Find a Lawyer

Case No. 914/260 of 1984, decided on 12^th December, 1985.

Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974)------

---S. 4--Limitation--Condonation of delay--Appeal belated by about 9 years --Condonation sought on grounds that appeals and representations to departmental authorities remained undecided and verbal assurance of favourable decision given each time when contacted at personal level No specific date on which such appeals/ representations filed given General grounds for condonation of delay, in circumstances, held, without substance and vague hence appeal dismissed as hopelessly t me-barred.

Ghulam Qadir for Appellant.

A.G. Humayun District Attorney for Respondents.

.----Mst. Perveen Akhtar, English Teacher, Liaquat Girls High School, Mughalabad, Rawalpindi has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals' Act 1974, wherein she has impleaded the Government of the Punjab, through Secretary, Education Department, Lahore, the Director of Education, Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi and the District Education Officer, Rawalpindi as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the appeal be accepted and orders for the reinstatement of the appellant as Senior English Teacher with effect from 27-11-1975 be ordered and she be granted back benefit etc.

3. Brief facts of case are that the privately managed schools were nationalized by the Government under Martial Law regulation No. 118 w.e.f. 1-10-1972. The services of the staff working in these schools were also nationalized from the said date. The Government prescribed norm of each school sanctioning posts of S.S.T's/CT's/PTC's etc according to the enrolment of the schools categorising single/double section schools. As such in single section school two S.S.T's and in double section schools three posts of S.S.T's were sanctioned. The Teachers/SST's which could not be accommodated in their own schools had to be shifted/transferred to other schools of the Division. If they wished to get the grade of SST's according to the qualifications, the trained staff including S.S.T's was accommodated accordingly. Those teachers who did not like to leave their schools where they were working were adjusted at lower posts viz. CT/Un-trained. The appellant passed her B.Ed. Examination in the year 1973. According to the Government instructions 50 of the vacant posts were filled from the in service qualified teachers by awarding the regular B.Ed grade. The appellant was reinstated to the post of Senior English Teacher vide order 9-9-1978, w.e.f 13-9-1978. The appellant felt aggrieved by this order only to the extent that the appellant was not reinstated to the status of Senior English Teacher w.e.f the date of her demotion i.e. 27-11-1975. According to the appellant she made representations and appeals before the respondents in this behalf which were kept pending by them for a number of years and were not decided one way or the other. The appellant also established personal contact with the respondents and other relevant quarters and she was given assurances that the favourable decision will be taken in her case. The grievance of the appellant has not so far been redressed by the respondents. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties i.e. Ch. Ghulam Qadir, Advocate for 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 there is nothing on record to show that the appellant has made any representation to the respondents w.e.f. the date of her demotion i.e. 27-11-1975 made through the impugned order dated 27-11-1975. The appellant has made this appeal to this Tribunal on 25-11-1984 after a lapse of about 9 years. Thus this appeal is hopelessly time-barred. The learned District Attorney has also referred to the application submitted for condonation of delay by the appellant dated 24-11-1984 and has submitted that no cogent reasons have been advancd in this application. This application is vague and no dates of the appeals/ representations of the appellant submitted to the respondents have been given and it has been mentioned in a general way that the appellant had made appeals/ representations to the respondents and were still undecided. On the above facts, the learned District Attorney has submitted that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred and 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. We have given our anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and have also gone through the application submitted for condonation of delay, which is reproduced below:

"That applicant has filed the accompanying appeal in this honourable Tribunal belatedly. The appeals/representations of the applicant were kept pending by the respondents for several years and verbal assurances were extended to her to the effect that her case would be decided favourably. Even otherwise, the applicant being in service and subordinate to the respondents an was hopeful of getting a favourable decision from them. The delay in filing the present appeal was caused due to the pendency of the departmental appeals/ representations and on account of the assurances given to the applicant by the respondents.

The above facts show that the appellant had not given any specific dates, through which the appeals /representations were filed before the competent authority. The general ground seeking for condonation of delay is without any substance and is vague.

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.