Find a Lawyer

ANISUL HASSAN versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

Section 16, Punjab Government Employees (Talent and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R4 (1) (a) (ii), (b) (i) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 212 (3) back benefits, Claims for the Department of Service mandatory retirement partially accepted the appeal, reinstated government employees, but the annual increase was put on hold for two years, and the intervention period was termed extraordinary leave with pay. Gone, the service tribunal retained such conviction, the civil servant, who had retired. Claiming only previous benefits, claiming that he had 398 days leave on his credit, the department should have considered his termination period without pay leave, nor before the service tribunal. So no specific question was raised, nor was it proved that the civil servant was worthless. His dismissal period cannot be allowed to be discussed with the Supreme Court authority for the first time while the dismissal / dismissal order was arbitrary. In this regard, whether the public servant was entitled to salary arrears or not, the authority did not unconditionally reinstate the public servant, the service tribunal retained such a sentence The public servant challenged the tribunal's order to that extent. Did not say that the order passed by the authority was in accordance with the law. Appeal and appeal leave denied famous supreme court advocate from Daulat Pur lawyer