Find a Lawyer

Case No. 873/259 of 1984, decided on 12th December, 1985.

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Limitation‑‑‑‑Condonation of delay‑‑Teacher belonging to Nationalised Schools cadre aggrieved of order relating to her adjustment passed to 1975‑‑Order passed in 1984 regarding appointment of Teacher of General Cadre in Pay Scale No. 15‑‑Appeal before Tribunal sought to be pressed on grounds of order of 1984‑‑Appellant being of different category /cadres, in circumstance, held, not an aggrieved person of said order of 1984 to support condonation prayer and grievance of appellant factually about order of 1975 appeal filed in 1985, held, time‑barred hence dismissed.

Ghulam Qadir for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

.‑‑Mrs. Salma Tanveer, Senior English Teachress, New Girls Middle School Circular Road, Rawalpindi has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, wherein she has impleaded the respondents No. 1 to 6 as detailed above.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned orders, dated 16‑5‑1984, 25‑4‑1980 and 27‑11‑1975 passed by the respondent No. 4 be held to be without jurisdiction, without lawful authority, unsustainable and the same be set aside. She has also prayed that the respondents No. 1 to 4 be directed to award the benefits to the appellant regarding upgradation as well including the consequential benefits for the increase in monthly emoluments with effect from 1‑7‑1973 alongwith arrears onward till so far.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was employed with effect from 1‑5‑1971 as untrained teacher in the Iqbal Girls High School Kartarpura, Rawalpindi when the school was being run by a private organization, which was nationalized by the Government under Martial Law Regulation No. 118 w.e.f. 1‑10‑1971. The appellant was adjusted on her own pay and grade vide office order, dated 1‑4‑1975. However, this order, was subject to checking of the record and subject to adjustment if any discrepancy is noticed later on. Another order was passed by the Director of Education, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi vide order, dated 27‑11‑1975, wherein the appellant was adjusted/posted in New GMS Circular, Rawalpindi against the V.T. post vide Nasreen Gul. The appellant is basically aggrieved of this order. However, in the year 1984 seven lady teachress were appointed in P. B. S. 15, vide order, dated 16‑5‑1984, feeling aggrieved of this order and having come to know on 15‑7‑1984, the appellant submitted a departmental appeal on 17‑7‑1984 which is still undecided. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e. Ch. Ghulam Qadir, Advocate on behalf of the appellant and Mr. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney assisted by the representative of the respondents on behalf of the respondents.

5. On the outset the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone, He has submitted that the appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 27‑11‑1975, against which she never agitated. The appellant had only represented against the order dated 16‑5‑1984 which was concerning appointment of seven teacheresses in P.B.S. 1.5 who belonged to general cadre and not to the category of nationalized cadre to which the appellant belonged. The learned District Attorney has pointed out that the appellant actually has a grievance against the order dated 25‑11‑1975 which she has brought before this Tribunal through this appeal on 6‑11‑1984, after a lapse of nearly about 9 years. He has also referred to the application given for condonation of this delay and has submitted that no proper justification has been advanced by the appellant /appellant's counsel, for condonation of delay. Hence, the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant was asked to rebut the above plea of the learned District Attorney regarding limitation but he has not been able to successfully rebut the same.

7. Keeping in view the above arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney, we have carefully studied the application submitted by' the appellant's counsel for condonation of delay from the year 1975 to 1984 but we find that the justification so put forth by the appellant /appellant's counsel in the said application is not convincing and it is not possible for us to accept the plea so taken by the appellant's counsel in the application mentioned above and also at the time of arguments. Hence, there is no justification for condonation of delay. We have also observed that the order dated 16‑5‑1984 so impugned has no concern with the appellant and the appellant is not an aggrieved person of the said order as the lady teachers mentioned in this order are of the different category/cadre i.e., 'general cadre' and the appellant could not have any grievance against them.

8. The result of the above discussion of the case is that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred for about 9 years and is dismissed on this) score alone.

There is no order as to costs.

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.