Mr. Muhammad Awais and others VS Mumtaz Khan and others

Form No: HCJD/C-121

ORDER SHEET

IN THE ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT, ISLAMABAD

(JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT)

I.C.A. No.388-2023

Muhammad Awais and others Versus Mumtaz Khan and others

Appellants by : Mr Shah Khawar, Advocate. Mr Khalid Mehmood, Advocate.

Mr Musadaq Hameed, Advocate.

Dr. Anwar Baig, Advocate.

Hafiz Arfat Ahmed Chaudhry, Advocate. Mr Tariq Zaman, Advocate.

Dr G. M. Chaudhry, Advocate.

Mr Muhammad Mazhar Javed, Advocate. Mr Rab Nawaz, Advocate.

Mr Saifullah, Advocate.

Raja Muhammad Nazir, Advocate. Mr Saeed Aftab, Advocate.

Respondents : Mr Muhammad Sajid Khan Tanoli, Dy. Attorney by General.

Mr Asif Jadoon, Asstt. Attorney General. Mr Mudassar Khalid Abbasi, Advocate. Barrister Dilawar Khan, Advocate, CAA. Mian Umar Farooq, Advocate, OPF. Mr Amir Latif Gill, Advocate, CDA. Ms Misbah Gulnar Sharif, Advocate, CDA. Mr Khalid Ishaque, Law Officer, NADRA. Mr S. M. Rehan Naqvi, Assistant Director, FDE. Mr Muhammad Arbab, Assistant (L), National Assembly.

Mr Khan Zeb, Assistant Director (L), M/o FE&PT.

Dr. Agha Ghulam Haider, Director (L), M/o FE&PT.

Mr Rizwan Ahmed, Legal Assistant, Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat.

Dates of : 10.09.2025, 06.10.2025, 17.11.2025, Hearing 06.11.2025, 10.11.2025 & 24.11.2025.

Arbab Muhammad Tahir, J.- The titled Intra Court Appeal alongwith the appeals listed below, filed in terms of section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972,

ICA No.388/2023

are being decided through this consolidated judgment as they entail common questions of law and facts, arising out of common judgment, dated 13.10.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge whereby W.P. No.4657/2022 and connected petitions were allowed.-

(1)ICA No.389/2023, Mrs Sehar Zafar and others v. Mumtaz Khan and others (2) ICA No.397/2023, National Assebly Secretariat v. Mumtaz Khan, etc.

(3)ICA No.398/2023, National Assembly Secretariat v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd., etc.

(4)ICA No.399/2023, National Assembly Secretariat v. EOBI, etc.

(5)ICA No.400/2023, National Assembly Secretariat v. EOBI, etc.

(6)ICA No.401/2023, National Assembly Secretariat v. Zakia Naz, etc.

(7)ICA No.402/2023 National Assembly Secretariat v. EOBI, etc.

(8)ICA No.403/2023, National Assembly Secretariat v. Ali Raza, etc.

(9)ICA No.406/2023, Muhammad Umar Naqash v. Federation of Pakistan, etc.

(10)ICA NO.409/2023, Iram Gul v. PIA through its Chairman, etc.

(11)ICA NO.410/2023, Irshad Ali v. CDA through its Chairman, etc.

(12)ICA No.411/2023, Malik Muhammad Waqas Ali v. Civil Aviation Authority, etc.

(13)ICA No.412/2023, Javed Iqbal v. Federal Directorate of Education, etc.

(14)ICA No.413/2023, Raja Shahbaz Khan v. EOBI through its Secretary, etc.

(15)ICA No.16/2024, Badar Zameer, etc. v. Mumtaz Khan, etc.

(16)ICA No.35/2024 Tayyab Habib v. Federation of Pakistan, etc.

(17)ICA No.43/2024, Ikhlaq Hussain and others v. Federation of Pakistan, etc.

(18)ICA No.1050/2024k, Mir Haji and others v. Federation of Pakistan, etc.

(19)ICA No.1051/2024, Khadim Hussain and others v. Federation of Pakistan, etc.

(20)ICA No.1052/2024, Rabia Tabassum, etc. v. Federation of Pakistan, etc.

ICA No.388/2023

(21)ICA No.1053/2024, Muhammad Naseem Ali, etc. v. Federation of Pakistan, etc.

(22)Ica No.1054/2024, Inayat Khan, etc. v. Federation of Pakistan, etc.

(23)ICA No.71/2024 Mrs Khair un Nisa v. Federation of Pakistan, etc.

(24)ICA No.72/2024, Muhammad Raza Khan v. Federation of Pakistan, etc.

(25)ICA No.74/2024, Muhammad Saeed v. Federation of Pakistan, etc.

2.The constitutional petitions were filed assailing orders passed by the Special Committee on Sacked Employees (hereinafter the “Special Committee”). The Committee was constituted by the Speaker, National Assembly on 12.10.2022 pursuant to adoption of Motion under rule 244(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007 (hereinafter the “Rules of 2007”), with the following Terms of Reference (ToRs).-

“To examine the cases of the employees who were sacked as a result of declaration of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 void and give its recommendations to the House in light of decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, dated 17th December, 2021.”

The contents of the Motion adopted by the National Assembly are reproduced below.-

“MOTION UNDER RULE 22(B) REG:

APPOINTMENT OF A SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON

SACKED EMPLOYEES IN THE LIGHT OF

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT

Mr. Qadir Khan Mandokhail: Mr. Speaker! I beg to move that a Special Committee on sacked employees may be appointed under rule 244(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the National Assembly, 2007, comprising of following members to examine the cases of employees who were sacked as a result of declaration of the Sacked Employees Reinstatement Act, 2010, void and give its

ICA No.388/2023

recommendations to the House in the light of decision of Supreme Court, dated 17th December, 2021.

(1)Mr. Qadir Khan Mandokhel, MNA

(2)Mr. Naveed Amir Jeeva, MNA

(3)Mr. Qaiser Ahmed Shaikh, MNA

(4)Nawab Muhammad Sher Waseer,

MNA

(5)Mr. Ali Gohar Khan, MNA

(6)Ms. Kishwer Zehra, MNA

Mr. Speaker: Now, I put the Motion to the House. The question is that the Motion as moved may be adopted.”

The ToRs of the Special Committee were subsequently amended vide Revised Circular, dated 04.11.2022, to enhance its scope and the following ToRs were added.-

 To review cases of all affected employees of any Government, semi Government departments, attached departments, or autonomous bodies on contract basis, daily wages, project employees or any other employees whose services has been terminated under any other reasons. Furthermore, absorption cases of teachers of all grades:

 The Committee shall in addition to the powers already available with the Standing Committees, also have the powers to issue directions/show cause notices to any of the department in case of necessity; and  Any other item with permission of the chair.

3.The Special Committee initiated its proceedings by examining the cases of employees working in various Government, semi Government, autonomous organizations and other state owned enterprises. The Special Committee also sought reports from all the Government departments. During proceedings, the Special Committee passed various

ICA No.388/2023

orders to the departments relating to employment disputes, regularization, payment of arrears, pay fixation, seniority, reinstatement into service, etc. The Special Committee, in some cases, resorted to coercive measure, where non- compliance with its directions was reported. Feeling aggrieved of the orders and directions of the Special Committee, the writ petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court questioning the scope of powers of the Special Committee on constitutional and legal grounds. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment, dated 13.10.2023, allowed the writ petitions by holding that the recommendations of the Special Committee are of no legal effect and void, hence these Intra Court Appeals.

