MUHAMMAD LAL versus GHULAM SUBHANI; GENERAL MANAGER, MULTAN, TELECOMMUNICATION REGION (PTCL), MULTAN
Earlier in the constitutional petition filed by the petitioner, Article 204 of the Court of Conduct (LXIV of 1976), sections 3 and 5 the High Court had directed the respondent to consider the applicant as the son of the employer in the job. The respondent did not comply with the decision passed by the High Court; the respondent did not deny the fact that the petitioner was the son of the deceased employee, the High Court decision was non-compliant, but in this case Where I was the defendant officer requested confusion or contradiction in the date of birth of the applicant in the date of his father's death, no punitive action was sought for contempt of court request and the respondent was obliged to comply with the decision. And dealt with the release instructions. Required orders within a specified period \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
