Find a Lawyer

DR. SABIR ZAMEER SIDDIQUI versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB

The Appellant's claim for the Section 8 Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Section 2 (B) and 4 Pro Pharma Promotion, which was former Director on the basis of the present charge, from the date of his junior year in BS 19. He claimed to have promoted pharmacy. Appellant's advanced claim was dismissed on the grounds that the promotion could not be claimed by public servants, including pro forma promotion and that promotion was not a formal right under the Rules and that the appellant was barred, Who has already retired In the service, he ceased to be a civil servant and could not be considered for pharma promotion as he claimed that a public servant under section 2 (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 Was described as a person. Has a civilian position in relation to the affairs of the province or who has held a civil office in relation to the affairs of the province, the appellant had told the Civil Post before retiring in a case related to the instability of the appellant. He was taken to BS 19 and once held that the provincial selection board had no authority over his retirement from the appellant. The delay in promoting the appellant had nothing to do with the appellant as he He was not responsible for the delay, no doubt, development is generally possible, his right cannot be claimed as a right, but when the junior was allowed to develop before and on the same date. If the senior was not allowed, then the right to promote it will also be considered; this authority cannot be denied by the authority. Yes, after retiring famous high court advocate from Ahmed pur Sial lawyer