Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. 9 of 1977, decided on 6th December 1977.
‑‑ S. 6 read with "Provincial Service Tribunals (Extension of Provisions of the Constitution) (Amendment) Act (XXXIV of 1976), Ss. 12 & 13‑Appeal‑ Limitation‑Condonation of delay ‑ Condonation of delay sought for time‑barred appeal on ground of being unaware of actual periods of limitation‑Plea in substance amounting to pleading ignorance of law, rejected‑Tribunal empowered to hear service appeals having existed even before constitution of present Tribunal in November 1976, appellant could have filed appeal before Tribunal already existing and time for filing appeal could not be reckoned from dale of constitution of present Tribunal.
Noor Mohammad Magsi for Appellant.
Dupe Yaman, P. D. S. P. for Respondent.
This appeal against the order of his compulsory retirement from service dated 29‑12‑1975 filed by the appellant must be dismissed on the simple ground that it is hopelessly out of time Originally he was dismissed from service after regular enquiry by Assistant Inspector‑General of Police, Baluchistan vide his order dated 24‑11‑1975 Against this order he filed appeal before Inspector‑General, Police, Quetta who converted the penalty of dismissal into that of compulsorily retirement vide his order dated 29‑12‑1975.
2. The provisions of Article 212 of the Constitution were extended to Baluchistan vide Act XXXIV of 1976 of the Parliament which came into force on 19‑5‑1976. According to this Act the present Tribunal was invested with exclusive jurisdiction to entertain service appeals. Section 6 of the Baluchistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974 further laid down that the aggrieved Government servant could file appeal within 90 days of the law of the Parliament regarding extension of Article 212 to Baluchistan. According to section 6, the appellant should have preferred this appeal by 19th of August 1976.
3. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay in which he states that he was unaware about the actual period of limitation within which he was required to file appeal. This plea in substance amount to pleading ignorance of law. The appellant has delayed the filing of this appeal for more than 5 months i. e. actually after 8 months of the final order of the Inspector‑General, Police. He has stated that in other Provinces the period of limitation is 6 months and that he was under the impression that in this province also the same period has been prescribed. Even if this plea is accepted, the appellant has come to this Tribunal after 8 months of the impugned order.
4. His further plea that the present Tribunal was constituted in November, 1916 and that the time should be reckoned from this date is not tenable either because even before the constitution of the present Tribunal there was a Tribunal to hear service appeals. In fact the present Tribunal was re‑constituted ride notification, dated 17th November, 1976. The appellant was at liberty to have filed his appeal before the Tribunal already existing before the reconstitution of this Tribunal.
6. We are therefore of a view that the appellant has failed to, render satisfactorily explanation of condonation of the delay in fling this appeal It is accordingly dismissed as time barred.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer