Legal Advice on Writ Petitions for Promotion of Civil Servants in Pakistan

Before filing a writ petition in promotion matter, please ensure that all internal remedies have been exhausted and that your case involves a clear violation of legal or constitutional rights. A well-documented, timely approach with professional legal counsel is crucial to increase the likelihood of success. Remember, writ petitions are powerful legal tools, but they should be reserved for matters involving grave injustice or arbitrary actions beyond the scope of internal or tribunal proceedings. A strong case starts with solid preparation and strategic legal guidance.

Josh and Mak International offers comprehensive legal services related to the promotion and appointment of civil servants, ensuring adherence to statutory regulations, procedural integrity, and fairness in administrative actions. The firm likely provides the following legal services:

1. Judicial Review and Constitutional Petitions: Representing clients in filing constitutional petitions challenging unlawful appointments, promotions, and administrative decisions that violate statutory rules and regulations.
2. Quo Warranto Writs: Assisting clients in challenging the legality of appointments and the holding of public office by individuals who do not meet the required qualifications or whose appointments have not followed the prescribed procedures.
3. Service Tribunal Representation: Representing civil servants before service tribunals in matters related to promotions, appointments, and other terms and conditions of service, ensuring that their grievances are addressed in accordance with the law.
4. Employment Law Compliance: Advising government departments and civil servants on compliance with employment laws, including the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and relevant provincial and departmental rules regarding appointments, promotions, and transfers.
5. Dispute Resolution and Arbitration: Providing services in resolving disputes related to service matters through negotiation, mediation, and arbitration, aiming to achieve fair and equitable outcomes without the need for prolonged litigation.
6. Policy and Regulatory Advisory: Offering advisory services on the formulation and implementation of policies and regulations governing civil service appointments and promotions, ensuring that they are consistent with statutory requirements and best practices.
7. Litigation and Appeals: Representing clients in litigation and appeals before the High Courts, Supreme Court, and other judicial forums, challenging administrative actions that adversely affect the rights of civil servants.
8. Legal Opinions and Consultancy: Providing legal opinions and consultancy services on complex issues related to civil service law, including the interpretation and application of statutory provisions and rules governing promotions and appointments.
9. Administrative and Procedural Audits: Conducting audits of administrative procedures and practices within government departments to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks, and recommending improvements to enhance transparency and fairness.

Josh and Mak International’s services are geared towards ensuring that civil service matters are handled with legal precision, fairness, and adherence to established regulations, thereby protecting the rights of civil servants and maintaining the integrity of administrative processes.

Filing a Writ Petition for your Promotion Matter? Here are some key considerations you should take into account before such a decision.

• Exhaustion of Remedies: Always ensure that all internal departmental remedies and appeals have been exhausted before filing a writ. Courts generally expect petitioners to utilise available mechanisms before approaching them.

• Clear Violation of Legal Rights: Writ petitions should focus on cases where there has been a clear violation of statutory, constitutional, or legal rights. Vague or speculative claims are less likely to succeed.
• Timeliness: Be mindful of the limitation periods. Delayed filings without justifiable reasons can lead to dismissal on grounds of laches (unreasonable delay).
• Jurisdiction: Ensure that the High Court has jurisdiction over the matter. This applies where fundamental rights have been violated, and no alternate remedy is available.
• No Alternate Remedies: Writs are not maintainable if an alternate, equally effective remedy, such as approaching the service tribunal or another specialised forum, exists. Use writs only as a last resort when other forums are unavailable or inadequate.
• Involvement of Public Duty: A writ petition can be filed only when public authorities or officials have failed to perform a legal duty or acted beyond their powers. This is critical in promotion cases where actions or omissions of public officers affect rights.
• Documentary Evidence: Proper documentation is key. Ensure all supporting documents, like service records, departmental communications, and appeal rejections, are attached to substantiate your claims.
• Pleading Facts and Law: Make sure your petition is drafted with both factual accuracy and legal reasoning. Courts look for petitions that clearly state the legal grounds on which relief is sought.
• Seeking Correct Relief: Clearly specify the relief sought, whether it be mandamus (compelling duty), certiorari (quashing an unlawful order), or prohibition (preventing an unlawful action).
• Standing (Locus Standi): The petitioner must be directly affected by the issue. Third parties generally do not have standing in promotion matters unless representing aggrieved civil servants with a vested interest.
• Discretionary Powers of the Court: Writs are at the court’s discretion. Even if there is a legal entitlement, the High Court may refuse a writ if the petitioner’s conduct is found questionable or if public interest is not served.
• Nature of Dispute: Promotion disputes involving eligibility criteria, procedural irregularities, or gross injustice may be heard, but writs cannot be filed simply over dissatisfaction with administrative decisions unless there is clear illegality.
• Grounds of Bias or Mala Fide: If a promotion matter involves claims of bias, mala fide intentions, or arbitrary decisions by authorities, these grounds should be clearly articulated in the writ.
• Non-Interference in Merits of Decision: High Courts will not interfere with the merits of a promotion decision, especially where selection boards have been involved, unless gross illegality, fraud, or bias is proven.
• Service Tribunal vs High Court: Promotion issues typically fall within the Service Tribunal’s jurisdiction. A writ petition can only be filed in High Court if there is no adequate remedy available in the tribunal or if there are issues of fundamental rights.
• Proper Parties: Ensure all necessary parties are impleaded. These could include the department heads, government authorities, or any other necessary respondents responsible for the grievance.
• Practicality of Relief Sought: The relief must be enforceable. Courts are unlikely to entertain writs where the relief sought is impractical or outside their powers.
• Professional Misconduct: If the petition relates to professional misconduct or negligence in handling promotions by officials, evidence must substantiate the allegations clearly.
• Costs and Consequences: Be prepared for possible costs being imposed by the court if the petition is found to be frivolous or premature. Proper legal advice and realistic expectations should guide the filing.

A review of case law : 

In the case of Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan v. Adeel-ur-Rehman (2024 SCMR 145), the Supreme Court of Pakistan overturned the High Court’s decision that had incorrectly allowed the writ petition of contract employees seeking regularization. The Court emphasized that appointments and regularizations for BPS-16 and above must be conducted through the Balochistan Public Service Commission (BPSC) as mandated by Rule 9(1)(a) of the Balochistan Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 2009, and Rules 3(i)(a) and 3(i)(b) of the Balochistan Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1982. The High Court’s reliance on the ground of discrimination was deemed insufficient, and the proper procedure through the BPSC was reaffirmed.

Similarly, in the case reported in 2024 PLC(CS) 242, involving the same parties, the Supreme Court underscored that posts in BPS-16 and above are within the purview of the BPSC, and appointments must be based on a test and interview conducted by the Commission. The Court directed the Provincial Government to refer the posts in question to the Commission for recruitment on an open merit basis, ensuring compliance with the established legal framework.

The case of Muhammad Hanif Mughal v. Secretary Forest Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (2023 PLC(CS)N 56) further illustrates the Court’s stance. The Supreme Court of Azad Kashmir held that the matter of implementing service rules for promotions did not fall under the terms and conditions of service, thereby making the writ petition competent. The Court set aside the High Court’s dismissal, reinforcing the principle that civil servants have a right to seek implementation of service rules through writ petitions.

In Ghulam Hussain v. Province of Sindh (2023 PLC(CS) 194), the Karachi High Court adjudicated on the non-suiting of a candidate for the post of Naib Qasid despite fulfilling all qualifications and passing the necessary tests. The Court found the rejection of the candidate’s application to be based on arbitrary and unsustainable grounds, thereby granting the constitutional petition and directing a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

Moreover, in Qaiser Shah v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2022 PLC(CS) 478), the Peshawar High Court dismissed the petitioners’ claim of illegal appointments, reiterating the requirement for appointments to be made on recommendations from the Departmental Selection Committee through the District Employment Exchange. The Court upheld the mandatory nature of this procedure as per Rule 10 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1989.

The Lahore High Court, in Hafiz Muhammad Kaleem Ud Din v. Province of Punjab (2022 PLC(CS) 999), addressed the issue of pro forma promotion for a retired civil servant. The Court held that mere pendency of an inquiry was no ground to deprive the petitioner of his lawful right to promotion, directing the department to promote the petitioner from his due date.

In the case of Dr. Noor Muhammad Shah v. Ministry of National Health Services (2022 PLC(CS) 1567), the Islamabad High Court highlighted the responsibility of the Ministry to ensure accurate and complete Performance Evaluation Reports (PERs). The Court deemed the deferment of the petitioner’s promotion on grounds of irrelevant PERs as arbitrary and irrational, directing reconsideration in the next CSB meeting.

Khawaja Nazir Ahmed v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (2022 PLC(CS) 1417) saw the Azad Kashmir High Court granting a time scale promotion, noting that delay by the Authority should not burden the petitioner and deprive him of his accrued right.

In Haseeb Iftikhar Ahmad v. Secretary, Law and Justice Division (2021 PLC(CS) 280), the Islamabad High Court invalidated an appointment by transfer due to the failure to initiate the process for initial appointment, thus reinforcing the procedural mandates outlined in Rule 3 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973.

In Muhammad Qureshi v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2019 PLC(CS) 1119) involved the Peshawar High Court setting aside an appointment made without proper advertisement and procedural adherence, directing a fresh recruitment process to ensure transparency and merit.

In Asadullah v. Deputy Inspector-General of Police Training (2019 PLC(CS)N 27), the Karachi High Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that the petitioners, who sought appointment based on a Standing Order issued by the Inspector General of Police, could not claim such appointments as a matter of right. The court held that the Standing Order lacked legal sanctity without provincial government approval and emphasized that appointments must follow transparent procedures as mandated by the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. This decision underscores the court’s commitment to upholding established procedural norms and rejecting claims based on non-approved administrative orders.

In Sanaullah v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2018 PLC(CS) 316), the Peshawar High Court similarly dismissed the writ petition of a candidate who had passed a written test but failed the computer test and interview for a secretary position. The court held that it could not question the selection committee’s assessment, reinforcing the principle that judicial intervention in administrative decisions is limited to ensuring procedural compliance, not re-evaluating the merits of individual candidates.

Contrastingly, in Abid Hussain v. Director Schools Education, Mirpurkhas (2018 PLC(CS)N 19), the Karachi High Court took a more interventionist stance by directing the appointment of the petitioner, who sought employment on a deceased quota following his father’s death. The court highlighted the government’s duty to support the families of deceased employees and mandated the issuance of the appointment order, thereby prioritizing humanitarian considerations over rigid procedural adherence.

In Wahaz Zulfiqar v. Federation of Pakistan (2018 PLC(CS) 1284), the Islamabad High Court dismissed the constitutional petition of contract employees seeking reinstatement, underscoring the contractual nature of their employment and the absence of statutory rules governing their service conditions. The court reiterated that constitutional petitions are not the appropriate remedy for contractual disputes, which should instead be pursued through suits for damages.

The Gilgit-Baltistan Supreme Appellate Court, in Provincial Government v. Muhammad Kazim Baig (2018 PLC(CS)N 141), upheld the cancellation of appointments made in violation of service rules. The court invalidated the Chief Court’s acceptance of a writ petition by employees appointed on a contingent basis without fulfilling codal formalities, thereby emphasizing the illegality of such appointments and reaffirming the necessity of adherence to statutory procedures.

In Muhammad Anwar Khan v. Provincial Government (2016 GBLR 35), the same court affirmed the pro forma promotion of a retired police officer. The court rejected the provincial government’s appeal against the Service Tribunal’s decision, noting that the officer was entitled to the promotion based on his qualifications and the existence of a vacancy at the relevant time. This decision highlights the court’s willingness to uphold rights accrued during service, even post-retirement, provided procedural and substantive criteria are met.

The Lahore High Court, in Ch. Azhar Hussain v. Secretary to Government of the Punjab LG&CD Department (2016 PLC(CS) 693), addressed the issue of promotion after retirement. The court held that the petitioner had a vested right to be considered for promotion, given his recommendation by the Provincial Selection Committee, and directed the department to act justly and fairly by granting the promotion. This case underscores the court’s focus on ensuring that administrative delays do not prejudice the rights of civil servants.

