Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. MN‑13 of 1984, decided on 10th March, 1984.
‑‑ S. 37‑Appeal‑Limitation ‑ Delay ‑ Condonation ‑ Sufficient ground‑Delayed sanction of Advocate‑General for appointment of counsel ‑Not a sufficient ground for condonation of delay.
Iftikhar Hussain for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 28th February, 1984.
The appeal captioned above arises from the decision, dated 31st July, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9 Multan whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in the service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was employed in the leave vacancy of Mst. Azim Khatoon. On the death of Mst. Aziz Khatoon the vacancy became perma nent. The respondent was recommended to be absorbed regularly. She had been awarded two‑yearly increments also, but was terminated on the ground that she did not appear before the Selection Board. There is no evidence on the record that the respondent was asked in writing to appear on a particular date before the Selection Board. Even no copy of the order of the Selection Board is on the record to show that due to her non appearance she was not approved. She was, therefore, wrongly terminated.
3. The appeal is time‑barred. The ground given is that a letter was sent by the Mayor on 27th October, 1983 to the Advocate‑General for the appointment of some lawyer and sanction came on 29th December, 1983. So the appeal was presented on 7th January, 1984. No copy of the letter alleged to have been sent by the Mayor to the Advocate‑General, nor any copy of the sanction received from him has been filed. Apart from it this is no ground for condonation. Law of limitation is for all the litigants.' Since in routine sanction is received late, so sanction should have been obtained by sending a special messenger. No ground of condonation has been established.
4. As a result, the appeal is dismissed in limine on merits as well as being time‑barred rejecting the application for condonation of delay.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer