Find a Lawyer

FIDA MUHAMMAD SANAI versus CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL,ISLAMABAD

Article 4 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 212 (3) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, which was a necessary party to the implementation of a co-operative civil servant, was appealed by the government employees, the service tribunal found that although the government employee In his appeal is a complaint against the specific order under which a public servant was mentally promoted to a junior individual, but he made this order in the appeal or representation of any department under section 4, the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Was not challenged, the service tribunal specifically referred to a civil servant. In the representation in which he did not mention anything about the development of his junior service tribunal, thus, the appeal of a civil servant was affirmed, the seniority in the cadre in which he was a civil servant was decided by the Supreme Court. What was in my judgment as LD 1987. SC 172, therefore, cannot be repetitive on such a case and the Office of the Applicants is relying on memorandum data on August 18, 1983, failing to file any appeal or representation under the order of the Supreme Court employee. There was no result of the judgment, its appeal was not enforceable under the applicants of Section 4, Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Although he was exempt from development in his junior year, he still did not apply to the appeal, therefore, the appeal of public servants was not properly constituted. Appeal leave was denied in the circumstances. Was. criminal advocate from Kazi Ahmed lawyer