Find a Lawyer

Case No. 464(1'967 of 1982, decided on 3rd May, 1983.

‑‑ S. 4‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Limitation‑Delay‑Each day to be accounted for with valid reasons‑Appeal against reversion filed about 6 years after impugned order‑Explanation that delay was for reasons that departmental authorities kept on giving verbal assurance for redress of grievance‑Such explanation, held, not convincing for condonation of delay and indicated lethargy, carelessness and lack of interest on part of appellant‑‑Appeal dismissed as time‑barred.

Khan Talib Hussain Baluch for Appellant.

Ch. Isrnat Ullah and Sajjad Hashrni for Respondents.

‑--Mahmood‑ul‑Hassan, Procure ment Officer, Punjab Agricultural and Development Supplies Corporation, Rahimyar Khan has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Punjab Agricultural and Development Supplies Corporation through its Managing Director, Lahore anti Assistant Director (Admn. I), Punjab Agricultural and Development Supplies Corporation as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 26‑8‑1976 and 15‑1 0‑1976 be set aside and the appellant be directed to be promoted to the next higher grade and re‑appointed as Assistant as Director.

3. Brief facts of the case are that Mahmood‑ul‑Hassan, Procurement Officer, Bahawalnagar, Punjab Agricultural and Development Supplies Corporation, Lahore was promoted and posted as Assistant Director (Seeds), Rahimyar Khan vide PAD&SC, Lahore order dated 28‑4‑1976 for three months' probation in the first instance. He was reverted as Procurement Officer to his original post vide PAD&SC order dated 26‑8‑1976. The appellant made a representation against his reversion as Procurement Officer which was rejected vide PAD&SC, Lahore order dated 15‑10‑1976. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. The learned counsel for the respon dents on the outset raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of this appeal and jurisdiction of this Tribunal to adjudicate the appeal of the appellant. The basic and important legal objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. It was submitted by them that the appellant's representation was rejected by the PAD&SC, Lahore on 15‑10‑1976 and he has filed an appeal before this Tribunal on 11‑10‑1982. Thus, the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred for about 6 years and is not maintainable. They prayed that the appeal of the appellant be dismissed on this score alone.

5. Rebutting the arguments of the learned counsel of the respondents, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that on reversion the appellant was assured verbally by the authorities concerned that he would be promoted in due course and he need not file any appeal in the Service Tribunal. Considering this as a gentleman's promise by the authorities con cerned the appellant kept waiting for the decision in his favour. As the request of the appellant was not considered favourably, hence there was no other alternative but to come to this Tribunal for redressing of his grievance. The learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the delay be condoned on this valid ground.

6. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and. have gone through the necessary documents so attached with appeal to adjudicate this case. The appellant's counsel has prayed for the condonation of delay on the ground that the appellant was assured verbally by the authorities concerned in the PAD&SC, Lahore that he would be promoted in due course of time and he need not file the appeal before the Service Tribunal. As the authorities have not fulfilled their promise so he is seeking remedy from this Tribunal. The record of this case shows that the representation of the appellant was rejected on 15‑10‑1976 and the appeal should have been filed within 30 days to the Tribunal. The appellant has remained waiting for 6 long years before filing an appeal to this Tribunal, on the plea that promise was made by the authorities concerned to consider his case favourably. The plea of the appellant/appellant's counsel is not convincing and does not satisfy us for condonation of delay. It is a long period of six years and every day has to be accounted for with valid reasons for condonation of delay. This long lapse of six years clearly shows lethargy, carelessness and lack of interest on the part of the appellant and does not persuade us to condone the delay.

7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is dismissed on this score alone.

There will be no orders as to costs.

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.