4.Learned counsel for the appellants have argued that the impugned judgment has been rendered in violation of Article 69 of the Constitution read with rules 28, 29, 119, 227, 201(4), 244-B and 245 of the Rules of 2007; that the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge amounts to interference with internal proceedings of the Parliament, which are protected; that the formation of the Special Committee pursuant to adoption of resolution by the House was well within its constitutional mandate; that constitution of the Special Committee and its legal status was never held unconstitutional in the impugned judgment; that the Special Committee derived its powers from the Motion adopted by the House and in exercise of such powers, it issued directions including the coercive measures; that the learned Single Judge while rendering the impugned judgment erred in law and facts by incorrectly attributing admissions of certain facts on part of official respondents; that the judgment reported as PLD 2022 SC 574 was wrongly relied upon by the learned Single Judge, which is distinguishable; that the learned Single Judge erred in observing that the

ICA No.388/2023

Committee could not have proceeded beyond the ToRs; that the constitutional petitions were heard and decided during the caretaker set-up; that the directions contained in the impugned judgment are omnibus and amounts to suo motu exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court; that the impugned judgment is violative of the well-defined concept of sovereignty of the parliament; that the impugned judgment has been rendered in violation of the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty; that the impugned judgment has been rendered in violation of Article 10A of the Constitution.

5.The learned counsel for the employees of Wafaqi Mohtasib Secretariat, in addition to the above arguments, have submitted that their case is distinguishable. In support of their arguments, they relied on the provision of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983 and the Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, that the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib was otherwise competent to regularize the services of its employees and that the impugned judgment, if for the sake of arguments, is assumed to have been implemented, the same does not curtail such power of the Federal Ombudsman.

6.Conversely, the learned Deputy Attorney General and the counsel for the respondent Departments have argued that the proceedings of the Parliament are protected under Article 69 of the Constitution to the extent they are in conformity with other constitutional and legal provisions; that matters relating to Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 were ultimately settled by the Hon”ble Supreme Court and nothing was left to be decided by the Parliament, except for its power to legislate; that the

ICA No.388/2023

powers and functions ought to have been exercised by the Special Committee within the constitutional limitations; that the Special Committee could not have assumed the role of a Tribunal or an Executive functionary to settle service disputes; that in some cases, the Special Committee resorted to coercive measures and directions were issued for registration of criminal cases against those officers who chose to act in accordance with law; that the Special Committee transgressed from its authority and usurped powers of the Executive; that the principle of trichotomy of powers envisaged by the Constitution was blatantly violated; that the learned Single Judge has not restrained the learned Wafaqi Mohtasib to exercise the powers conferred by the applicable law; that the learned Single Judge has interpreted the law through the impugned judgment and the argument that such interpretation has affected individuals amounting to suo motu exercise of jurisdiction, is misplaced; that the impugned judgment is well reasoned.

7.Heard. Record perused.

8.The appellants have mainly raised two grounds, (i) that the proceedings of the Special Committee were protected under Article 69 of the Constitution, thus learned Single Judge was not justified to pass a declaration that the orders passed by the Special Committee were of no legal effect and void and (ii) that the directions in the impugned judgment ought to have been restricted to parties to the writ petitions, thus the same to the extent of appellants amounts to suo motu exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court.

ICA No.388/2023

9.Sub article (1) of Article 69 of the Constitution provides that the validity of any proceedings in the Majlis-e- Shoora (Parliament) shall not be called in question on the ground of any irregularity of procedure. It limits the scope of judicial review over parliamentary proceedings, providing that the validity of any proceedings in Parliament shall not be questioned solely on the ground of procedural irregularities. Unlike the Constitutions of 1956 and 1962, which conferred absolute immunity on parliamentary actions, Article 69(1) confines protection to procedural matters, leaving actions that contravene substantive constitutional and legal provisions amenable to judicial scrutiny. This distinction aligns with the principle that substantive law creates and regulates rights and duties, whereas procedural law merely provides the machinery for enforcement, as noted in Thirumalai Chemicals Ltd., v. Union of India (AIR 2011 SC 1725). The intent of the framers of the Constitution was thus to safeguard the internal functioning of Parliament, i.e. debates and votes, while ensuring that the legislature remains subject to the supremacy of the Constitution and the oversight of the judiciary, reinforcing the doctrine of trichotomy of powers (State v. Zia-ur-Rahman, PLD 1973 SC 49).

10.The protection under Article 69 therefore shields freedom of speech and right of vote of the members of Parliament on the floor of the House. By circumscribing parliamentary privilege to internal proceedings and leaving unconstitutional or illegal acts open to judicial intervention, Article 69 embodies a balance between legislative autonomy and constitutional supremacy to ensure that Parliament operates independently in its internal affairs, yet remains bound by the legal and constitutional provisions.

ICA No.388/2023

11.The Special Committee has been constituted under Rule 244(B) of the Rules of 2007, to perform parliamentary function of reviewing and reporting on matters referred to it by the House, particularly in cases where internal investigation, fact-finding, or detailed examination is required. For the sake of convenience, rule 244(B) of the Rules of 2007 is reproduced below.- “244(B). The Assembly may, by motion appoint a Special Committee which, shall have such composition and functions as may be specified in the motion.”

12.The purpose of Special Committee constituted under rule 244(B) of the Rules of 2007 is primarily investigative and advisory. It enables the House to efficiently manage matters that require detailed scrutiny. The committee acts as an extension of parliamentary oversight, gathering information, examining evidence, and reporting findings to the House for its deliberation and further action. Its establishment is not judicial or administrative in nature; rather, it facilitates internal parliamentary deliberation consistent with constitutional and legal provisions. The Special Committee is vested with authority to summon witnesses, call for documents, and conduct inquiries within the scope of the matter referred to it by the House. However, any report it submits is advisory and subject to approval by the House. The committee does not have the power to enforce law, adjudicate disputes, or make binding legal determinations. It ensures informed legislative action while maintaining a clear distinction between parliamentary internal proceedings and enforceable judicial or executive functions. Reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 774), where it was held that although

ICA No.388/2023

parliamentary committees may carry the title of a “Parliamentary Committee,” their functions are essentially administrative or fact-finding, and therefore their proceedings do not enjoy immunity under Article 69 unless they form part of the internal legislative process such as debate or voting on the floor of the House.

13.A careful perusal of the provisions of Civil Servants Act, 1973 (hereinafter the “Act”) contemplates three modes of appointment to a civil post, namely initial appointment, by promotion, and by transfer. Section 5 of the Act unequivocally requires that all appointments to an All-Pakistan Service, a civil service of the Federation, or civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation shall be made “in the prescribed manner.” The expression “initial appointment” is specifically defined in section 2(c) to mean an appointment made otherwise than by promotion or transfer. Promotion is separately governed by section 9 of the Act, which stipulates that a civil servant possessing the minimum qualifications may be eligible for promotion to a higher post and that such promotion may either be by merit (for selection posts) or on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness (for non-selection posts).

14.The Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 (hereinafter ‘APT Rules’) have been made in exercise of powers conferred by section 24 of the Act. Rule 3(1) of the APT Rules provides three modes of appointments to civil posts i.e. (a) by promotion, (b) by transfer, and (c) by initial appointment. Appointment by promotions and transfer are governed under Part II (Rules 7–9), which mandate that appointment by promotion and transfer to posts in BPS-2 to 18 shall be made on recommendations of the Departmental Promotion

ICA No.388/2023

Committee. Rule 9 clarifies that appointment by transfer is restricted to persons holding regular appointments in posts of the same basic pay scale or equivalent to the post being filled. Initial appointments are addressed in Part III (Rules 10–12), which require that posts in BPS-16 and above be filled through competitive examinations conducted by the Federal Public Service Commission, while posts in BPS-1 to 15 are to be filled through the Departmental Selection Committee after advertisement. The APT Rules thus provide a structured, merit-based mechanism for each of the three modes of appointment, leaving no room for deviation outside the statutory and regulatory contours.

15.The Constitution enshrines the principle of trichotomy of powers, distributing State functions among the legislature, executive, and judiciary, and clearly delineates their respective domains so that no organ of the State may usurp or encroach upon the functions of another, maintaining the balance necessary for constitutional governance (State v. Zia-ur-Rahman, PLD 1973 SC 49; Nazar Abbas Jaffri v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab, 2006 SCMR 606). The legislature, represented by Parliament, is constitutionally empowered to enact laws. The executive is tasked with implementing such laws, and the judiciary is entrusted with powers of interpreting them. This separation ensures that legislative intent, executive action, and judicial review operate within their constitutionally prescribed limits. Any breach of this separation undermines the doctrine of constitutional supremacy.

