Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 78‑R of 1983, decided on 27th March, 1984.

(From the judgment dated 21‑3‑1983 of the Federal Service Tribunal passed in Appeal No. 115(R) of 1981).

‑---Art. 212 ‑ Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4(1) (a) Civil service‑Petitioner's appeal before Service Tribunal dismissed for reasons that his earlier appeal had already been dismissed which dismissal could not be reviewed; appeal was time‑barred and was not maintainable for non‑compliance of S. 4(1) (a), Service Tribunals Act, 1973‑Petitioner not able to meet reasons assigned for dismissal of appeal‑Tribunal being justified in holding inter alia that appeal was time‑barred, petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Petitioner in person.

Munir A. Sheikh, Dy A.‑G. with Rao M. Yousaf Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 27th March, 1984.

The service of the petitioner, a Lower Division Clerk in the I. T. D. Organization in the Ministry of Defence, was dispensed with, with effect from 30‑‑‑1974, on account of 10 % reduction in the Establishment. He preferred an appeal before the Service Tribunal but the same was dismissed as withdrawn on 11‑3‑1979 as he wanted to apply for review before the Service Review Board under M. L. O. No. 23 His petition for review was, however, rejected by the competent authority on 5‑6‑1979 against which he Moved this Court through C. P. S. L. A. No. 157/R of 1979 but as the same was found to be incompetent, it was returned to him in order that he may seek remedy in the proper forum. Instead of going to the Tribunal, the petitioner filed a writ petition before the Lahore High Court which was ultimately dismissed in 1tmine on 29‑4‑1981, though in consequence of an interim order passed therein he was allowed to rejoin the I. T. D. Organization and he continues to work there even now. He challenged the dismissal of his writ petition before this Court in C. P. S. L. A. No. 59‑R of 1981 but the same was dismissed on 3‑5‑1981 on the view that as the relief sought pertained to the terms and conditions of his service, the writ petition was not competent. In passing, this Court observed that:

"We are of the view that the case of the petitioner was dealt with on humanitarian grounds and he was taken back into service but as a new entrant. He should be satisfied that he has been taken into service."

Nevertheless, the petitioner moved an appeal before the Tribunal on 10‑6‑1981 but the same was dismissed on 21‑3‑1983 for the reasons, first, that his earlier appeal had already been dismissed in 1979 which dismissal could not be reviewed, second, that it was time‑barred, and, third, that it was not maintainable for non‑compliance of the provision of section 4(t) (a) o the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Hence this petition.

2. The petitioner is unable to meet the reasons assigned by the Tribunal for dismissing his appeal. The petitioner having taken the matter in appeal before the Tribunal to 1979 was well aware that the tribunal was the correct forum and yet he went to the High Court in its writ jurisdiction against the order, dated 5‑6‑1979 of the Service Review Board refusing to review his case. Ultimately when he filed his appeal before the Tribunal on 10‑6‑1981 it was too late and the Tribunal was justified in holding, inter alia, that the appeal was time‑barred. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.

M.Z.M Petition 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.