Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 25 (K) of 1982, decided on 13th February, 1985.

‑‑‑‑‑ S. 4 ‑ Limitation‑Repeated departmental representations‑Do not enlarge prescribed limitation period‑Communication informing that review petition admissible under rules bad already been disposed of ‑Cannot be considered as final order and of no avail for enlarging limitation period.

Manzoor Ali Khan and G. M. Saleem for Appellant.

Niaz Ahmed Khan Counsel for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 13th January, 1985.

.‑By way of the present appeal the appellant seeks to challenge the order notified on the 30th January, 1980, whereby he was retired from service in exercise of the powers under clause (ii) of section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.

2. The appeal is obviously time‑barred having been filed about three years after the impugned order was communicated to the appellant. An application for condonation of delay has, however, been filed. According to the appellant the limitation for filing appeal before this Tribunal started from a communication of the respondent‑department, dated the 11th of January, 1983, which for the sake of advantage is reproduced below :‑

"C. No. 2135/75‑A. C. E. I Islamabad, the 11th January, 1983.

From : Mr. Farrakh Qayyum

Second Secretary.

To: Mr. Abdul Bari,

B‑28, Block No. 10,

F. B. Area,

Karachi‑38.

Subject : Consideration of Premature Retirement of Mr. Abdul Bari, Principal Appraiser Custom House, Karachi in the light of Decision of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, Dated 19th July, 1982.

I am directed to refer to your letter number nil, dated the 4th December, 1982 on the subject mentioned above and to intimate that your review petition against your compulsory retirement under section 13 (ii) of the Civil Servants Act. 1973. has already been disposed of. As such further representations do not lie under the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981."

2. A bare perusal of the above communication clearly shows that it was sent to the appellant in reply to his letter, dated the 4th December, 1982, whereby be requested for consideration of his case in view of a decision of this Tribunal dated 19th July, 1982. Therefore, on receipt of the said communication no cause of action had accrued to the appellant for filing an appeal against an order passed as far back as January, 1980. In any case, the said communication, not being a final order, is not appealable before this Tribunal. The position being so clear, the said communication dated the 11th January, 1983, is not of avail to the appellant for enlarging the period of limitation. We have held in a number of earlier cases that a reply by the department to such repeated representation or reminder does not enlarge the period of limitation prescribed for filing appeal before this Tribunal.

3. Assuming but not conceding that the period of limitation is to count from the date of the receipt of the said communication by the appellant even then the appeal was filed beyond the period of limitation by more than twelve days with no proper explanation for this delay. It is well‑established principle that an applicant, for condonation of delay, must explain each day's delay after the expiry of normal period of limitation. In the instant case, the appellant has failed to explain and account for the inordinate delay which is inexcusable and uncondonable. The appeal being hopelessly time‑barred, is therefore, dismissed as incompetent.

4. 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.