Find a Lawyer

MALIK MUHAMMAD AFZAL AND OTHERS versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB LAHORE AND OTHERS

Section 5 Memo FDS R III 4 58/86 C, Dated 10 8 1986, Treasury Department of the Government of Punjab National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Section 5 (h) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 212 (3). Accountability Judge Court Pensionary Benefits Applicants were District and Session Judges who were appointed as Judges of the Accountability Court and retired from there. Applicants as Judges of High Court on the basis of salary drawn by the Judge of High Court Claimed to have been entitled to. The Accountability Court High Court rejected the applicants' claims and their benefits were based on the salary drawn by them as the appeals of the District and Sessions Judges before the Punjab Subordinate Judicial Service Tribunal were dismissed. While serving as a judge of the United States, it cannot be said that the accountability court was on a regular basis and that he was obliged to return to his parents' department at any time, Memo No. FDSR III. 4 58/86 C, which was issued by the Government of Punjab, Finance Department in the year 10 8 1986, for the time being There was no request. Even in the case of the Federation and District Judge, who attained the age of appointment as Additional Judge of the High Court, if it is not confirmed, he will receive the salary received as High Judge. There were no pension benefits provided on the basis. Judicial applicants were precisely withheld on account of their pension on the basis of their last pay because the judge of the accountability court's decision approved by the Punjab Subordinate Judicial Services Tribunal was subject to any defect or other legal weakness. No victim best law firms from Neelam lawyer