Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 852 of 1979, decided on 16th December, 1980.
(On appeal against the judgment/order passed by the Service Tribunal, Islamabad, in Appeal No. 85(R) of 1977).
‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973), S. 22(2)‑ Limitation‑‑Dismissal of time‑barred appeal, challenged‑‑Time spent in making second representation not computed towards limitation as S.22(2) of Act did not permit a number of representations to be made‑‑Impugned order not open to interference‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑[Limitation].
Sh. Muhammad Naseem, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
‑The petitioner was appointed as an Inspector in the Department of Central Excises and Land Customs in 1943. In 1977 his claim for the counting of war service .for seniority from 1‑6‑1941 was accepted. On 5‑1‑1972 he applied for permission to proceed on L.P.R. for one year. The Central Board of Revenue accepted it on 19‑2‑1972 and the same was conveyed to him in May, 1972. Meanwhile the appellant requested for withdrawal of the option for retirement, vide telegram, dated 17‑3‑1972. On 24‑9‑1972 the Central Board of Revenue informed him that they were not prepared to change the decision. He claimed to know about it on 24‑11‑1973. He approached the Services Tribunal which threwout his appeal on the ground of limitation. Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. It is not denied that the final reply by the Finance, Secretary was received by the appellant on 18‑3‑1977 but he submitted his appeal to the Service Tribunal on 2‑10‑1977, that is to say, much beyond the period of one month which is allowed for filing such appeal. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was allowed under section 22(2) of the Civil Servants Act to make a representation and since he made several representations he was entitled to exclude time taken by him in making these representation without computing the purpose of filing the appeal. It was under this law that the petitioner submitted that he made a representation on 5-6-1977 to the Secretary Ministry of Finance and that he had to wait for ninety days under section 4 of the said Act if the appeal is not disposed of.
3. This was a second representation and the Tribunal was therefore right in not permitting the petitioner to take advantage of it because section 22(2) of Act LXXI of 1973 does not permit a number out representations to be made. We, therefore, agree with the Tribunal that the appeal before it was barred by time and consequently decline to interfere with its order and, therefore, dismiss the petition and decline to grant leave to appeal.
M . I . Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer