Find a Lawyer

Civil Appeal No.20‑P of 1980, decided on 28th November, 1984.

(From the judgment, dated 1‑1‑1979 of the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal, Peshawar, passed in Case No. 53 of 1977).

‑‑‑S.4‑‑Appeal‑‑Appellant, a Sub‑Inspector of Police representing against placing him in List "F" from a date later than 12‑6‑1967, much earlier than 20‑10‑1977 and when request was not acceded to, he moved a petition to Government in 1976‑‑Service Tribunal, held, was justified in holding that appeal against such order in view of ‑provision of S.4 was barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed‑‑Decision of Tribunal on merits should, however, not operate as a bar to consideration of appellant's case for promotion in future.

S. Safdar Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.

Amirzada Khan, A.‑G. instructed by Nur Ahmad Khan, Advocate on‑Record, for Respondents Nos.l, 2 and 3.

Date of hearing: 28th November, 1984.

.‑‑ This appeal by leave of the Court is directed against the dismissal of the appellant's appeal by the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunal on merits as well as limitation. The appellant had been promoted as Sub‑Inspector of Police in September, 1965 but had been reverted to the post of A.S.I. and also censured in 1969 in the result of departmental action. He challenged the action by a civil suit, in which he succeeded and was re‑promoted to the rank of Sub‑Inspector retrospectively from 27‑3‑1969. He was later placed in Promotion List 'F' but with effect from 20‑5‑1975 by notification dated 2‑6‑1975. By this he felt aggrieved because, according to him, he should have been brought on the 'F' List with effect from 12‑6‑1967 which was the date of his confirmation as Sub‑Inspector. His representation was, however, rejected on 7‑12‑1977. In' the meantime, in the seniority list which had been published on 20‑10‑1977, he was placed at serial No.88 in the 'F' List whereas according to him he ought to have been placed at No.17. He, thereupon, filed the appeal before the Tribunal on 24‑12‑1977.

2. The Tribunal was of the view that his appeal which "in fact aims at getting the order dated 2‑6‑1975 set aside by this Tribunal" was time‑barred as he must have come to know of that order "in a couple of days" and that he had nowhere said that "this order was either not communicated to him or that he came to know of it after considerable delay".

3. At the time of grant of leave, it had been asserted on his behalf that it was not necessary for him to have challenged the notification dated 2‑6‑1975 and that as he had come to know of the relevant seniority list only on 20‑10‑1977, his appeal could not have been held to be barred by time. In the first instance we do not see how he should not have agitated against the order dated 2‑6‑1975 whereby he was brought on List 'F' with effect from 20‑5‑1975 because that was undoubtedly going to affect his seniority. In fact, as appears from copy of his representation-dated 24‑9‑1977, he had represented against placing him in List 'F' from a date later than 12‑6‑1967, much earlier and when his request was not acceded to he moved a petition to the Government in 1976. On these facts, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the appeal was, in view of the provision of section 4 of the N.‑W.F.P. Service Tribunals Act, barred by limitation. The present appeal is thus liable to dismissal.

4. While therefore dismissing the appeal, we would, however, observe that the decision of the Tribunal on merits shall not operate as a bar to the consideration of the appellant's case for promotion in future... There shall be no order as to costs.

M. Z. M. 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.