Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. 682‑R of 1983, decided on 21st November, 1984.

(On Appeal from the judgment and order dated 7‑9‑1983 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in Appeal No. 175(R)/1981).

‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S.4(1)(c)‑ Service Tribunal refusing to grant relief‑‑Grievance pertaining to date prior to 1‑7‑1969‑‑Plea that impugned orders were of subsequent date repelled‑‑Substance of relief sought is material and not date of represen tation culminating in impugned orders‑‑Leave to appeal refused.

Muhammad Siddique Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 21st November, 1984.

‑‑ The grievance of the petitioner was that the Tribunal while holding that he was "far senior" to respondents 3 and 4 in the "Technical Trade", but as he had not been correctly placed as Telecom. Technician at the time of his appointment on 8th September, 1960, therefore, he could not be selected for E.S. course in accordance with 1963 Rules, which would have made him eligible for promotion earlier than both the respondents as being senior to them and he would have also earned all the financial benefits, yet failed to give the relief sought, i.e., of ante‑dating his seniority and pay from 25th of May, 1965, when the respondents were promoted. In this connection we would also like to point out that the Tribunal also noted that by the decree of the civil Court dated 19th of April, 1973, he was restored his seniority and he was accordingly promoted as E.S. in 1975 but much later than it would have been the case otherwise

The Tribunal while refusing to grant him the relief held that section 4(1)(c) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1974, barred any appeal against an order or decision of a departmental authority made at any time before 1st of July, 1969. Another reason for refusing relief was that these respondents were promoted E.S. in 1968 and early 1969, respectively, which promotion could not also be impugned for this reason.

Upon considering the bar of jurisdiction, we are of the view that the Tribunal was correct in refusing to grant the relief to the petitioner. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the orders sought to be impugned were those, dated 30th of April, 1981, and 23rd of August, 1981, rejecting the representation, dated 9th of September, 1975, were not hit by this bar of jurisdiction is again misconceived as it is the substance of the relief sought that is material and not the date on which the representation was made culminating in, the impugned orders.

Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed.

M . I . Petition 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.