Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 711(372 of 1974, decided on 5th October, 1978.

----S. 4, proviso‑Subject‑matter‑Departmental order of date earlier than 1‑7‑1969‑Appeal, held, not maintainable.

P L D 1974 S C 291 rel.

‑‑ S. 8‑Abatement operative by law‑Limitation for appeal before Tribunal starts from date of establishment of Tribunal‑Time or period up to date of abatement order passed by civil Court‑Not excludable as of right.

A. G. Humayun, Government Pleader for Appellant.

Masud Ahmad Riaz for Respondent.

.‑The appeal is incompetent on the short ground that the original order of departmental authority is of a dot earlier than 1‑7‑1969, in the light of Supreme Court ruling P L D 1974 A S C 291.

This appeal merits dismissal also on the ground that it is barred by time under section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act. The impugned decree in favour of the respondents by the Court of Administrative Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh, is dated I8‑7‑1973. The appeal against the said decree filed by the Government in the Court of District Judge, Muzaffargarh, was declared to have abated on 10‑10‑1974. The present appeal before us was filed on 10‑12‑1974. Accordingly to section 8 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act the appeal was required to be filed within 90 days of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal. The Tribunal was established on 22‑7‑1974 and the limitation expired somewhere on the 19th of October, 1974. According to the Supreme Court ruling, the abatement takes place by the operation of law and as such the appeal in the eyes of law stood abated on 22‑7‑1974, and accordingly the appellant is not entitled to the exclusion of the period up to the date of order of abatement i.e., 10‑10‑1974. for limitation. However, we also find that the conduct of the appellant after 10‑10‑1974 is also reckless and indolent. The application for obtaining copy of the order of Administrative Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh was made on 26‑I1‑1974, i.e., with a delay of one and a half months after the abatement order of the District Judge, Muzaffargarh. Furthermore, although the copy of the aforesaid Judgment was received by them on 28‑11‑1974, the present appeal was filed on 10‑12‑1974. The application of condonation of delay does not explain this delay. Under the circumstances; we are not persuaded to condone the delay and dismiss this appeal as incompetent'.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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