16.In the above context, Special Committees of the Parliament, constituted under Rule 244(B) of the Rules of 2007, are designed to perform investigative, advisory, and fact-finding functions on matters referred to them by the

ICA No.388/2023

House. While they may examine issues, collect evidence, and make recommendations, these committees cannot issue directions or take actions that contravene laws enacted by Parliament or infringe upon the powers of the executive or judiciary. Their authority is strictly delegated, procedural, and subordinate to the statutory and constitutional framework. Thus its actions may be subject to judicial review if they exceed the delegated mandate (Muhammad Azhar Siddiqui v. Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2012 SC 774). The Special Committee cannot override, ignore, or bypass statutory provisions, and must operate within the law. Any attempt by such a Special Committee to direct the executive to regularize daily-wage or contract employees outside the framework of the Act and the APT Rules would amount to an ultra vires exercise of power, exceeding its delegated mandate. Such directions, being inconsistent with statutory provisions, cannot confer any legal validity on unauthorized appointments or regularizations.

17.Parliament, through its legislative function has duly enacted the Act, to regulate appointments, promotions, and transfers of civil servants, including temporary, contract, or daily-wage employees. The Act, read with the APT Rules, govern the terms and conditions and modes of appointment to civil service posts. Such appointments are to be made after following the prescribed procedures, merit, seniority, and eligibility requirements. No authority outside these statutory provisions, including parliamentary committees, is empowered to alter or bypass these requirements, unless altered or varied by forums competent to do so.

ICA No.388/2023

18.The Hon”ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Afzal and others v. Secretary Establishment Division and others (PLD 2021 SC 1569) had declared the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 to be ultra vires of the Constitution. While exercising review jurisdiction against the referred judgment, the Hon”ble Supreme Court vide judgment reported as Hadayat Ullah and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2022 SC 64), reinstated employees mentioned in the judgment into service, but dismissed the review petitions to the extent of declaration of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 as ultra vires of the Constitution. The said judgments are in the field and the principles and law enunciated therein are binding under the Constitution. The Parliament is well within its power to legislate on a particular matter, but the Special Committee, has no constitutional authority to sit in appeal over the judgments of the Hon”ble Supreme Court or override such judgments.

19.If Parliament sought to alter the legal consequences flowing from the judgments of the Hon”ble Apex Court, the exclusive and proper mode would have been through legislation enacted under the Constitution. The laws promulgated by the Parliament including the Act, derive force from the Constitution and is equally applicable on the Committees constituted under the Rules of 2007, except where the constitution of the laws provide otherwise. Any attempt by a Special Committee to direct the executive to reinstate or regularize employees outside the framework of the Act or the APT Rules, or contrary to judicial rulings, would be ultra vires and legally invalid. As discussed, the Special Committee”s role is advisory; it cannot create binding legal rights, nor can it act as a judicial forum to sit in appeal over constitutional determinations made by the

ICA No.388/2023

Supreme Court. Such actions would also breach the doctrine of separation of powers.

20.In view of the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the constitutional and legal framework strictly circumscribes the powers of all state organs under the doctrine of trichotomy of powers, and ensures that the executive, legislature, and judiciary operate within their constitutionally defined domains, with the judiciary empowered to interpret the Constitution and review legislative or executive actions that transgress fundamental rights or statutory limits. Article 69 of the Constitution provides limited immunity to proceedings in Parliament, protecting only those acts that do not suffer from procedural irregularities, but does not extend to violations of substantive constitutional provisions or statutory law. Any directions issued by the Special Committee to the executive to regularize daily-wage or contract employees in contravention of the Act and the APT Rules are ultra vires, lack legal efficacy, and constitute a breach of the separation of powers. The only competent mechanism for Parliament to address the situation would have been through valid legislation, consistent with constitutional provisions, which could create rights or confer benefits without violating existing law.

