MRS. ZEENAT AHMED versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY DEFENCE
Article 199 Constitutional Application Transferring the Civil Service to Another Station The violation of the transfer of the Videlock policy, the scope in question, was neither in the public interest nor reasonably the applicant was assuming the additional charge of the office of another station PK. Has challenged the relocation. Lock-to-Wed Wedlock policy was not issued for three months on the basis of the Feedback Petitioner and one notice was issued prior to the transfer from one station to another that it was transferred without a job qualification. The intention to violate the legality of the WeddingLock policy did not mean that the holding of an additional charge Me to another station at a particular time did not mean that the applicant could not benefit and benefit from the marriage policy in the future. Nor can it be assumed that the applicant relinquished his right to claim the benefit once he was authorized Harty had issued a marriage policy was his responsibility to adhere to the implementation of such policy guidelines and in order to benefit all the people like this. Its implementation cannot be left to the will and pleasure of a competent authority so that the benefit or benefit can be selected and chosen on the basis. Such guidelines or policies should be applied across the board without discrimination. A civil servant cannot claim a particular position. Right to Rights But, in the present case, the applicant did not claim to be entitled to any one against a particular position but the applicant only wanted to implement the marriage policy in his case which would have affected the socioeconomic issues and problems facing the husband. On
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
