Find a Lawyer

PROVINCE OF SINDH versus SAEED-UR-REHMAN

An attempt was made to appeal against the decision of Article 1 (185) Civil Service Leave, under which the Division Bench of the High Court had directed the applicants to pay / pay as per the order of the administration. After the determination of pension execution, finalization and release of the employee, the servant was retired and the intervention period was considered as duty, holding field counseling of the officials, saying that the charges against public servants. The order inquiry officer investigating was recommended with the benefit of a return of his recovery. The thought is that anything can not be brought to court as notice that the inquiry officer recommended was sick, did not identify any error of law or fact

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• SECRETARY (SCHOOLS), GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT v. YASMEEN BANO 2011 PLC(CS) 825
• ABDUL RASHEED v. State 2011 SCMR 828
• THE STATE through Director-General Anti-Narcotics Force, Rawalpindi v. SULTAN SHAH 2011 SCMR 829
• ABDUL HAYEE v. State 2011 SCMR 830
• Maulana ABDUL HAQ BALOCH v. GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN through Secretary Industries and Mineral Development 2011 PLD 835
• Dr. AZEEMUR REHMAN v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH 2011 SCMR 835
• Mrs. ABIDA PARVEEN CHANNAR v. HIGH COURT OF SINDH 2011 PLC(CS) 836
• ABDUL GHANI v. Mst. YASMEEN KHAN 2011 SCMR 837

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

immigration advocates from Lakki Marwat lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes