Find a Lawyer

PU MUHAMMAD QURESHI versus CHAIRMAN, P.O.F. WAH CANTT

Section 4 (1), the Proviso B \ & 5 Civil Servants Act (IXI of 1973), the jurisdiction to promote Articles 3 and 9, before the Tribunal against its trial for development in the BBP20 of the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the employee was opposed. On the basis of the authority that the Tribunal cannot go into details regarding the development of a public servant, as stated in Provo (b) under section 4 (1) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973, publicity in the terms and conditions of a public servant Was. Guaranteed in the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the amargo listed in proviso (b) under section 4 (1) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 was for the purpose of fitness only or for the appointment or holding of another person. It should be promoted to a particular position or advanced, but it was never intended by the legislature to deprive a person of his legitimate rights and terms and conditions of service as provided in the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Yes, there was a legal jurisdiction to consider the promotion of every public servant and the practice of the department should be taken and this decision under Section 5 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 is subject to judicial scrutiny by the service tribunal, as There must be a forum in the interest of full justice and justice. For the bereaved where they can address them and this forum was a service tribunal that had exclusive jurisdiction over service matters, the intention of the Legislature was not to give arbitrary powers to the Selection Board to stop any person from developing. Who would otherwise be eligible for qualified and respected services. The Tribunal was the only forum to hold exclusive jurisdiction over the terms and conditions of public servants. online advocate from Sudhnoti lawyer