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.
Civil Petition No. 509‑R of 1983, decided on 6th February, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 26th April, 1980, passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 45‑R of 1981).
Art. 212(3)‑Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance (XIII of 1978), S. 3 read with Services Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑Appeal‑Limitation‑Petitioner not receiving any communication in regard to disposal of his departmental representation‑Held, appeal, in such case to be filed within 120 days from date of lodging of repre sentation‑Leave to appeal refused.‑[Limitation].
Kh. M. Y. Saraf, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Karam Elahi Bhatti, Advocate‑on‑Record for the Petitioner.
Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by M. Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 2.
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 and 3.
Date of hearing : 6th March, 1984.
The petitioner herein challenges his reversion from the post of "Senior Broadcast Engineer" to the post of "Broadcast Engineer" pursuant to the exercise of powers under section 3 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. This order is dated the 3rd of December, 1978.
The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Broadcast Engineer on some date between 1st of January, 1972 and 5th of July, 1977 which appa rently was irregular although no reason was assigned for his reversion. The petitioner thereupon sent a representation against this order on the 14th of December, 1978, but as no decision was taken, be sent a petition on the 3rd of September, 1980 to the President and the Chief Martial Law Admi nistrator. He was informed by letter dated the 21st of January. 1981, by the C. M. L. A's. Office that his departmental appeal was rejected on the 27th March, 1980. Lastly, be filed an appeal on the 9th of February, 1981, before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation by order dated the 26th of April, 1983.
The Tribunal held that after the receipt of the letter dated the 27th of March, 1980, informing him of the dismissal of his representation he should have preferred an appeal within 30 days, but not having done so his appeal was time‑barred. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that although the appeal was barred by over nine months yet no application for condo nation of delay was filed.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal errone ously computed the time from the receipt of the letter dated the 27th of March 1980, but, in fact, no such communication was received by the petitioner, and it was only on the receipt of the letter dated the 21st of January, 1981, that the petitioner came to know about the rejection of his representation. If time was calculated from the date of this letter then the appeal was within time. Be that as it may, if the petitioner failed to receive any communication in regard to the disposal of his departmental representation then he should have filed an appeal within 120 days from the date of the lodging of his representation as held by this Court in Kadir Bux v. Province of Sind and another (1982 S C M R 582). No legal justification was made out either before the Service Tribunal or before us as to why the petitioner waited beyond this period for lodging the appeal.
There is, therefore, no force in this petition, which is dismissed.
S. Q. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer