Find a Lawyer

MST. MEHRUN NISA versus PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY, (EDUCATION), GOVERNMENT OF SINDH

Article 199 Constitutional application Department of Education Civil Service Teachers Executive District Officer (EDO) (Finance) Applicant's salary bill because he did not approve the applicant's salary bill in 1993 to complete the formal process He was later appointed and has been serving in the department ever since. When the payroll bills received by the authority authorized by the EDO (Finance) withheld since January 2007 that his appointment was forged, the EDO (Finance) approved such salary bills. There was no option or option to deny that the petitioner was serving in the department. Therefore, he had the right to pay his salary. If the applicant's appointment was fake, the department should have taken action against him. Sindh Department did not provide any reason to the applicant as per Government Employees (Talent & Discipline) Rules 1973. Court directs EDO (finance) to issue applicant salaries within two weeks \ r \ n \ r \ n

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012

• AURANGZAIB IQBAL v. State 2012 YLR 1141
• AHMED ALI v. State 2012 PCrLJ 1145
• GUL REHMAN alias GUL MUSLIM v. State 2012 YLR 1146
• FEROZE KHAN v. State 2012 MLD 1152
• SAUD HUSSAIN v. State 2012 YLR 1161
• ABDULLAH v. State 2012 MLD 1171
• LIAQUAT v. State 2012 YLR 1172
• ZULFIQAR ALI DOMKI v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Local Government Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi 2012 PLC(CS) 1176

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2012 →

online advocate from Trinda Mohd Pannah lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes