Find a Lawyer

Case No.60/128 of 1985, decided on 30th July, 1985.

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

‑‑S. 4‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Appeal before Tribunal‑ Appeal being time‑barred‑‑No explanation for filing belated appeal‑ Appeal, held, was not competent being time‑barred.

Abdul Wahid Chaudhry for Appellant. A.G. Humayun, District Attorney for Respondents.

.‑‑Sh. Nazir Ahmad, Zilladar (Retd.) has 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 and Power Department, Old Anarkali, Lahore and Superintending Engineer (Headquarters), Irrigation, Lahore Region, Lahore, as respondents.

2. The appellant Sh. Nazir Ahmad prayed that the impugned order, dated 22‑10‑1984 passed by Superintending Engineer (respondent No. 2) r, may be set aside and the appellant be allowed National Pay Scale No. 10 w.e.f. 1^st December, 1975 and National Pay Scale No. 11 w.e.f. 1st December, 1979.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined the service of the. Irrigation Department as Assistant Vernacular Clerk on 1‑1‑1948 and was promoted to the post of Ziliadar in the year 1962. The appellant was retired as Zilladar on 14‑6‑1983 from Upper Chenab Circle, Sheikhupura. The contention of the appellant is that he was entitled to the higher scale from 9 to 10 on 1‑12‑1975 but his pay was not fixed in the higher scale by his Department. The appellant further contended that he was due for N.P.S.‑11 on 1‑12‑1979. It appears that the appellant's case was referred to the Regional Office at a later stage which was rejected vide orders, dated 22‑10‑1984 of the Superintending Engineer (Headquarters) Irrigation, Lahore (respondent No. 2) in view of the chequered record of the appellant as well as on the grounds that the appellant did not pass D.R.E. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant filed a representation to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Irrigation Department (respondent No. 1). After expiry of 90 days, the appellant filed the instant appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal.

4. At the time of the arguments Mr. Abdul Wahid, learned counsel for the appellant, pleaded that the appellant was entitled to grant of N.P.S.‑10 and N.P.S.‑11. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed that the appellant had dedicatedly performed his service till his retirement and he had no chequered record of service. The learned counsel for the appellant while concluding his arguments, stated that the passing of the D.R.E. by the appellant was not necessary after the amendment, dated 3‑1‑1978, published in Punjab Gazette on 16‑8‑1978.

5. The learned District Attorney opposed the appeal and raised the preliminary objection that the appeal is time‑barred because the appellant is claiming N.P.S.‑10 w.e.f. 1‑12‑1975 and N.P.S.‑11 w.e.f. 1‑12‑1979 and the impugned order, dated 22‑10‑1984 of the Superintending Engineer (respondent No. 2), rejecting the request of appellant reference to the letter, dated 1‑10‑1984 of SE B.C.C. Lahore, could not extend the period of limitation. In fact as already indicated in the impugned order, the appellant stood already retired on 16‑6‑1984 and the impugned order was issued on 22‑10‑1984. The learned District Attorney on the merits too stated that the appellant had a chequered record of service and the appellant also did not pass the D.R.E. The learned District Attorney closed his arguments while stating that even for the move-over it was necessary that the concerned officer has unblemished record.

6. We have carefully considered the points so raised by both the parties and we have also perused the relevant record including the departmental comments. We are of the considered opinion that regardless of the merits of the case i.e. that the appellant was refused N.P.S.‑10 and 11 on ground of chequered record and for not passing the D.R.E., the appeal is indeed time‑barred. The appellant has not been able to A explain for filing belated appeal. If the appellant considered himself entitled to N.P.S..‑10 on 1‑12‑1975 and N.P.S.‑11 on 1‑12‑1979, he should have promptly filed an application to the competent authority followed by the representation to the competent authority and then without over‑shooting the period of limitation filed an appeal before this Tribunal which is not the case.

7. Hence the appeal is dismissed being time‑barred.

8. There will be no order as to costs.

A. A 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.