Find a Lawyer

Appeal Nos. LHR‑565 to 578 of 1978((Pb.), decided on 22nd Decem ber. 1981.

‑‑‑ S. 38 (5)‑Time‑barred appeals filed under‑‑Impugned decisions passed on 31st May, 1979‑Application for supply of copies made on 4th August, 1979 after expiry of period of limitation for preferr ing appeals‑Copies delivered on 9th August, 1979‑Appeals pre sented on 2nd September, 1979‑Counsel for appellants contending he came to know of impugned decisions on 4th August, 1979‑Same counsel present in Court on 7th April, 1979 when cases adjourned to 31st May, 1979 for announcement of orders‑On 31st May, 1979 orders announced‑Held, counsel had knowledge of date of announcement of orders (i.e. 31st May, 1979) and appeals there fore time‑barred.

Rehan Nawaz for Appellant.

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 20th December, 1981.

The above‑mentioned 14 appeals arise from the decisions dated 31^st May, 19'J9 delivered separately in 14 separate grievance petitions filed by the above‑mentioned 14 respondents. The learned lower Court vide the impugned decisions directed the promotion of the respondents on the basis of seniority‑cum‑suitability with effect from the date on which they became eligible for promotion. He, however, observed that the respondents would not be entitled to the arrears. The respondents were Senior Clerks in the P.R.T.B. and according to them, their juniors in the same category and cadre had been promoted as Assistants and they were ignored. Since the facts of all the cases are the same, all the 14 appeals are being disposal off through this single judgment.

2. The representative of the respondents has raised two preliminary objections one is that the appeals are time‑barred and the other is that the appeals are not properly presented since they were presented by the clerk of the counsel. The first objection is forceful. The impugned decisions in the 14 grievance petitions were passed on 31st May, 1979. The appli cation for the supply of copies were made on 4th August, 1979 after the expiry of the period of limitation for preferring appeals. Copies were prepared and delivered on 9th August, 1979. The appeals were presented on 2nd September, 1979. The appeals are not accompanied by any application for condonation of delay. Even in the appeals and during arguments no reason has been given why the appeals were brought late. Learned counsel for the appellant has, however, said that the appellant was ignorant of date of decisions of the lower Court and the counsel for the appellant in the lower Court came to know of the impugned decisions on 4th August, 1979 therefore the period of limitation started from the said date. I do not find any force in this argument. The same counsel, who made a note under the judgment on 4th August, 1979 was present on 29th March, 1979 and had argued. the cases. After hearing the arguments, the lower Court adjourned the cases for orders to 7th April, 1979. On the said date i.e. 7th April, 1979 Mr. Elahi Bakhsh, Advocate, the same learned counsel was present. On the said date the order could not be announced and the cases were adjourned to 31st May, 1979 for announce ment of the orders. On 31st May, 1979 the orders were announced. Its is thus apparent that Mr. Elahi Bakhsh, learned counsel for the appellant in the lower Court, had the knowledge of the date of 31st May, 1979 on which date the orders were to be announced. If he did not attend the Court on 31st May, 1979, it was his duty to find out if the order had been announced and if so, what were the orders. If he ignored the cases and on 4th August, 1979 inspected the file, he was himself responsible and it cannot be said that the period of limitation for bringing the appeals started from the said date. If the Court had not fixed the date for the announcement of the orders, of course it could be said that since the learned counsel for the appellant came to know of the lower Court on 4th August, 1979 the period of limitation started from that date. The appeals, therefore, are time‑barred.

3. The second objection of the representative of the respondents has no force, because the appeals were presented by the counsel on 2nd September, 1979 and thus it cannot be said that it was presented by an unauthorised person.

4. On facts it has been argued by the learned counsel for the appel lant that the rules were amended in 1976 before the respondents were promoted and the minimum qualification for the post of Assistant being Intermediate and the respondents can be promoted, if they satisfied the said condition. Since the appeals are time‑barred, it is unnecessary to go into facts. I, accordingly, dismiss all the above‑captioned 14 appeals as barred by time.

K. M. A. 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.