Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

1994 P L C (C

1994 P L C (C.S.) 1422

[Federal Service Tribunal]

Present: Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim, Chairman and M. Ilyas Lodhi, Member

JAMSHED ALI

Versus

COMMANDANT, CENTRAL AMMUNITION DEPOT, KHANEWAL and another

Appeal No. 303(R) of 1992, decided on 16th May, 1993.

Civil service‑‑‑

‑‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Departmental appeal against removal of civil servant from service was filed within prescribed period of limitation‑‑‑Appeal before Service Tribunal which was to be filed within one month from rejection of departmental appeal, was filed after expiry of more than four months from such rejection and no satisfactory explanation was given by civil servant for such delay‑‑‑Under the Rules, each and every day of delay had to be justified to the satisfaction of Service Tribunal, but civil servant failed to do that‑‑‑Appeal in circumstances was liable to be dismissed as time‑barred.

Raja Muhammad Asghar Khan for Appellant.

Nemo for Respodents.

Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1993.

JUDGMENT

M. ILYAS LODHI (MEMBER). ‑‑‑When this case was taken up for regular hearing neither the counsel for the respondent‑Department nor their representative had appeared. Objections has also not been filed by them. They are, therefore, proceeded against ex pane.

2. While the appellant was serving as Fire Supervisor he applied for three days' leave i.e. from 2nd to 4th July, 1991 as he has to go to Multan on account of death of his maternal‑aunt. On 6‑7‑1991 he sent an application for extension of his leave up to 25‑7‑1991 on the ground of severe attack of paralyse to his widow sister at Sanghar. On expiry of his leave when the appellant joined, he came to know that he had been removed from service with effect from 2‑ 7‑1991 vide order dated 2‑1‑1992. Thereafter, the appellant filed a departmental appeal to the Director‑General, Ordinance Service GHQ, Rawalpindi on 10‑2‑1992 which was rejected on 3‑3‑1992. He filed this appeal on 21‑7‑1992.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The question of limitation is involved in this case. There is an application for condonation of delay but the learned counsel could not justify to our satisfaction. We are of the view that the departmental appeal has not been filed within the prescribed period of limitation and, therefore, the same was clearly barred by time. Consequently, the appeal before this Tribunal is also time‑barred. His departmental appeal was rejected on 3‑3‑1992, he should have come to this Tribunal on or before 2‑4‑1992 whereas he approached this Tribunal on 21‑7‑1992 and it is, therefore, incompetent and not maintainable being time -barred. As under the rules each and very day has to be justified to our satisfaction. In view of the above the appeal is, therefore, dismissed as time barred.

4. No order as to costs.

5. Parties be informed.

H.B.T/955/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from FEDERAL-SERVICE-TRIBUNAL
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant