Find a Lawyer

SURRIYA BEGUM versus CITY NAZIM, CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI

Article 199 Constitution Petition Civil Service Pro-Pharma Promotion Petition claims that it was given pharma promotion through Grade 17 because as per the date 10-10 1995 there was a lawyer's plea for the respondents' option that since the applicant has retired, BPS was not eligible for the post. 17 If the applicant's development was on an unlawful basis without the approval of the competent authority, it should have been withdrawn or at least the order for the cancellation of its advertisement should have been made to the Council for such authority. The facts were stated in the counter affidavit that my claim of affidavit in the counter affidavit was rejected by any competent authority on any basis on any basis for the promulgation of any development memorandum. This was not enough, as the competent authority had directed the High Court to calculate the applicant's retirement benefits. BPS 17 to 1 1995, when he was given pharma promotion \ r \ n

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• NAWAB JAN alias NAWAZ v. State 2010 MLD 824
• Haji INAYAT v. State 2010 PCrLJ 825
• REAL TRADING CO. through Wali Muhammad, Karachi v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF PaCCS, KARACHI 2010 PTD 826
• UNITED BANK LIMITED v. PROGAS PAKISTAN LIMITED 2010 CLD 828
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD v. State 2010 YLR 833
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN v. NAYA DOUR MOTORS (PVT.) LIMITED 2010 CLD 838
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD v. State 2010 MLD 839
• RAHIB ALI v. State 2010 YLR 844

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

immigration advocates contact from Nankana Sahib lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes