Find a Lawyer

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, GILGIT-BALTISTAN versus SADAR AZAM

Applicants complained that the equation of the equitable rating of Arts 17, 60 (13) and 71 citizens was that despite having vacant vacancies, they were not appointed to the basic pay scale 14 and had the requisite qualification which was requested. Was raised by veterans. Discrimination: A person who was held in the same position under the same circumstances was entitled to such treatment but there was no rule to claim the right under which no person was otherwise entitled. Cannot claim preliminary appointment in salary 14 based on salary. Without prejudice to the rights of any other person, the ability of the Chief Justice Department to exercise his constitutional jurisdiction cannot be construed as a legitimate right for the parties subject to their eligibility and absence of vacancies. May consider yourself for adjustment in Scale 14. The Supreme Appeal Court may consider the government's directive to set up a committee to examine the qualifications and to exercise the qualities and powers of each teacher as an authority authorized to appoint him in the Basic Pay Scale 14 against the vacant post.

Related judgments — Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit, 2010

• MUHAMMAD AMIN BALGHARI v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT 2010 GBLR 340
• Lt.-Col. ARSHAD MEHMOOD CH. v. KIU 2010 GBLR 341
• Haji GHULAM MEHDI v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan 2010 GBLR 343
• JUMMA SYED v. PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT through Chief Secretary Gilgit-Baltistan 2010 GBLR 345
• Haji GHULAM HUSAN v. Haji QASIM 2010 GBLR 351
• Syed JABBAR v. State 2010 GBLR 353
• ABDUL GHAFOOR v. GHULAM MUHAMMAD 2010 GBLR 356
• SUO MOTU CASE NO.11 OF 2009 2010 GBLR 362

All Supreme Appelate Court Gilgit judgments of 2010 →

power of attorney advocate Haroonabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes