Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Weather
Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon PTV 2 Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Mazdak Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story


06 April 2004 Tuesday 15 Safar 1425



FST has one bench for 4,000 cases

By Our Reporter


LAHORE, April 5: The Federal Service Tribunal has only one bench here for hearing more than 4,000 pending cases and even that is not functioning properly. Pakistan Service Bar Association provincial vice-president Mian Mahmood Husain said this at a reception hosted in his honour by the Federal Government Employees Organization here on Monday.

He said the tribunal was not functioning properly because one of the members, Jehanzeb Burki, remained on leave most of the time or was summoned to Islamabad. Moazzam Hayat, the other member, could not hear the appeals alone under the law.

"Similar is the position of Karachi tribunal," he added. He said only Islamabad tribunal was functioning regularly. Of its four benches, three heard cases regularly while the fourth remained idle. Suspension of the functioning of Lahore and Karachi tribunals left the federal government employees and their lawyers with no option but to travel to Islamabad for filing their appeals, he added.

He said the prime minister and the Chief Justice of Pakistan had promised to appoint additional members for making the Lahore and Karachi benches functional but the promise has yet to be fulfilled.

NOTICE TO PIA: The Federal Service Tribunal has issued notice to the Pakistan International Airlines on an appeal filed by a pilot against stripping him of three years of seniority.

Petitioner Captain Shahid Aziz's counsel contended that reduction to a lower pay group could not exceed three years under the PIAC Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985. Moreover, a court of competent authority had already acquitted the petitioner of the charge. No penalty could thus be imposed on him in the absence of the charge, he contended.




Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

© The DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2004