Find a Lawyer

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT LAHORE versus FAIZ AHMAD DOGAR

R9 (2) Pro Pharma Promotion Scope Department Promotion Committee Conveyor Meeting with Principal Practitioner of Government Employee Retired on 1 1 2003 and presented the development matter to the Government Employee in front of the Public Promotion Committee at a meeting held on the 6th after the necessary formal completion. went. 7 2004 When a public servant was promoted, the service tribunal allowed an appeal filed by a public servant and was approved to convene a meeting of the Department Promotion Committee and a meeting. Advertising was not only involved in the question of sanity but also the ability, rules and records of ancient and official records could not be done in a mechanical manner so there could be no time limit for convening a departmental development committee, which should be ? The Supreme Court, held within a reasonable time, directed that 6 7 2 004 be considered as the date of the development of the public servant and the decision passed by the service tribunal appeal would be set aside.

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2011

• MUHAMMAD SALEEM v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA 2011 SCMR 1557
• Meter NOOR MUHAMMAD v. NAZIR AHMED 2011 SCMR 1559
• Dr. MUHAMMAD ANWAR KURD v. THE STATE through Regional Accountability Bureau, Quetta 2011 SCMR 1560
• SILK BANK LIMITED v. Qazi EHTISHAMUL HAQ 2011 CLD 1569
• AMANULLAH SHAH v. SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH 2011 SCMR 1584
• MUHAMMAD ARIF v. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SIALKOT 2011 SCMR 1591
• PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. Mst. AISHA NAWAZ 2011 SCMR 1602
• MUHAMMAD ABBASI v. State 2011 SCMR 1606

All Supreme Court judgments of 2011 →

immigration advocates from Nankana Sahib lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes