Mon December 11, 2017
Advertisement
Can't connect right now! retry

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!

add The News to homescreen

tap to bring up your browser menu and select 'Add to homescreen' to pin the The News web app

Got it!

Lahore

OC
Our Correspondent
November 16, 2017

Share

Advertisement

Arguments sought in plea against law secy

Arguments sought in plea against law secy

LAHORE  :The Lahore High Court on Wednesday directed a petitioner to come up with arguments on maintainability of his petition challenging another extension given to Punjab Law and Parliamentary Affairs Secretary Syed Abul Hassan Najmi.

Chief Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah passed the order on the petition moved by a citizen, Tuaseef Bajwa, through his counsel Safdar Shaheen Pirzada.

The CJ adjourned the hearing until December 18. Tauseef Ahmad Bajwa, in his petition, said Najmi retired as secretary of Punjab Assembly and he was re-employed as the law secretary immediately after his retirement. The petitioner said this contract basis appointment was extended from time to time and lastly it was extended for a period of one year by virtue of a notification.

Bajwa said that issuance of the impugned notification by Punjab government was illegal and against the mandate of law settled down by the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that legislatures had a lot of sagacity and wisdom while fixing the age of retirement, which showed that after the said particular age if a person retired, he was unable to perform his functions in his department, and how it was believed that a person who retired from one department had become quite useful and helpful for other department.He argued that according to Article 240, the post oflaw secretary was a permanent post which was to be occupied by a permanent public servant, as the same had been envisaged by Section 2(1) (f) and (k) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1973. For the last 9 years, the petitioner said, Najmi had been on the said post which categorically bespoke that the incumbent happened to be indispensable.

He contended that the appointment of Najmi was in violation of Article 25 & 27 of the constitution and example case of favouritism and nepotism which was liable to be set aside and declared as void. He requested the court to set aside the notification issued for fresh extension of the respondent.

Advertisement

Comments

Advertisement

Topstory

Opinion

Newspost

Editorial

National

World

Sports

Business

Karachi

Lahore

Islamabad

Peshawar

Advertisement