MUHAMMADASLAMCHAUDHRY versus SECRETARY,FINANCEDIVISION,ISLAMABAD
Section 8 Basic Rules, R26 (c) Appellant Government Employee Sanity Assessment, promoted as Assistant Director (B17), three seniority lists were subsequently released five years before the permanent publicity of the defendant. Applicant's name was shown above. Respondents were unsuccessfully represented against Appellant's seniority on the first list but did not challenge the fact that he appeared to succeed on the two lists to promote respondents initially. But was delayed due to disciplinary action against him which ended in awarding him the award. As a result of the censorship sentence which was finalized, the defendants were also promoted to B17 and were allowed to benefit from the assumption seniority The Final Synonym List demonstrated the appeal to the plaintiff senior. Later held, the seniority of the civil servant was to be determined from that date onwards to his regular appointment under section 8 of the Civil Servants Act. The appellant was promoted to defendant on a regular basis in 1973 and appears in two subsequent lists, after the fact that he was not challenged and after his promotion was not updated, he Appellant's benefit was not entitled to claim sanity Had gone to the first position which he had never challenged.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
