Find a Lawyer

CHAIRMAN STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN versus M. SALEEM AKHTAR

Article 199 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 Interval Court of Appeal Promotion Voted Right Scope Respondent was an employee of Appellant Corporation and complained that at the time of development, his junior had been promoted and had been given a high court. Single judge was not allowed The Appellant and the Appellant Corporation have been directed to advertise the respondents. Validity publicity was not an employee's right, and seniority alone was not sufficient for that purpose. A single High Court judge failed to explain how the respondent was suitable for the appellant corporation. Modify promotion standards Respondents were properly considered for promotion and were not found to be suitable for development at the relevant time but were subsequently promoted, therefore dismissing the constitutional petition. The High Court Division Bench rejected the single judge's decision. High Court and Intra Court Appeal allowed

Related judgments — Islamabad, 2012

• ABDUL SAMAD v. PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION AUTHORITY 2012 PLC 451
• PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED v. EMPLOYEES\' OLD-AGE BENEFIT INSTITUTION 2012 PLC 460
• ABDUL KHALID v. MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAILWAYS CARRIAGE FACTORY, ISLAMABAD 2012 PLC(CS) 499
• ASGHAR ALI v. MANSOOR MUZAFFAR ALI 2012 PLC(CS) 502
• IZHAR-UL-HAQ v. S.M.E. BANK LIMITED 2012 PLC(CS) 517
• Dr. HABIB-UR-REHMAN v. QUAID-I-AZAM UNIVERSITY 2012 CLC 533
• AMEEN SAQIB v. State 2012 PCrLJ 577
• MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN v. State 2012 PCrLJ 603

All Islamabad judgments of 2012 →

when you need a advocate from Liaquat Pur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes