Find a Lawyer

GHULAM SHABBIR versus DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS

Section 4 (1) Removal of Service (Special Powers) Ordinance (XVII of 2000), Section 10 (since revoked) Limitation of filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal where the applicant (Government servant) to reject the appeal The scope was not reached by a civil servant. The service (special powers) ordinance was subject to a mandatory retirement penalty, 2000 government employee's appeal was rejected before the service tribunal was banned due to the dismissal of the government employee. I could not file my appeal before this. The service tribunal had not been notified that its departmental appeal was denied. After a 90-day interval from filing the appeal, the public servant had 30 days to file a service appeal before the service tribunal. Whether or not he had a court appeal. Appeals filed by the public servants before the service tribunal were rejected, which was explicitly banned so that the application for leave to appeal was lost in the circumstances and the leave was denied.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2013

• Raja MUHAMMAD YOUNAS v. State 2013 SCMR 669
• AZAM WAZIR KHAN v. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN 2013 SCMR 678
• GHULAM MUSTAFA v. MUHAMMAD YAHYA 2013 SCMR 684
• HAKIM KHAN v. State 2013 SCMR 698
• MEHMOOD AMJED v. ISLAMABAD CAPITAL TERRITORY POLICE through I.-G. Police, Islamabad 2013 SCMR 717
• MUNAWAR HUSSAIN v. AFAQ AHMED 2013 SCMR 721
• SUO MOTU CASE NO.12 OF 2011 2013 SCMR 728
• Ch. MUHAMMAD MASAUD AKHTAR KHAN v. REGISTRAR LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE 2013 SCMR 730

All Supreme Court judgments of 2013 →

advocate for immigration from Jaranwala lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes