Find a Lawyer

NEMATALIGORAYA versus JAFFARABBAS,INSPECTOR/SERGEANTTRAFFIC

R12 2 (3) Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Terms of Service) Rules 1974, R 8 Assigning seniority to senior police officers Applicable to the determination of special law or common law seniority where special law applies in addition to common law. Is. In a special case, then the extent of the application of special law in this case, the provisions of the common law will be displaced, Rule 8, Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Terms of Service) Rule 1974, the law applicable to all citizens directly recruited Is the general provision of Employees in Punjab designate their seniority for inter-security, while R 12 2 (3), Police Rules, 1934, which is related to the same subject, apply to the specific category of public servants, namely, members of the police force Rule 12 2. happens. 3), Police Rules, 1934, is, therefore, a special provision of the law, while 8, Government servants of Punjab (Appointment and Terms of Service) Rules, 1974, are a general supply of law, both dealing with the same subject. The provisions of CTR 12 2 (3), Police Rules, 1934, will, therefore, apply in the case of police officers and to that extent the Punjab 8 Government Employees (Appointment and Terms of Service) Rules 1974, did not apply both sets. Can go Government employees were recruited and certified in the same history, their sanity was determined precisely by the departmental authority according to the relevant age under R 12 2 (3), Police Rules, 1934, Service Tribunal. Thus, the disturbing sanity was not justified by the Department of Order's Service Tribunal as both the police officers, the appellants and the respondents, were set aside and the departmental authority resorted to famous lower court advocate from Sagri lawyer