Find a Lawyer

HAQ DAD KHAN versus CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LTD.

Section 9 Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Section 4 Prior to the Appellant's Return of Appellant The authority's order was withdrawn, under which the appellant was withdrawn from his previous development, appointed as the Trainee Supervisor, He was eventually promoted to BP Section 17 as an Assistant Divisional Engineer. Meanwhile, the appellant improved his qualification and obtained a Bachelor's Degree, which was considered equivalent to a B.C. (Engineering) Appellant's promotion of ADE (BPS 17) against the 5 ota quota. Filed a representation for, but their request was not considered. On the basis that the Bachelor's Degree was not equivalent to an appeal filed by the BC (Engineering) Appellant, the service tribunal rejected it, but the Supreme Court granted his request and the Appellant. A promotional order was issued to him, which led to his premature promotion. The ADE in BPS 17 was further strengthened by the Appellant with effect from 1 8 1986. The court's decision required that sanity be granted as a DE from 1999, but was denied and instead the notification gave him the benefit of advancement, quoting 5 quota. Appellant's trial for a counter-affidavit was initially denied. On the basis that B Tech Degree was not equivalent to BSc (Engineering) Degree, but then in light of the Supreme Court decision, the issue was resolved as B Tech Degree was awarded BSc (Engineering). Was considered to be equivalent to a degree, so it was to the conclusion that the appellant was unlawfully denied the government's instructions in his development. immigration advocate from Sheikhupura lawyer