Vested right

  1. The benefit of lapses committed by the competent authority at the time of induction of respondent cannot be allowed to take away the right which had vested to respondent — His appointment was given effect and in furtherance to it he served the department as Driver. Asif Mehmood Raza v. Abdul Khadim & 7 others 2004 SCR 298 (D)
  2. The amendment has not been made applicable retrospectively — This right acquired cannot be snatched under the amended provision. Accountant General & another v. Shahid Mehmood & another 2005 SCR 255 (C)
  3. As the appellants secured position in merit, therefore a right has accrued in their favour and they cannot be deprived of their vested right. Nasreen Akhtar & 3 others v. Sameena Bilqees & others 2006 SCR 312 (C)
  4. Assuming for the sake of arguments that Legislature can  legislate  in respect of accrued rights and can neutralize or destroy the effects and finality of the judgement of superior Courts with retrospective operation of piece of legislation by providing a specific date in the past — Held: It is not enough to lay down that piece of legislation shall be deemed to have been enforced from that specific date — Held further: The Legislature is under obligation to lay down so in clear words in statute or such a consequence must arise as a necessary implication from the language of the legislation — Such piece of legislation if interfered with the vested rights of the parties the words so used are to be construed strictly while interpreting the statute and no case should be allowed to fall within the letter and spirit of the Act which is not covered by the plain language of legislation which touches or destroys the vested rights of a party.2000 SCMR 367 rel. Abdul Rasheed and 85 others v. Board of Trustees and 3 others 2008 SCR 417 (K)
  5. Where legislation by retrospective effect is intended to — It should clearly cover the cases of those who have acquired a substantive right during intervening period of passing of the piece of legislation and specified prior date of effect — Held: The impugned Act does not clearly postulate withdrawal of vested rights and annulling the final judgement of High Court, it cannot be presumed by any stretch of imagination that it covers these cases. Abdul Rasheed and 85 others v. Board of Trustees and 3 others 2008 SCR 417 (L)
  6. No one else challenged the appointment orders of appellant which suggests that the appellant was the only qualified person from the locality at the relevant time to be appointed against the post in question — A vested right also accrued. Robina Khatoon v. Director Education & 7 others 2009 SCR 525 (B)
  7. Contention that after appointment as Managing Director, a right has accrued to remain posted as Managing Director for 3 years — Respondent was serving as Divisional Director Schools when she was appointed as Managing Director.  Before the completion of her tenure she reached the age of superannuation — Held: had the respondent not reached the age of superannuation, a right would have vested in her to complete the tenure of 3 years, but after retirement from service, no right vests.  Azad Govt. & 3 others v. Mrs. Jamshed Naqvi & 2 others 2014 SCR 13 (I)
  8. Educational institutions — admission in MBBS — applications for entry test and admission in medical colleges were invited by Joint Admission Committee on 21.8.2013 on the basis of notification dated 13.1.2012 — appellants and proforma-respondents applied for admission against the seats reserved in their respective districts quota — qualified the entry test, merit list was prepared — appellants secured the merit position to get admission in medical colleges — after preparation of merit list a right has accrued to appellants and proforma-respondents which cannot be taken away by a notification deducting 10 seats from category of reserved quota of districts and refugees and reserving the same on self-finance basis. Aroosa Nawaz & 7 others v. Azad Govt. & 61 others 2014 SCR 613 (N)
  9. The vested right is an immediate fixed right of present or future enjoyment — rights are vested in contradistinction as being expectant or contingent — it must be a title to the present or future enforcement of a demand or a legal exemption form a demand made by another. Aroosa Nawaz & 7 others v. Azad Govt. & 61 others  2014 SCR 613 (O) PLD 1969 SC 599, PLJ 1997 SC (AJ&K) 329, 1999 SCMR 1072, 1999 PLC (CS) 1493, 2001 SCR 115, and 2005 SCR 255 ref.
  10. —of Civil Servant—terms and conditions—not specifically mentioned in civil servants Act or Rules cannot be claimed as vested right— As on point No. (ii) we have drawn the conclusion that the post of Naib Qasid, according to enforced rules, has to be filled in 100% by initial recruitment, thus, the respondent who is admittedly a civil servant of Education Department and holding the post of Watchman, is not vested with the right to claim appointment against the post of Naib Qasid by transfer or promotion because no such mode is provided by the Civil Servants Act or rules made thereunder. The terms and conditions of a civil servant which have not been specifically mentioned in the Civil Servants Act or rules made thereunder cannot be claimed as a vested right. Muhammad Matloob v. Iftikhar Ahmed & others 2017 SCR 282 (D)
  11. —Writ—appellants being eligible applied and participated in the test & interview—competent authorities issued the appointment orders under the recommendations of the respective Selection Committees—nobody challenged the appointment orders—a valuable right accrued which cannot be snatched in the garb of any notification and letter/script. Qamar yaqoob & others v. Azad Govt. & others 2022 SCR 795 (B) PLJ 1999 SC (AJK) 142 & 2006 SCR 312 ref.
  12.  — In this case, the departmental authorities permitted the appellant to participate in the test and interview, included her in the merit list, and subsequently appointed her based on merit. Therefore, when she was initially allowed to participate, no objections were raised, nor was the decision to allow her participation challenged. Consequently, a vested right was established in favour of the appellant, which cannot be revoked under the guise of any mistake of the authority. Kanwal Shahzadi vs Muhammad Naeem & others 2024 SCR 348 (G)
error: Content is protected !!