Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑98 of 1985, decided on 31st July, 1985.

‑‑S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition‑Onus probandi‑Petitioner claiming promotion‑Post alleged to be a non‑selection one‑Onus probandi to prove that post was not a selection post upon petitioner.

Z. A. Quddusi for Appellant.

Malik Hamid Mahmood for Respondents

Date of hearing : 23rd July, 1985.

The decision, dated 11th December, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his promotion to the post of Inspector Water Supply was dismissed.

2. The grievance petition has been dismissed on merits as well as on the ground that the grievance notice was time‑barred. This is an admitted fact that Muhammad Shafi is senior to the appellant but respondents Nos. 3 and 4 are junior to him. This is also an admitted fact that the appellant was called to appear before the Selection Committee but he failed. The stand of the appellant is that the post is not a selection post, therefore, he did not appear before the Selection Committee.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since selection was admittedly held by the Selection Committee the onus was upon the respondents to prove that the post of Inspector Water Supply is a selection post and since no rule has been produced, the learned lower Court wrongly held that the said was a selection post. The argument has no force. All office acts are presumed to be legal unless the contrary is shown. Apart from it since the appellant came forward to allege that the post of Inspector Water Supply was not a selection post, he should have produced the list of selection posts to show that it was not mentioned in it. No doubt, the respondents too did not produce the rules before the learned lower Court nor before this Tribunal, but the onus probandi being upon the appellant, he should have shown the rules. The case may have been remanded for fresh decision of the point but the difficulty is that the grievance petition and grievance notice were time‑barred.

4. The juniors of the appellant were selected on 1st January, 1982 by the Selection Committee. Since the appellant was admittedly called, he was aware of the date and was duty bound to make inquiry about the result of the selection. So limitation started from 1st January, 1982. Grievance notice was sent on 19th June, 1982 and grievance petition was lodged on 2nd August, 1983. The ground taken in the application for condonation of delay is that civil suit was brought in which the plaint was rejected for want of jurisdiction on 5th June, 1983. Grievance notice was sent on 19th June, 1983 as is evident from the postal receipt. There is no explanation why grievance notice was not sent on 5th June, 1983 or at least on 6th June, 1983. So delay from 6th June, 1983 to 19th June, 1983 does not stand explained. The date of institution of suit too is not known. The appellant has no case and his grievance petition was rightly dismissed.

5. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

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.