Find a Lawyer

Case No. 425 of 1980, decided on 20th May, 1982.

‑‑S. 4‑Appeal before Tribunal‑Limitation‑Cannot be extended by belated departmental representations‑Representation rejected by competent authority‑‑Appellant after remaining silent for nine years submitting another representation‑‑Such attempt to revive limitation, held, would hardly bestow upon appellant a right to which be was not entitled‑Appeal, in circumstances, held, hopelessly time‑barred.

‑‑ Confirmation against ex‑cadre post at ones own choice and deriving benefits of higher pay scales‑Amounts to termination of connection with parent cadre.

Appellant in person.

Haroon‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondents.

Syed Muhammad Abbas Kazmi has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act of 1974 in which he has impleaded Inspector‑General of Police, Punjab, Lahore, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Home Depart ment and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore, as respondent:.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 6tb November, 1968 passed by respondent No. 2, 21st June, 1980, passed by respondent No. 3 and 6th May, 1974 passed by respondent No. 2 on the representation so filed by the appellant be set aside without any legal affect. It has been further prayed that the appellant be declared to entitle to get Secretariat Pay Scale w. e. f. 1st December, 1964 promul gated later.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was basically working in the office of I.‑G. P. as Junior Clerk. He was promoted as Senior Clerk in 1956 and confirmed as such on 1st August, 1961. In 1964 the appellant requested that he may be posted as Range Auditor on post newly‑created in Bahawalpur Range, although the said post was lesser in scale than that of the Assistant as for reasons best known to the appellant he chose to opt for the said vacancy. In 1972 the appellant again came forward with the request that he may be confirmed in the rank of Auditor on the ground that he was a graduate and also had a diploma in accounts from a recognised institution. His request was accepted and be was confirmed as requested w. e. f. 28th September, 1967 vide Office Notification No. 15549/E‑111, dated 2107‑1922. Before getting this confirmation, he in year 1909 bad made a representation to the Govern ment in which he has made grievance that although he was working as Auditor he should have been considered as entitled to draw Secretariat Pay Scale sanctioned for the post of Assistant till he remained as Auditor. This representation was considered by the Government and rejected vide the order, dated 27th January, 1977. The appellant remained quiet and in year 1979 made another representation on 18th August, 1979 reviving old complaint against which he was advised by the I.‑G. P. that if he had any grievance he should go to the Punjab Service Tribunal or the High Court for his remedy vide 1.‑G. P. letter, dated 21st June, 1980. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the appellant at length in person and has attended to the arguments made by Malik Azam Rasul, Advocate, on behalf of learned District Attorney We have also perused the record of this caste carefully with their assibiance.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the point that appellant being basically a member of Secretariat Staff belonging to the C. P. O.‑1 was for all purposes to remain as such and his acting to an ex‑cadre post of Auditor being an act of temporary nature, the appellant should be declared entitled to Secretariat Pay Scale.

6. On the other hand Malik Azam Rasul, Advocate, has submitted that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is liable to be rejected on this score alone.

7. With regard to the merits of the case he has adopted the para‑wise comments so submitted by the D. 1.‑G. Headquarter as well as by the Finance Department and has submitted that once this appeal and made a conscious choice to leave his cadre and was confirmed on his own request in the said cadre he would not be entitled to be treated as an employee of the Secretariat.

8. The learned counsel further urged that according to the Policy Letters, dated 15th November, 1958 and 21st February, 1974 the matter stood elucidated wherein it was made clear that only such Civil Servants who are promoted in the regular line of promotion would be entitled to their basic status and once they departed from that line they would be treated as ex‑cadre employees entitled to the pay and scale so prescribed for such cadre. It was further argued that since the appellant was promoted as Superintendent alter 17th December, 1973 it was according to the Policy Letter so mentioned above that he would not be eligible for the protection for the Secretariat Pay Scale.

9, We have attended to the arguments so advanced by both the parties and have also taken into consideration the Policy Letter and other documents so appended with the appeal and pare‑wise comments by the parties.

10. While attending to the preliminary objection of Malik Azam Rasul, Advocate, that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred, we find that the appellant made his representation in 1969 and got a reply in 1970 as per history of the case so mentioned in paragraphs relating to the brief facts. The appellant kept quiet and suddenly he became conscious after lapse of full nine years that be had still a grievance against his employer and filed a representation which he was not entitled to do so. He got a written reply from the I.‑G. P. that for such matters he was advised to knock at the doors either of the Services Tribunal or of the High Court. In this manner we have no alternative but to hold that appellant was finally informed that his case could not be accepted in 1970 but he chose to remain silent for full nine years and ultimately made a representation to revive the limitation in his favour. An attempt like this belated by a long passage of time would hardly bestow upon him a right to which he was not entitled. We, therefore, of all clear mind that the case of the appellant is hopelessly time‑barred.

11. With regard to the merits of the case it should be sufficient to say that the Policy Letter has made it clear that those Civil Servants would be entitled to Secretariat Pay Scale if they are promoted in the regular line of promotion the reliance of the appellant on the said letter, dated 11th December, 1956 would hardly to any avail to him. The Finance Department as well as the L‑G. P through D. I.‑G. Head quarter has highlighted this point in their para‑wise comments and have claimed protection for their action from Policy Letter and we are of the considered opinion that they were justified to do so In an Order No. F. D. P. R.‑2‑27/74, dated 21st February, 1974 the Finance Department made it clear to all the Heads of Attached Departments in the Punjab and others that the protection of the Secretariat Pay Scale would only be allowed to the existing incumbents i. e. who had been promoted up to and including 17th December, 1973 as Superintendents in Non‑Secretariat Offices and the officials who were promoted as Superintendent after the said dates would not be entitled to this protection. The record of this case clearly established that the appellant was promoted in November, 1979 as Superintendent, therefore, the impact of the above letter will also apply to this case with full force.

12. The appellant according to the history of the case not so controverted himself chose to go as Range Auditor and at his own request he was so confirmed in the above post. The appellant later on worked in the F. 1. A. And that at his own choice and derived the benefit of higher scales in the borrowing agency. Under these circumstances it is well established that the appellant had left his parent cadre and remained employee on ex‑cadre posts by his own choice.

13. In the light of the above analysis of the entire history and the facts of the case supported by relevant documents we are of the considered opinion that the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed as time -barred as well as being without any merits.

14. We therefore, proceed to dismiss the same. However, will be no order as to costs.

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.