SC seeks evidence pertaining to police promotion plea

Petitioner maintains he was due for promotion in 2010 but only received it in 2016, asks for dues


​ Our Correspondent December 28, 2019
PHOTO: REUTERS

KARACHI: The Supreme Court sought evidence on Friday from the Sindh Police and the petitioner in a plea pertaining to the promotion of a former police superintendent and the payment of dues.

A divisional bench, comprising Justice Musheer Alam and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, was hearing the plea at the Supreme Court Karachi registry.

The petitioner, Pir Madad Ali Talpur, informed the court that he deserved promotion as an official of the police department in 2010, but was only promoted in 2016. He maintained that he should be paid dues from the date on which the promotion had to be given, according to the law, adding that he was retired soon after receiving the promotion in 2016.

The petitioner counsel stated that the police department should be directed to pay the relevant dues from 2010.

The court sought evidence from the Sindh Police and Talpur.

SHC reserves verdict on plea challenging police transfers

Pre-arrest bail rejected

Meanwhile, the bench rejected the pre-arrest bail of accused Mehfooz Shah in another case regarding the injury of a citizen during a fight.

The counsel for the accused informed the court that the FIR of the incident was registered several days after the clash.

The court rejected the pre-arrest bail plea, while the accused fled from court after the rejection of his plea.

The court observed that the FIR had been registered late due to the medical report.

“A lawyer should not overlook the facts while making arguments,” remarked Justice Shah, adding that the pre-arrest bail is not maintainable in a serious case.

According to the police, Mehfooz, along with other accused, had injured Irfan Gul during a clash.

Published in The Express Tribune, December 28th, 2019.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