GHULAM MURTAZA SATTI versus ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN
Arts 63 (1) (E) and (K), 260 and 199 Representation of People Act (LX-XV of 1976), Section 14 Declaration of Approval (Membership Council) for nomination of Parliament The person in charge was Spoop Percent, who is acting as a consultant to a state-owned company, an advisor to the Infrastructure Project Development Facility (IPDF), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Ministry of Finance, Returning Officer of the nomination papers. Accepted, but the Election Tribunal rejected it on the grounds that it falls in the appreciation of a person who is Stan was in the service, Valdetti candidate was appointed company adviser but he did not earn any salary, was not a board member and had no regular appointment as a regular employee, which is evident from the fact that A letter of appointment does not include salary, pay, which includes the terms and conditions of service. Errors and concessions, either issued by the company or by the Finance Ministry through Article 260 of the Constitution, show that the Prime Minister's Advisers and Chief Ministers were excluded from the definition of persons in the service of Pakistan in particular. Was done. Using the resemblance of Article 260, if the advisers appointed under the constitutional mandate were excluded from the service of Pakistan, it would appear that the candidate should receive the same benefit and in the present case the candidate should also be included. was not. Company service, but was serving for the company and, therefore, no employee of the company had no reliable material available on record, which indicates that
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2013
