Ten reportable judgments across the upload window of 22, 24 and 25 August 2026 (with 20–21 August stragglers) — two from the Federal Constitutional Court, one from the Supreme Court, two from the Lahore High Court and five from the Sindh High Court (the Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries).

Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan

• Altaf Hussain v. University of the Punjab — an HEC equivalence certificate establishes the comparability of a qualification but does not displace a university’s independent power to prescribe programme-specific admission criteria; equivalence and eligibility occupy distinct fields, and an equivalent qualification confers only a right to consideration, not a vested right to admission. Petition dismissed and leave declined, the University entitled to refuse M.Phil admission for want of the prescribed credit-hours.
• Fazale Haq College, Mardan v. Sanobar Khan & connected matters — a landowner who accepted the Collector’s Award without protest, or allowed the section 18 limitation to lapse, cannot claim the enhanced compensation obtained by another in independent proceedings; an award of the Reference Court operates in personam, not in rem, and equity cannot supply a casus omissus against the statutory scheme. Appeals and converted petitions allowed; the review petitions allowed and the majority in Saddaqat Ali Khan (PLD 2010 SC 878) held, to that extent, not to lay down the correct law, the dissent of Jaffery J being approved — a landmark restatement relieving acquiring authorities of a large contingent liability.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Dean, PICO, Peshawar v. Nasira Begum — a statutory deeming clause regularising contract employees (the amended proviso to section 11(1) of the KP Medical and Health Institutions Ordinance 2002) operates automatically by force of law, and the department cannot defeat it by administrative delay; beneficial and remedial provisions are construed liberally to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Civil petition dismissed and leave declined, the Tribunal’s regularisation upheld.

Lahore High Court

• Muhammad Ishfaq alias Ishtiaq v. The State — an amicable out-of-court settlement, though it cannot compound a non-compoundable offence (here section 406 PPC) under section 345 Cr.P.C., is a relevant circumstance in the exercise of judicial discretion on bail, particularly where the complainant has forgiven the accused and raises no objection. Pre-arrest bail confirmed on fresh bonds.
• Muhammad Abbas v. The State — the Article 12 bar on retrospective punishment applies at the bail stage, so the enhanced penalties introduced into the Emigration Ordinance 1979 by the 2025 Amendment (substituting “or with fine” with “and with fine”) cannot be used against a 2024 occurrence to attract the prohibitory clause. Post-arrest bail granted under section 497(2) Cr.P.C. as a case of further inquiry.

Sindh High Court

• Sindh Revenue Board v. M/s Itecknologi Tracking Services & connected references — default surcharge under section 44 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act 2011 is a strict, compensatory liability attracted on the mere fact of default (“whether wilfully or otherwise”), and no adjudicating or appellate forum may waive it for want of mens rea; the power to relieve lies only with the Board (s.45) and an ADR committee (s.65). Question answered in the Board’s favour; the Tribunal’s orders modified — the leading provincial authority, aligning s.44 with Byco Petroleum and closing the COVID-19 defence.
• Utility Store Corporation v. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act — pension, gratuity and retirement dues are a lawful entitlement which an employer cannot withhold, and an employer that ignores duly served notices cannot complain of an ex parte order. Petition dismissed; the Authority’s order for payment upheld, enforceable by coercive measures.
• Niaz Ahmed v. Farouq Inayat — a Rent Controller must, under section 19(5) of the SRPO 1979, state the issues arising between the parties and record separate findings on each, and an eviction order which does not do so cannot stand even where the tenant defaulted. Concurrent orders set aside; matter remanded on the existing record for fresh decision within two months.
• Muhammad Hussain Hingoro v. Mst. Asma — the mere filing of a declaratory suit as to title does not affect proceedings before the Rent Controller, and non-compliance with a section 16(1) tender order attracts the penal consequences of section 16(2) (striking off the defence and delivery of possession). Petition dismissed, the concurrent findings upheld (following Ibrahim Trust).
• Mst. Zainab Brohi v. Ghulam Rasool — the scope of a civil revision is not enlarged automatically to take account of subsequent events unless a case for such intervention is made out on the facts, and a receiver will not be appointed where necessary parties are unimpleaded and a status-quo order coupled with lis pendens already secures the corpus. Revision dismissed in limine, observations expressly tentative.