RIAZ AHMAD versus WAPDA.
Section 4: The employee's claim of sanity against the plaintiff of the public servant does not appear in the appeal of the public servant as to the order in which he filed the initial development order under which the defendant was promoted while the employee of the public servant The matter was to be considered after the decision of the disciplinary proceedings. Against this, the civil servant was withdrawn and both the respondents were placed in Glade 16, under which the public servant was declared senior to the plaintiff. Such an order was not the subject of a challenge in the appeal The public servant did not say that he was upset with the order and did not make any representation against the order. The appeal was directed against something that did not exist. And was thus ineligible under Section 4, Service. Tribunals Act, 1973
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
patent advocate from Kotri lawyer
