Find a Lawyer

RAJA MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN versus EHTESAB BUREAU, AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR THROUGH CHAIRMAN

Section 1 (3) and 2 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Bureau Act (I 2001), the Offer of the Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), sections 42 and 19 (3) of the Supreme Court in the Accountability Court Interim Relief Appeal from, the High Court grant acknowledged the writ petition of the appellant through which proceedings initiated by Azad Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Bureau and the reference filed against them in the Accountability Court were called into question on this matter. Was. That he was an employee of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council and retired, while under this action, the cases of retired employees of the council were not completed, whereby the accountability court and the authority against the appellant. Interim relief was granted to stop the proceedings. The petition for interim relief by the provisions of Sections (3) and 2 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Consolidation Act, 2005, was rejected despite writ petition filed in the Supreme Court, revealing that the AJK and The Kashmir Accountability Bureau Act, 2001, was enacted to apply to all persons who served in or in the affairs of the departments under the administrative control of the Council Azad Jammu and Kashmir Adaptation Act, 2005. When the High Court against the retired employees of the Council accepted the petitioner's writ petition on the basis that the AJK, A, C, 2005, the first aspect was applicable only to the present service officers of the Council, the Appellant There was no reason for disallowing relief, so interim relief would not prevent the legislature from amending the law so that it could bring former or retired employees into its jurisdiction. Who family advocate from Bahawalnagar lawyer