Find a Lawyer

Case No. 365/ 1749 of 1982, decided on‑9th June, 1983.

‑‑S. 4 read with Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 21(2) Appeal against order/notification issued in name of Governor- Filed after lapse of 6 months‑Representation made to departmental authorities‑Cannot extend limitation‑No representation lies against order issued by Governor‑Appeal, in circumstances, held, time‑barred.

Shahid Hamid, Bar‑at‑Law for Appellants.

A. G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondent.

‑Messrs. Mukhtar Ahmad, Mehr Ghulam Rasool, Muhammad Ibrahim, Muhammad Aslam Mangat, Ghulam Rasool and Abdul Hamid, all Assistant Agriculture Engineers, have filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which they have impleaded, Government of the Punjab through Secretary to Government, Punjab, Agriculture Department, Labore, as respondent,

2. By virtue of this appeal they have prayed that the appeal be accepted and respondent be directed to remove the discrepancy/dis crimination between the appellants and the Graduate Engineers.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants were appointed as Assistant Agriculture Engineers in November, 1968, on the basis of selection by the Punjab Public Service Commission. Each of the appellants have put in about 16 years of service as Assistant Agricultural Engineer in Grade‑17. At one stage the respondent questioned whether the selection of the appellants had been validly made by the Public Service Commission in accordance with the 1963 Rules. This issue was resolved in favour of the appellants by the Supreme Court of Pakistan through their judgment Mukhtar Ahmad v. Government of West Pakistan (P L D 1971 S C 846). The respondent denied seniority to the appellants which issue was also resolved by this Tribunal in Case No. 184/547 of 1975, and the same was Upheld by the Supreme Court of Pakistan vide their judgment C. A. No. 284‑285/1978. It was on 28th July, 1978 that the respondent issued a notification and denied that the appellants were eligible for promotion. The appellants filed appeal No. 359/1123 of 1981 and this Tribunal set at naught the said denial. The respondent allowed Class I Junior to those of the appellants colleagues who hold degrees in B. Sc. Agriculture Engineering w. e. f. 22nd July, 1971 whereas this has been denied to the appellants. The appellants filed representation against the said discrimination, but the same has neither been rejected nor accepted and is pending with the respondent. However, the respondent has in fact, rejected the said representation by issuing revised seniority list dated 7th July, 1982 in which persons appointed after the appellants have been placed senior to them simply by virtue of the fact that they held degrees in B. Se. Agriculture Engineering and placed in Class I Junior w. e. f. 22nd July, 1971. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent has raised preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the appeal in the present form as according to him the appeal is barred by time and is liable to be rejected on this score alone.

6. We have attended to this argument without going into the merits of the case and find that the impugned notification, dated 14th January, 1982 issued in the name of the Governor by Mr. Sajjadul Hassan, Additional Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab. The appellant instead of filing an appeal before this Tribunal, chosed to file a repre sentation against the said notification, which is barred by section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act. 1474, wherein it has been laid down that no representation lies against the order passed by the Governor. In this manner ‑ we find that the appeal has been filed after a lapse of 6 month explain application is on the file under section 5 of the Limitation Act to the same to this delay occurred or any other reasons for condonation of the same.

7. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation without going into the merits of the case.

8. Resultant the appeal is dismissed as being time‑barred. How ever, there will be no order as to costs. This order should be communi cated to the parties.

A. E.

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.