Find a Lawyer

ABDUL GHAFFAR MIAN versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, CABINET SECRETARIAT, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION

Section 22 (2) Civil Servants (Appeals) Rules, 1977, R4 (1) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Promotion Entitlement of Service Tribunal Appellant, which promoted BPS 20 in publicity policy. All of the proposed conditions were met, dismissed and the respondents, who were then juniors, were promoted during their 23 years of service before their sprint without identifying any concrete reason for their sprint appellant. , Who worked on important and important secretaries as well as on field positions / assignments in the provincial and federal. Governments and they enjoyed a seamless record of service. The applicant was never made any negative comment or consultation on any defects or deficiencies in the performance of his duties, the appellant's overall assessment score was 88, while the work ethically and intellectually. The score was perfect for doing and integrity. The minimum benchmark score for development in BPS 20 was 70 in succession score respectively and for this the quality of work and solidarity and other requirements as suggested in the Promotion Policy was also given by the Appellant Responding Authority. Had concluded that the appellant had obtained a large number of average reports which compared them with those of the private respondents who had been promoted, further alleging that the appellant had obtained the reputation of a clean officer in the department. Not to be enjoyed, on average reports reported that BPS 19 was promoted in 1997 and average reports have been negative There were no warrants, such average reports should not impede the promotion of the appellant in the circumstances. Senior BPS 20 when he was appointed immigration advocates phone number from Muzaffargarh lawyer