Find a Lawyer

MUNAWAR KHAN versus WAPDA THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN WAPDA HOUSE, LAHORE AND ANOTHER

R5 (iv) Appeal filed against the Appeal filed by the Appellant for the passage of the Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 for a period of one year for a time scale reduction, hopefully filed Appellant was unexpectedly withheld in the request. Delaying the filing of the appeal, it was stated that he had learned of the defective order by fax a month before filing his appeal that the correctness of the impending order showed that a copy of the said order was made by the appellant. Was sent to and the appellant was not worth it. The reboot's assumption that he received an unremarkable order over time was not credible, that the appellant had not received an inadmissible order over time and was received by fax as claimed by the official. Functions are always deemed to have been properly performed and were to be rejected by the aggrieved employee with solid evidence but the appellant was unable to dispel the assumption that he had received an unexpected order over time on the ground. Was deemed to be D. Delay in filing an appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 may be sued by the Service Tribunal Act, but the delay in filing the appeal of the Department cannot be justified and cannot be further extended by filing a service tribunal. ? The departmental appeal was dismissed as ineligible because the department's appeal was not filed within the stipulated period. \ r \ n \ r \ n pakistani advocates Dhoun Kal lawyer