21.Lastly, the issue arises whether, having pronounced the actions of the Special Committee to be void and devoid of legal efficacy, the learned Single Judge was obligated to limit the effect of such pronouncement to the litigating parties alone, so as to ensure that the judgment did not assume the character of a suo motu exercise of jurisdiction. In the case of Muhammad Khan and 2 others v. Haider and others (PLD 2020 SC 233) the Hon”ble Supreme

ICA No.388/2023

Court reaffirmed the principles earlier enunciated in the case of Malik Asad Ali and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1998 SC 161) that a judicial interpretation does not create new law but merely elucidates the meaning inherent in the words originally employed by the legislature or competent rule-making authority. Consequently, such interpretation operates retrospectively from the date of enactment of the provision itself, and not from the date of the judgment in which the interpretation is articulated. In the case in hand, the learned Single Judge interpreted the provisions of the Rules of 2007 in the context of the power of the Special Committee to interfere with matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants and employment disputes, without declaring any provisions of the law to be ultra vires the Constitution. The Hon”ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohsin Raza Gondal v. Sardar Mahmood and others (2025 SCMR 104) has held that any action that is void ab initio and without lawful authority cannot be protected under the doctrine of past and closed transaction. Reliance was also placed on the case of Shahid Pervaiz v. Ejaz Ahmed and others (2017 SCMR 206) to observe that it is our duty to protect rights and interests established under the law and to prevent the enjoyment of rights created under an invalid law or through the misuse of legal authority.

22.In this backdrop, the issues concerning employees impacted by the judgment of the Hon”ble Supreme Court in Muhammad Afzal”s case, supra, were subsequently addressed in Hadayat Ullah”s case, supra, wherein the affected employees were reinstated into service by the Apex Court. Notably, while the report of the Special Committee awaits parliamentary consideration, no legislation has been enacted to amend the Act or the APT

ICA No.388/2023

Rules so as to create any new category of “affected employees,” allow appointments other than through the prescribed statutory modes i.e. initial appointment, appointment by promotion and appointment by transfer, or confer authority upon the Special Committee to intervene in matters relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants or to adjudicate service-related disputes through binding directives.

23.For what has been discussed above, we conclude as follows.-

(i). The proceedings of the Special Committee to the extent of its advisory role and submission of report to the House are held to be within constitutional and legal framework and the impugned judgment, dated 13.10.2023, shall not adversely operate against such exercise of authority.

(ii). The directions issued by the Special Committee to the executive functionaries i.e. Heads of Departments, etc., relating to terms and conditions of service of the employees including regularization, reinstatement into service, seniority, and pay fixation, etc. were issued without lawful authority and jurisdiction. Such exercise of authority cannot be termed as mere “irregularity of procedure” rather it breaches the constitutional and legal framework and encroaches upon the functions of the executive and the judiciary, thus do not enjoy the cover and

ICA No.388/2023

protection under Article 69(1) of the Constitution. The same were, therefore, rightly held by the learned Single Judge to be void and without any legal effect.

(iii). The impugned judgment has merely highlighted the constitutional and legal framework and does not amount to a suo motu exercise of jurisdiction. The directions issued in favour of the appellants to the employers/Heads of Departments by the Special Committee were substantially in violation of the provisions of the Act and the APT Rules and were thus rightly held to be as such by the learned Single Judge.

(iv). In some cases, the employers were otherwise competent to regularize services of employees and order regularization, reinstatement, etc, but the said departments have exercised such powers pursuant to directions of the Special Committee. The said exercise of authority by the employers is thus not protected as it inherently suffers from illegality. This Court would not issue any direction to the employers to reconsider those cases, as it is always within their domain and competence to do so, if it is so desired.

(v). The Intra Court Appeals being without merit are accordingly dismissed.

ICA No.388/2023

25.Office is directed to place copy of this judgment on file of the connected appeals.

(INAAM AMEEN MINHAS) (ARBAB MUHAMMAD TAHIR)

JUDGE JUDGE

Announced in the open Court on 20.01.2026.

JUDGE JUDGE

Approved for reporting.

Luqman Khan/*