Low Graphics Site
White bar
.: Latest News :. .: News in Pictures :.
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes 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 TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

April 5, 2006 Wednesday Rabi-ul-Awwal 6, 1427

Click to learn more...
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
.




3-year service entitles employee to job regularization



By Our Staff Reporter


ISLAMABAD, April 4: Anyone working against a permanent position in a government department continuously for three years becomes eligible for regularization, observed Federal Service Tribunal (FST) on Tuesday. Hearing a petition filed by Tanvir Akhtar against Pakistan Railways, the FST bench comprising Jehanzaib Burki and Rashid Mehmood Ansari noted that the petitioner having worked for over 10 years could be entitled to regularization.

Mr Akhtar had worked in Railways for about 13 years but was not regularized.

The bench was of the opinion that if an employee’s GP fund is being deducted and his service book is maintained then the worker is deemed to have been regularized.

Counsel for Tanvir Akhtar quoted a government decision that having served for three years without break makes one entitled to regularization. In another petition of Afsarul Mulk against Wapda, the FST remarked that salary of an employee could not be stopped during the period of his suspension.

Moreover, suspension cannot be for a period of over three months. The tribunal stated that if suspension had to be more than three months then it should be extended after every three months as per Section 5 of Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules, counsel for petitioner Ramzan Khan told this reporter.

The counsel said ex post-facto extension was not allowed. He quoted the tribunal as having said that no impugned order can be passed with retrospective effect. In this case, the employee was compulsorily retired in 2001 but the retirement was made effective from 1993 when he was suspended from his job.

The tribunal reserved the judgment in the case.






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2006