Find a Lawyer

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, ORDNANCE SERVICES, GENERAL HEADQUARTERS, RAWALPINDI versus MUHAMMAD ABDUL LATIF

Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Article 212 (3) Finance Division DM No. F1 (1) Amp 1/77 Dated 28 4 1977 Prevention of Government Employee Increase, Five advance increase in terms of appointment letter issued by Government employee Was allowed On the objection raised by the Audit Officer, the department withheld the said increments and prior to the execution of the appointment letter, the employee was told that five advance increments could not be granted as per the rules and general policy. Was. A government employee challenged the authority's order before the service tribunal, which was accepted in his favor. Regarding government employees, the principle stated above cannot be served to uphold any law. That the Service Tribunal mistakenly thought that it was the Audit Officer who ordered the stop of the increments, but in fact it was allowed to violate the rules and the policy formulated by the government. That the Service Tribunal must assume that the appeal stated by the civil servant was not prematurely stopped because his representation against the prevention of increments was rejected in 1988 and, therefore, The appeals filed after eight were not upheld against the said order. Even the representation presented against the prevention of increment was banned from time to time because the increment was stopped in 1982 while the representation was made in 1988, which the Supreme Court supported in the petition. The competitor to be considered was the consideration. immigration advocates email from Tarnol lawyer