Find a Lawyer

ZIA-UL-HAQ versus MANAGING DIRECTOR (POWERS) WAPDA, LAHORE

Article 3, 4 and 5 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitution Petition Applicant, WAPDA Employee's Applicant's Complaint was that his appeal against his mandatory retirement order was not decided by the authorities. Earlier, the applicant was removed from the job, filed an appeal before the competent authority, and the sentence for removal from the job was converted into compulsory retirement. The applicant claimed that he had filed an appeal against the competent authority's order before the competent authority, while it was held by the authorities that the applicant had never filed the representation of the department and He is the Second Department Appeal was not otherwise maintainable for the petitioner's lawyer did not appear before the High Court even though the case was repeatedly recorded it does not show that the appeal was not filed according to the claim filed. Was made, even the second appeal was not eligible under Pakistan WAPDA employees. And discipline) Rules, 1978 No case was made for issuing directives in the nature of writ of montmus, application dismissed top advocates from Sherani lawyer