Find a Lawyer

Case No. 141 of 1978, decided on 16th April, 1980.

----S. 4‑‑Limitation‑Appeal filed much after rejection of departmental appeal‑‑Hopelessly time‑barred‑No request for condonation of delay made‑Appeal, in circumstances, dismissed‑‑Record indicating merit of appellant‑Appellant advised to approach Administrative Vigilance Commission.

In this case the appellant impugns his retirement from service vide order dated 28‑1‑1970 made by the Deputy Director, Education (Schools), Lahore Region, and the order dated 9‑10‑1974 issued by the Director of Industries & Mineral Development, Punjab, whereby the appellant was informed that his request for adjustment in the Industries Department could not be accepted.

2. The appellant was Superintendent, Government Industrial School, Bahawalpur (a gazetted post), when he was temporarily shifted on 5‑12‑1950 from the Industries Department to the Education Department to facilitate an enquiry pending against him and posted as Assistant Inspector of Schools. According to him, because of a clerical mistake, the appellant was not shown in the list of gazetted officers of the Industries Department on deputation with the Education Department but as a permanent Assistant Inspector of Schools (non‑gazetted) whereas his lien as a gazetted, officer continued to stand in the Industries Department. The enquiry against the appellant took many long years to conclude and seems to have ended in his favour. On 9‑4‑1970 the appellant requested the Education Department to send him back to the Industries Department to be adjusted against his original post of Superintendent, Industrial School, Bahawalpur, or an equivalent post. It seems that the Industries Department recognized his right, as did the S & GA Department as well as the Finance Department, but the Law Department advised otherwise and the appellant received the second impugned order dated 9‑10‑1979. Representations made on 6-12-1974 and 10‑11‑1976 yielded no result. Meantime, his retirement order dated 28‑1‑1970 had also been issued which the appellant also attacks as he claims that he should have superannuated at the age of 58 years instead of 55 years.

3. Whatever the merits of the case, the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred. The last representation to the appellate authority (presuming that that was in time) was made on 10‑11‑1976 in respect of the appellant's claim to return to the Industries Department and on 11‑11‑1970 with regard to his retirement. There is no explanation, with the appeal to account for the long delays and no condonation of delay has been sought. As such we can only dismiss the appeal on the basis of limitation, which we do. Although it is not for us to advise the appellant on the avenue he should seek for the redress of his grievance, yet, in view of the fact that the Industries, the SGA Department and the Finance Departments appear to find substance in the appellant's case, he may, if he feels so advised, approach the Adminis trative Vigilance Commission in this behalf.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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