EDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY LAW, JUSTICE AND PARLIAMENTARY AFFAIRS versus MUHAMMAD AZAM CHATTHA
Section 4 (b) Employee Exemption (Rehabilitation) Ordinance (XXIII of 2009), Section 6 (2) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Sections 4 (1) and 4 (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 185 (3) ) Removal of employees from employment prior to the expiry of the contract employment period Authorized authority to re-employ and regulate them by notification under Section 4 (b) of the Off-the-job (Rehabilitation) Act, 2010 Disclaimed that it was inadvertently issued to a legal contract employee (respondent). For a term of three years he held the position of Presiding Officer of the Banking Tribunal but his contract was terminated by the competent authority after almost two years, but he was subsequently dismissed under section 6 (2) of the Employees Ordinance, 2009. ). The contract employee was not satisfied with the notification for the remaining one year against the additional position of BPS 22 and challenged it in writing. The petition, filed before the High Court, claims that it is entitled to salaries, allowances and concessions in accordance with the original terms and conditions as the High Court Judge High Court directed the competent authority to consider the contractual employee's case. Consider as. By notification under section 4 (b) of the Dismissed Employees (Rehabilitation) Act 2010, the competent authority restored and regularized it in public service, which is entitled to payment, allowances and privileges, after which the High Court Judge is admissible. given. The notification claims that it inadvertently issued the same intra-court appeal that was filed by the competent authority. Strength of Authorized Authority
