Find a Lawyer

Case No. 589 of 1985, decided on 11th December, 1985.

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of

1974)

‑

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Copies of orders allegedly causing grievance not produced despite directions of Tribunal‑‑Appeal otherwise time‑barred as well‑ Appeal, in circumstances, dismissed in limine.

Appellant in person.

.---‑‑The appellant Muhammad lhsan filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974 in which he has impleaded the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Irrigation Power Department and the Accountant General, Punjab as respondents.

2. Through this appeal the appellant Muhammad Ihsan has prayed that the respondent department may be directed to rectify the mistakes in fixation of appellant's salary and pay the arrears of salary and pension accordingly.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Muhammad Ihsan was appointed as an Overseer in 1937 and retired on 19‑10‑1970 at the age of superannuation. The appellant filed a civil suit for recovery of the arrears of pay, which was dismissed. Subsequently the appellant sought remedy with the learned High Court which was dismissed in limine on 15‑6‑1983. Finally the appellant lodged the instant appeal on the ground that the Accountant General, Punjab failed to rectify the mistake in salary of the appellant, which was wrongly fixed earlier. As such the appellant un‑necessarily suffered a financial loss. The appellant quoted instances of wrong fixation of his salary etc. as follows:‑

(i) That in 1945 when new pay scale came into existence, w.e.f. 1‑11‑1945, the applicant's salary was fixed as Rs.110 per month against Rs.115, and so this loss of Rs.5 of each month from said date to 30‑12‑1949 ran till next revision of time scale.

(ii) That according to revision of 1951 the appellant's pay was to be fixed as Rs.170 per month on 1‑11‑1950, but due to wrong fixation and miscalculation pay awarded was Rs.140 p.m., instead of Rs.170, thus put him for loss of Rs.30 per month w.e.f. 1‑11‑1950 to 30‑11‑1962.

(iii) That the date of increment, viz 1‑1‑1950 was changed into 11‑8‑1950, without assigning any reason, which is absolutely against the pay fixation rules an in violation of Rule 4.9 page 43, Vol. I, Part I of C.S.R.

(iv) That benefit of past service was nut given to the applicant, despite the best endeavourment of the appellant, which is contravention of Secretary of Government Punjab, Lahore, Irrigation Branch, Lahore's Memo. No. 28282/2/575/43. Entry to this effect exists in service book on page 6.

(v) That in consequence of wrong fixation and miscalculation in the corresponding scales items 7 and 8 supra, ultimately this loss was given in fixation of consolidated pay scale of Overseers which came into force on 1‑12‑1962. Pay due was Rs.385 per month but awarded Rs.340 only, giving a loss of Rs.45 p.m., to the appellant, which multiplied from 1‑12‑1962 to 31‑5‑1966, depriving the appellant of his legitimate bounty from the State.

4. Before the case could be admitted for regular hearing it was to be determined whether the appellant could justify the admission of grossly time‑barred appeal. The appellant was heard in person and given full chance to justify the admission of the appeal. The appellant could not explain the reasons much less justification for filing time‑barred appeal and only put‑forth his grievances stated above namely that his pay and increments were not properly fixed and he was put to financial loss by the respondent department as well as the Accountant General, Punjab. In this regard it may be stated that the appellant as contained in his appeal and detailed above filed a civil suit on 8‑9‑1965 for recovery of the arrears of the pay which was dismissed and similarly the appeal was also dismissed in default. Lastly his Civil Revision Petition No. 1017/D of 1983 was also dismissed in limine on 15‑6‑1983. Even after that he did not care to submit any appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal and instead sent a petition to Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman), Islamabad, which was also not entertained being Provincial subject. The appellant stood retired in 1970 and it was for him to seek proper remedy within time. However, the appellant failed to file any such appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal within prescribed limit even after his revision petition by the learned High Court. Beside that the appellant in spite of directions contained in short order, dated 2‑10‑1985 failed to complete the necessary documents particularly the orders etc. of the Accountant General, Punjab as well as his own department.

5. Hence the appeal is dismissed in limine because it is grossly l as well as the appellant has failed to attach the copies of A the impugned order of Accountant General, Punjab, or the respondent department against which the appellant felt aggrieved.

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.