Find a Lawyer

FAKHAR-UL-ISLAM QURESHI versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, FINANCE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

Article 199 (a) (i) Amendment to the Laws Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 High Court scope The private company's constitutional jurisdiction should not be `Person High 'who performs in the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, which matters In connection with Constitutional request of the Federation, a province or a local authority was not upheld Appellants' failure to approve / pay the appellants and similar pensioners were entitled to increase certain pensions from July 1, 2006, to the Treasury Division (Regulation Wing). ) Despite the Office Memorandum Telephone Industries of Pakistan Executive Pension Rules, 1986 but was not approved / paid by the Authority, the constitutional petition was rejected in writing by a number of representatives on the basis of the Telephone Industries of Pakistan. Was not maintained, a private company was involved. Under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 Validity Telephone Industries, a private company, again registered under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, was a joint venture and was managed by the Board of Directors, with its own memorandum and Article Association. Which set out the terms and conditions of service of its employees and stated that semi-governmental agencies and workers with regard to government and pensions would not fall within the scope of Article 199 (a) (i) of the Constitution Private Company Limited. , They cannot be termed as a \ person \ performing in the territorial jurisdiction. The court, which deals with federation matters, did not identify any province or a local authority appellant in any of the illegal cases that extended the High Court's controversial order. patent advocate from Dera Ismail Khan lawyer