GUL TAIMUR KHAN versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY AVIATION, CABINET SECRETARIAT (AVIATION DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Arts 199 and 25 Constitutional Requests Risk Allowance Grants / Equality and Non-Discrimination Principles ability Applicable Scope Applicants seek a risk allowance as a civil aviation authority employee who is authorized by the \ Airport Security Force \ The fundamental right is the fundamental right. The state may request "equality and non-discrimination" against any breach of proceedings, inaction, order, policy, legislation or subordinate legislation; it was not an absolute right, a citizen has To be fair, in every aspect the right was the unworthy right. The other citizen was under the constitutional responsibility of the state to treat its citizens equally, however, in certain circumstances, citizens may be treated differently but such a rating should not be arbitrary and should be rational and rational. And that must be the difference. A month's basic salary equal to the allowance unif uniformed personnel is stated by the Airport Security Force Grant to ask that the airport security force's armed personnel be asked to equip the uniformed personnel of the Armed / Civil Armed Forces. The rational and rational classification of the two forces cannot be termed arbitrary. There is no "discernible difference" between the uniformed personnel of the airport security force and the applicants performing their duties at the same airport, both the personal and civil aviation authority of the airport security force performing their duties at the airport. Employees could not be separated only as a class. Discrimination discrimination based on the \ uniform \ or scope of their work
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2015