In Muhammad Nadeem v. Government of Balochistan (2015 PLC(CS) 1143), the Quetta High Court dismissed a constitutional petition challenging appointments made in violation of service rules. The court emphasized the presumption of correctness of official acts and the principles of constructive res judicata, thereby refusing to re-agitate previously decided matters.

In Engineer Musharaf Shah v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (2015 PLC(CS) 215), the Peshawar High Court dismissed writ petitions concerning the non-consideration for promotion, stating that the exclusive jurisdiction for such matters lay with the Service Tribunal. The court distinguished between the right to be considered for promotion, which is a vested right, and the right to promotion itself, which is not.

In Athar Hussain Khan v. Federation of Pakistan (2015 PLC(CS) 547), the Lahore High Court invalidated the re-assessment of promotion candidates based on subjective criteria such as integrity and reputation. The court found the Competent Authority’s decision discriminatory and lacking transparency, directing the promotion of the petitioners based on the objective criteria established by the Central Selection Board.

In Dr. Rana Muhammad Akhlaq v. Federation of Pakistan (2015 CLC 397, 2015 PLC(CS) 568), the Islamabad High Court addressed the issue of quo warranto, where the petitioner challenged the appointment of a respondent as Animal Husbandry Commissioner in BPS-20, who was holding a BPS-19 post. The court held that the appointment was invalid as the competent authority, under Rule 6 of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973, for a BPS-20 position, was the Prime Minister, not the Secretary of the Ministry. The court declared the respondent as a usurper and ordered the refund of salaries and benefits drawn improperly. This case underscores the court’s insistence on strict adherence to statutory appointment procedures.

In Pervaiz Akhtar v. Federal Government (2014 PLC(CS) 326), the Lahore High Court dealt with a civil servant who remained an Officer on Special Duty (OSD) and was not promoted due to incomplete Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). The court held that the non-availability of ACRs was not the fault of the civil servant, who had an unblemished record. The court directed the appellate authority to expedite the civil servant’s ante-dated promotion to BPS-21 and consider his promotion to BPS-22. The decision highlights the court’s emphasis on fairness and the right of civil servants to be considered for promotion based on their service record.

In Dr. Muhammad Iqbal v. Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (2014 PLC(CS) 585), the Azad Kashmir High Court addressed the case of a civil servant who was eligible for promotion but retired due to departmental negligence in processing his promotion. The court held that retirement should not deprive a civil servant of promotion rights if he was eligible during his service period. The department was directed to promote the petitioner with all benefits retrospectively. This case exemplifies the court’s commitment to ensuring that civil servants are not prejudiced by administrative lapses.

The Supreme Court of Azad Kashmir in Fazal-e-Rabbi Khan v. Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (2013 PLC(CS) 357) clarified the jurisdictional boundaries concerning writ petitions for promotions. The court acknowledged that while promotion is a term and condition of service, which generally falls under the Service Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the High Court could issue directions when there is no other adequate remedy. This decision highlights the court’s willingness to intervene to ensure justice and proper administrative conduct.

In Liaqat Ali Chugtai v. Federation of Pakistan (2013 PLD 413, 2012 PLC(CS) 1062), the Lahore High Court reviewed the Central Selection Board’s (CSB) promotion criteria, which were based on personal opinions rather than structured objective criteria. The court declared the CSB’s selection process unconstitutional and discriminatory, directing the formulation of a well-thought-out objective criteria. This ruling underscores the importance of transparency, fairness, and objective assessment in the promotion process.

Khalid Mahmood v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government (2013 PLC(CS) 1286) reaffirmed that rule-making for promotions is the prerogative of the government and cannot be influenced by individual preferences of civil servants. The High Court of Azad Kashmir upheld that promotions must be carried out according to statutory rules and not personal whims.

In Syed Riaz-ul-Hassan v. Azad Government through Chief Secretary Muzaffarabad (2012 PLC(CS) 1426), the Supreme Court of Azad Kashmir reinforced that civil servants have a legal right to be considered for promotion based on merit. The court vacated the High Court’s judgment, directing the authorities to properly address the appellant’s promotion grievance according to the rules.

