule of interpretation that phraseology used along with punctuations and conjunctions has to be understood keeping in view the first principle of interpretation of statutes, which provides that words and phrases are ordinarily be given the plain dictionary meaning. Chief Administrator Auqaf v. Sain Ghulam Ahmed Nisar & 38 others 2011 SCR 471 (B)
  10. According to celebrated principle of law, the notifications of terms and conditions will have to be interpreted while keeping in mind the domain and scope of the basic statutory provisions under which the appointing authority vested with the powers of appointment.  If an eventuality arises that any of the terms and conditions is violative to the basic statutory provisions, same shall be deemed ineffective and invalid to the extent of inconsistency with the statutory provision.  AJ&K Govt. & 4 others v. Dr. Muhammad Amin 2014 SCR 258 (B)
  11. If a thing is provided to be done in a specific manner, it has to be done in that manner or not at all. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Naqvi & 9 others v. Raja Muhammad Farooq Haider Khan & 4 others 2014 SCR 43 (B)  Azad Govt. & others  vs.  Mohi-ud-Din Islamic University & others (Civil Appeal No.113/2013, decided on 22.11.2013).2013 SCR 213, 2011 SCR 27, 2007SCMR 307, PLD 1953 Privy Council 51, 2004 SCR 378 ref.
  12. Note I — Notification No.I-L/84 dated 20th April, 1927 — term ‘scholarship’ — scope — meaning — classes of State Subjects — admission in educational institutions — contention the Note I of the Notification dated 20th April, 1927, preference of classes of State Subjects in relation to admission in the educational institutions is not applicable — the preference is provided for grant of State scholarships, State lands for agriculture and house building purposes and recruitment to State service —Court observed that the term ‘scholarship’ is of great importance which has not been defined in the concerned Statute.  According to celebrated principle of law, for determining its meanings and scope, ordinary dictionary meanings have to be adopted.  According to the survey of different dictionaries the term “scholarship” has been assigned the first meanings i.e. the attainments of scholar, learning qualities, attainments of scholars, sphere of polite learning, scholarly learning, attainment of learning of scholar, specialized systematized knowledge n human studies characterized by high standard of accuracy, attainment of literacy education etc. and in most of the dictionaries, grant o for maintenance of pupil or stipends as second meanings.  The term ‘scholarship’ is capable of both the meanings, grant of knowledge, literacy, education and monitory stipend or maintenance—the expression ‘grant of scholarship’ used in Note I of the Notification is capable of both meanings. The grant of monitory stipend as well as grant of education etc. The grant of admission in public sector institutions established for professional higher education is also included in the process of grant of knowledge, literacy etc.  Held: the term ‘scholarship’ is not only restricted to obtain the monitory stipends or benefits rather this term itself includes meanings of learning, attaining knowledge and the admission in an educational institution is one of the process of learning.  Further held: the term ‘scholarship’ used in Note. I of Notification No.I-L/84 is used in broader sense of the process of learning which includes admission in the educational institutions.  Haider Ali & another v. Qurat-ul-Ain Latif & 9 others 2014 SCR 196 (K, L & M)
  13. The Constitution is an organic whole and its all provisions have to be looked into for interpreting a provision. Syed Mumtaz H. Naqvi v. Raja M. Farooq Haider Khan 2014 SCR 43 (U)
  14. operation of law is always prospective unless specifically given retrospective effect. Syed Rasheed Hussain v. Azad Govt. & 3 others 2016 SCR 1327 (D)
  15. Prescribed manner — under a special statute — things must be done under that manner or not at all — it is all most settled that when a special statute prescribes special mode or manner for doing this, it must have to be done in the prescribed manner or not at all. Syndicate AJ&K University & 4 others v. Muhammad Asif Ishfaq & 4 others 2016 SCR 350 (E)
  16. —-Rules cannot nullify the constitutional provision.   The President of AJ&K v. Muhammad Riaz Akhter Choudhary Chief Justice AJ&K 2017 SCR 759  (AA)                                                                       
  17. —Effect of repeal or amendment in rules—quota for children of Government Employees—Notification dated 28.05.2003, prescribed 20% quota—Requisite qualification for appointment, enhanced during pendency of the writ—High Court while dismissing the writ petition observed that petitioner did not fulfil the basic qualification for appointment— the judgment of the High Court was recalled by the Supreme Court. Held:  the Court has to consider the facts prevailing at the time of filing of lis and when a right is accrued to a person that cannot be taken away through a repealing law. Abid Mehmood V. Commissioner Revenue Poonch & 2 others 2020 SCR 232 (A)
  18.                 —interpretation              of            notification—clarification             through subsequent notification by the concerned department—Held: any other interpretation of the same cannot be possible— Muhammad Rizwan-ullah & 2 others v. Azad Govt. & 5 others 2020 SCR 245 (C)
  19. —The Courts have to interpret law as it exists on the statute book and it has to be interpreted as it is and not ought to be. Sohaib Ahmed Versus Divisional Director Schools & 3 others 2021 SCR 550 (D)
  20. —It is settled principle of law that when two laws or principles of law are applicable in a matter, and there is a conflict in the provisions of earlier and later law, the later in time is to be applied. Syed Mumtaz Hussain Kazmi v. Azad Govt. & others  2022 SCR 672 (D)
error: Content is protected !!