Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN versus E.D.O. (EDUCATION)

Rr 3 (b) and 4 (1) (b) (iii) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), Section 4 appeal misunderstanding, compulsory retirement charges, charge not charged in various government employee's criminal inquiries Wind. , But the service tribunal denied the benefits of providing public employees benefits, the Validity Authority did not refuse the government employee's request because the employees were not employed permanently during the relevant period, but the public servant was not employed during the relevant period. Nowhere was the employee found to be advantageous. For the period in which he was deprived of employment without error, the unfair and rigorous tribunal decided the dispute between the parties without the use of judicial mind, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal of the public servant. famous lower court advocate from Zahir Pir lawyer