In Shahnawaz Kutrio v. Province of Sindh (2011 PLC(CS) 1343), the Karachi High Court set aside the appointment of a Director General Agriculture Extension, holding that the appointment did not comply with the prescribed method under the relevant notification. The court emphasized that the appointment must be either through promotion from within the department or transfer from another wing, highlighting the necessity for adherence to statutory and procedural requirements for appointments to senior positions. This case underscores the court’s insistence on following established procedures and not allowing deviations that contravene statutory rules.

In Muhammad Habil v. Provincial Government (2010 PLC(CS) 753), the Northern Areas Chief Court ordered the promotion of a senior government servant whose case for promotion had been unjustifiably deferred. The court observed that the petitioner fulfilled all prerequisites and there were no adverse reports against him. The court’s decision to direct his promotion highlights its stance against arbitrary and unjustified administrative delays in promoting eligible civil servants, reinforcing the principle of merit-based progression within the civil service.

In Allauddin Abbasy v. Province of Sindh (2010 PLC(CS) 1415), the Karachi High Court declined to issue a writ of quo warranto against the transfer and absorption of a senior officer into the Police Department. The court found that the Chief Minister had the authority to make such decisions, provided they did not infringe upon the vested rights of other civil servants. This case illustrates the court’s recognition of the discretionary powers vested in senior administrative authorities while ensuring that such powers are exercised within legal bounds.

In Sheikh Ansar Ahmed v. Federation of Pakistan (2010 PLC(CS) 1018), the Islamabad High Court dismissed a constitutional petition challenging discriminatory treatment in promotion, emphasizing that jurisdiction for such matters lies with the Service Tribunal. The court reinforced the constitutional bar under Article 212, highlighting that civil servants must seek redress through appropriate statutory forums rather than constitutional petitions.

Raja Muhammad Naseem Khan v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government (2010 PLC(CS) 439) involved a retired police officer seeking notional promotion. The High Court of Azad Kashmir held that the petitioner could be granted notional promotion without disturbing others’ rights, acknowledging the civil servant’s accrued rights before retirement. This decision reflects the court’s commitment to ensuring that civil servants’ legitimate expectations are honored, even post-retirement, where procedural lapses have caused delays.

In Dr. Hafiz Muhammad Rafique v. Government of Balochistan (2009 PLC(CS) 656), the Quetta High Court directed the promotion of senior doctors who were unjustly subordinated to junior colleagues, violating statutory promotion criteria. The court’s intervention underscores its role in rectifying administrative injustices and ensuring that promotions are conducted based on seniority-cum-merit, as mandated by law.

Sheikh Masood Iqbal v. Azad Government (2008 PLC(CS) 11) saw the Azad Kashmir High Court nullifying a notification that violated statutory rules for judicial appointments. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to established judicial service rules and maintaining the independence of the judiciary, highlighting the court’s role in preserving the integrity of judicial appointments against arbitrary administrative actions.

In Qamaruddin v. Pakistan (2007 SCMR 66), the Supreme Court dismissed a civil servant’s appeal for correction of his date of birth, emphasizing that such corrections cannot be entertained post-appointment as per Rule 12-A of the Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973. This decision illustrates the court’s stance against retrospective changes in service records that could undermine administrative certainty and fairness.

Rukhsar Ali v. Government of N.-W.F.P. (2007 PLC(CS) 833) involved the Supreme Court upholding the High Court’s decision that appointments initially advertised as regular but later converted to contract basis were void. The court affirmed that policy changes affecting appointments must apply prospectively, ensuring that candidates’ expectations based on advertised terms are honored.

The case of  Muhammad Ashraf v. Government of Pakistan (2007 PLC(CS) 669) saw the Lahore High Court ruling against the use of adverse intelligence reports as the sole basis for denying promotion, without considering Annual Confidential Reports or providing an opportunity for the civil servant to respond. This decision emphasizes the necessity for a fair and transparent assessment process in promotion decisions.

These cases collectively demonstrate the judiciary’s commitment to upholding statutory requirements, ensuring fairness in administrative processes, and protecting the rights of civil servants against arbitrary and unjust decisions.

