Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 84 (R) of 1983, decided on 29th June, 1983.

‑‑‑ S. 4‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Limitation ‑ Reply to depart mental appeal not received‑Appeal to be filed within 30 days after waiting for a period of 90 days i.e. total limitation period of 120 days.‑Letter received thereafter intimating that departmental appeal had previously been rejected‑Cannot extend limitation.

M. S. Siddiqi for Appellant.

Date of hearing, 28th June, 1983.

The appellant was an em ployee of the Population Planning Board, N.‑W.F.P., and then of the Popu lation Planning Division of the Federal Government. Her services were terminated under section 6 of the Population Welfare Planning Programme (Appointment and Termination of Service) Ordinance, 1981, by order dated 20‑9‑1982. She alleges that she filed a departmental appeal on 1‑10‑1982 from the order of termination, but did not receive any reply and consequently filed the present appeal before the Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on 6‑4‑1983. If this was end of the matter, the present appeal was time‑barred, inasmuch as after waiting for the statutory period of 90 days, the appellant should have come to the Tribunal within 30 days i.e. on or before 1‑2‑1983. The present appeal, having been filed on 6‑4‑1.983, was thus late by over two months. How ever, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that during the pen dency of appeal, a reply dated 5‑6‑1983, was received and, therefore, the appellant got a fresh cause of action to file the appeal within 30 days. He claims that present appeal should be treated as if it was filed just after the receipt of reply dated 5‑6‑1983. We are afraid there is no substance in this contention, because the letter (or reply) dated 5‑6‑1983, is not an order of rejection of appeal, but it is a letter intimating the appellant that her appeal had already been rejected on 10‑11‑1982. The learned counsel con tends that the order dated 10‑11‑1982 was never received by the appellant. If that was so, then, as already observed the last date for filing the appeal was 1‑2‑1983, and the appellant came to the Tribunal over two months after that date. The letter dated 5‑6‑1983, itself does not give any fresh cause of action to the ‑appellant, as it only intimates a previous decision. It is immaterial whether the previous decision in departmental appeal was or was not received by the appellant, because in case of non‑receipt of 'the order of the departmental appellate authority, a total period of 120 days for filing of the appeal is available to a Civil Servant, which the appellant exhausted much before filing the present appeal.

2. In view of these facts, the appeal is time‑barred, and is dismissed as such, in limine.

3. Parties to be informed.

Appeal 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.