Find a Lawyer

Case No. 382 of 1983, decided on 19th January, 1984.

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Appeal before Tribunal without exhausting departmental remedies‑‑Not maintainable.

Zia‑ud‑Din for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

‑‑ Sh. Abdul Aleem has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Superintending Engineer, Scarp IV Circle, Mughalpura and the Chief Engineer, Irrigation, Lahore Region, Canal Office, Old Anarkali, Lahore as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that his seniority be confirmed w.e.f. 2‑2‑1976 and his lien be retained in his parent circle Scarp IV Circle, Lahore.

3. The case is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.

4. Brief facts of the case are that contention of the appellant is that he has been made a rolling stone, having stepmotherly treatment by the department and has suffered in his promotion and seniority. He, although, was senior most Account Clerk having 31 years service at his credit i.e. 4 years as Assistant Clerk, 14 years as S.D.C., 13 years as Account Clerk, yet, his juniors have been promoted as Head Clerks and he is still a temporary Account Clerk, having no lien anywhere. The appellant had been claiming that his lien be retained in the parent Circle Scarp IV Circle, Lahore, his seniority be fixed and he be confirmed w.e.f. 2‑2‑1976, the date when his juniors were confirmed; but no positive action has been taken by the Departmental Authorities and he has suffered considerably. Hence this appeal.

5. However, a stand has been taken by the respondents in their parawise comments submitted on the appeal of the appellant and it has also been pointed out by the learned District Attorney that the appellant has not made any representation against the order of the Superintending Engineer, Scarp II as he was required to make a representation against his orders to the next higher authority i.e. Chief Engineer, Sargodha. Thus the appeal of the appellant is premature, is not maintainable as the appellant has filed this appeal to the Tribunal without obtaining the final order as per requirements of section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974.

6. We have given our anxious thoughts in the matter and have also perused the record of this case. We find that the appellant has filed this appeal before this Tribunal without getting the final order as required under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, hence the appeal is premature and is not maintainable before this Tribunal, as the appellant has not exhausted the departmental remedy in this case.

7. The result of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is dismissed in limine, being not maintainable.

There will be no order as to costs.

M. I. 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.