GHULAM MURTAZA versus CHAIRMAN, CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,ISLAMABAD
Capital Development Authority Employees (Service) Regulations 1992 Para 6 04 (c) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Annotated Promotion Despite being the junior of Intelligence Respondents and placed in Selection Grade BP Section 17 But in this case the appellant was deferred due to the possibility of disciplinary action against him. It said that at the end of the disciplinary proceedings, in the case of the Appellant for approval of the selection grade, BP section 17 was considered and it was not approved at the stage when it was junior (defendant). Grades said, but nearly nine months after that date, the pending department's business action against Appellant ended when he received a censor minor penalty just eight days after being considered by the Public Promotion Committee for selection grade. Was granted, but there was no slight penalty for the censorship given to the appellant. Applicant's case is recommended for departmental development grant is considered as any impediment. However, there was no constraint of selection grade as relevant officer in this regard, however, was denied. That the Appellant was also entitled to grade his Juniors since, as the Senior of the Respondents, who was given Selection Grade BP Section 17. The same
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