Resolved Cases Series: Matter involving Promotion of Civil Servant in Pakistan.

Case Resolved: Petitioner’s Promotion Matter

In June 2016, the client, a dedicated Director (BS-20) with a prominent federal institution, approached Josh and Mak International seeking assistance with a promotion matter. He was aggrieved as six junior officers were promoted to BS-21, while he was ignored and superseded. Despite his outstanding performance, he had not been considered for the promotion.

We began by gathering relevant evidence and facts to present a strong case for our client’s promotion. The petitioner’s career history showcased his devotion to duty and exceptional service. He had joined the Civil Services Academy in 1980 and progressed through various roles, displaying commendable performance in each position. The client had received cash awards for detecting tax frauds, achieving targets, and rendering meritorious service.

Our research revealed that the promotion of the six respondents was based on a seniority list from 2011, which had been set aside by the Federal Service Tribunal, making their promotion void ab initio. Additionally, the client, being senior to the respondents, was unfairly superseded without any valid reason, while his juniors were promoted for personal reasons.

We argued that the petitioner’s supersession without providing reasons was a violation of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act and his fundamental rights under the Constitution. The promotion process, which allocated marks for service record and evaluation by the Central Selection Board (CSB), displayed malafide intent as the petitioner’s marks were disproportionate to his service record.

The petitioner’s exceptional 31-year unblemished service record and varied experience in different positions further highlighted his suitability for promotion. He had held key roles, including Chief Commissioner, a position rarely given to competent officers. The client’s performance had been recognized with meritorious awards and rewards during his postings.

We emphasized that the petitioner’s experience far exceeded that of his junior officers who were promoted. While some of them had never worked outside their home station, the petitioner had served in various cities, showing his willingness to accept challenging assignments.

Furthermore, we presented an incident from 1986 when the petitioner, at great personal risk, protected government records during a dacoity at the Income Tax Office in Bahawalpur. This incident showcased his dedication to duty and service beyond the call of duty.

Based on the evidence presented, it becomes evident that none of the promoted officers have experiences similar to the petitioner. The petitioner has held unique and challenging postings, which were not given to the promoted officers. He remained posted as Commissioner in BS-19 for three years, whereas the promoted officers did not hold such positions. Additionally, the petitioner served as Chief Commissioner for two consecutive years, a feat not achieved by most of the promoted officers.

The questions that arise from this situation are:

1. Why has the petitioner been declared incompetent when he currently holds an important and challenging post as Director Intelligence & Investigation by the FBR?
2. Why was the petitioner declared “incompetent” in October 2011 when he had received a cash reward for his competence just a month earlier?
3. Why were the officers junior to the petitioner, with less experience and exposure, awarded more marks than him in the evaluation by the CSB?

In our submission to the court, we emphasized that the awarding of marks by the CSB to the petitioner was arbitrary and a result of malafide intent. Superseding the petitioner was unjustified and illegal, violating his fundamental rights under the Constitution. We requested the court’s intervention to rectify this injustice and uphold the petitioner’s service rights.

We prayed that the court declares the petitioner’s supersession as malafide, arbitrary, and of no legal consequence. We sought the court’s direction to the CSB and FBR to reconsider the petitioner’s promotion in the next CSB meeting, in line with the date of promotion of his juniors.

The points of law presented in the petition were based on the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Pakistan and the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

As a result of this petition, the court found in favor of the aggrieved party and ordered his promotion based on the evidence and arguments presented.

In conclusion, our comprehensive presentation and strong arguments convinced the court of the petitioner’s eligibility and competence for promotion. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, directing his promotion to BS-21, recognizing his outstanding service and contributions to the government. The successful resolution of this case demonstrates our expertise in handling promotion matters and protecting the rights of our clients in the legal arena.If you are facing a similar situation in the Pakistan Civil Service, our team at Josh and Mak International is here to provide you with affordable legal assistance. We can help you ensure that any injustices done to you regarding promotion are rectified through the proper legal channels. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us for guidance and support in your promotion matter.

Call for Free Legal Advice +92-3048734889

Email : [email protected]

https://joshandmakinternational.com