Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 209‑R of 1975, decided on 3rd March 1976.

(On appeal from the order of the Services Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 12‑8‑1975 in Appeal No. 843(R) of 1974).

----Art. 212‑Appeal to Supreme Court‑‑Lies front order of Services Tribunal only on question of law of general public importance Refusal by Services Tribunal to condone delay in filling appeal before it‑Does not constitute a question of law.‑[Civil Service].

Syed Riaz Ahmad Pirzada Advocate and Noor Ahmad Noori, Advocate- on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 3rd March 1976.

.‑‑The petitioner was compulsorily retires from the post of Wireless Licensee Inspector on 16th June 1973. The charge against him was that he had realized Rs.150 from two defaulters and appropriated the amount to himself. Against the order of retirement, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Postmaster General which was dismissed on 21‑1‑1974 affirming the finding that the petitioner had been guilty of misconduct and did not deserve to be detained in Government it service. The petitioner then filed a representation to the Prime Minister of Pakistan on 6‑8‑1974, which was returned on 22‑8‑1974 with the remarks that as no such petition lay, the petitioner should file an appeal before the Services Tribunal for redress.

Thereupon the petitioner filed in appeal on 28‑12‑1974 before the Services Tribunal. Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, which was dismissed as barred by time. The petitioner contested the order by a review applica tion contending that he was neat a civil servant on the 22nd February 1974, when the Tribunal was established and could not, therefore, file an appeal from the order of his compulsory retirement until the Services Tribunal Act was amended on the 6th May 1914, and 'civil servant' was redefined as a person who is, or has been a civil servant within the meaning of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

The review application was dismissed by the observation that the amendment of the Civil Servant Act, 1973, was published in the Gazette Notification on 6th May 1974, but the petitioner dad not file the appeal from the order of his compulsory retirement till 28th December 1974. The appeal was thus, in either view, barred by time and no ground was made out to review the earlier order.

The petitioner seeks leave to appeal on the ground that there was sufficient cause to condone the delay. Under Article 212 of the Constitu tion, an appeal lies to this Court from the order of the Services Tribunal only on a question of law of general public importance. As the refusal by the Tribunal to condone the delay in filing of the appeal before it does riot constitute such a question of law, this Court cannot justifiably interfere with the order passed by the Services Tribunal.

The petition for special leave to appeal is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.