Clicky

Lawyer Information One other Grievance Earlier than SJC Towards LHC CJ Qasim Khan In A Reference Already Pending Earlier than It

The complainant has asked the Council to consider these objections as part of the main complaint of the signed specific lawful measures against the illegal acts committed by the Lahore administration / Supreme Court in the best interests of justice.

ISLAMABAD: (UrduPoint / UrduPoint / Pakistan Point News – January 1, 2021) A lawyer who previously approached the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) with a complaint against the Chief Justice of the Lahore Supreme Court Mohammad Qasim Khan Another complaint filed on Saturday the Finance Committee, which it said was made in violation of rules and regulations.

Mian Maqsood Ahmad, a Lahore-based attorney, has filed the plea, challenging the alleged illegal acts committed before the Lahore Supreme Court, contrary to the Supreme Court Appointment and Service Provisions of 1956, 1979 , violates.

The attorney said that despite the matter with the Supreme Judicial Council over the appointment and state of the rules of service for members of the High Court Establishment from 1956 to 1979, the LHC re-established a finance committee which was also manifestly in violation of the above rule.

The attorney also stated that the LHC plans to regulate all types of promotions, upgrades, and timed upgrades in violation of the SC’s 2016 ruling, SCMR 859. He also said that a golden principle had been established that revaluation could not take place if there was a public need to reorganize the department.

He argued that “on the orders of Punjab governor” does not mean that it was approved by the governor. Rather, he said it was a constitutional requirement under Article 139 that all executive action by the Punjab government should be on behalf of the governor.

He said the Sharaf Faridi case could not override the constitutional provisions under Articles 115, 119-124, 208 (b). In addition, Article 175 of the Constitution does not deal with the terms of the two categories of workers mentioned above.

He said the question now is whether the person filling a position should be upgraded along with a position that is being upgraded or otherwise. Attention is drawn in this regard to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Petition No. 193 of 2013 on civil review in Constitutional Petition No. 71 of 2011 and published by S & GAD in its Circular No. Sor-III (p & GAD) 03/17/2013 from 04/27/2015.

He argued that the phrase improvement from the term “promotion” was limited to the position, and not to the person who occupies it. The upgrading could not be made to help a particular person promote them to a higher position or to give them the option of side appointment or transfer or posting to justify the upgrading. He said the government needs to determine that the department needs to be restructured, reformed, or served to serve the needs of the public interest service. Without these preconditions, an HP rating was not permitted.

The applicant argued that since a complaint was made, the decision against Mr Justice Muhammad Qasim Khan, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Lahore, Lahore, is pending before the Council. Therefore, the decision must be decided before the meeting / convening of the Supreme Judicial Commission for the Judiciary considering the appointment of judges of the higher judiciary on January 8, 2021

He prayed the council to consider these objections as part of the main complaint of the signed concrete lawful measures against the illegal acts committed by the Lahore administration / Supreme Court in the best interests of justice.

Leave a Comment