| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2020 SLG 324 2020 SLD 324 2020 PLC 13 |
Islamabad High Court
W.P. No. 3084 of 2011, decision Dated: 19-06-2019. Hearing Dated: 21-05-2019.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Umair Baloch
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Nadeem Khan Khakwani, Learned Assistant Attorney-General
W.P. No. 3084 of 2011, decision Dated: 19-06-2019. Hearing Dated: 21-05-2019.
MIANGUL HASSAN AURANGZEB, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Umair Baloch
Respondent(s) by: Muhammad Nadeem Khan Khakwani, Learned Assistant Attorney-General
RAO ABDUL WAHEED
VS
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN THROUGH SECRETARY, CABINET DIVISION AND OTHERS
Law: Civil Servants Act, 1973
Section: 13(1)(i)
Law: Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996
Section: 42
Law: Frequency Allocation Board Employees (Service) Regulations, 2014
Section: 181(4)
Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)--- ----S.13(1)(i)---Frequency Allocation Board Employees (Service) Regulations, 2014, Regln. 181(4)---Frequency Allocation Board Employees Service Regulations, 2007, Para. 5.21---Fundamental Rule No. 114---Deputationist---Terms and conditions of---Scope---Petitioner, a government servant was aggrieved of compulsory retirement without payment of salary and other benefits---Plea raised by authorities was that petitioner was posted to other departments and could not claim salary from parent department for duration of deputation---Validity---Provisions of Fundamental Rule No. 114 made it imperative for pay of deputationist to be fixed by lending and borrowing departments---If terms and conditions of deputation of employee were not settled between borrowing and lending department, salary of deputationist etc., payable to him by his parent department could not be varied to his detriment---Under no circumstances could a deputationist be made to suffer for omissions of his parent and lending department to settle terms of his deputation---High Court declared that from time when petitioner joined duties as deputationist at borrowing department and when petitioner was repatriated by borrowing department, differential in amount actually paid to petitioner by borrowing department and amount under pay certificate of petitioner along with permissible increase during such period be paid by borrowing department---High Court further declared that for period when petitioner reported for duty at borrowing department and after said department issued his repatriation notification and when called upon lending department to take petitioner on its strength, salary of petitioner etc., would be paid by borrowing department in amount as payable to an officer of lending department---High Court directed that for period when lending department first called to take petitioner on its strength and when major penalty of compulsory retirement was imposed on petitioner, salary of petitioner etc., would be paid by lending department in amount as payable to an officer his grade---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. Chairman NADRA, Islamabad v. Muhammad…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492