Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SHAKEEL HUSSAIN SHAH VS Respondent: SECRETARY, FOOD AND AGRICULTUREHonorable Justice Shah Abdur Rashid
1988 P L C (C
1988 P L C (C.S.) 875
[Federal Service Tribunal]
Present: Justice Shah Abdur Rashid, Chairman
SHAKEEL HUSSAIN SHAH
Versus
SECRETARY, FOOD AND AGRICULTURE and 4 others
Appeal No. 97(R) of 1.978, decided on 19th March, 1979.
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)
‑‑‑S. 4‑‑Appeal‑‑Limitation‑‑Appellant's departmental appeal rejected by order dated 5‑11‑1977‑‑Order rejecting subsequent applications, not contemplated by any law or rules, could not give appellant any fresh cause of action‑‑Appeal filed on 21‑12‑1978 after a year of appellate order, held, was barred by time and hence dismissed in limine.
Appellant in Person.
Date of hearing: 19th March, 1979.
ORDER
In this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the appellant Shakeel Hussain Shah claims seniority as Stenographer over respondents Nos. 2 to 4 on the ground that he was promoted with effect from 1‑8 1969 as Stenographer against a regular vacancy but has been given seniority with effect from 10‑2‑1973 contrary to rules and practice of the Government thus depriving him of uninterrupted service as Stenographer from 1‑8‑1969 to 9‑2‑1973.
2. It appears that some seniority list was, prepared but this was amended by order dated 17‑2‑1977 whereby appointment of the appellant and respondent No. 4 was regularised as Stenographer with effect from l0P2‑1972. in the same order it was directed that respondent No. 4 shall stand senior to the appellant any virtue of the seniority in the lower grade.
3. On 2‑10‑1977 the appellant challenged the order by way of appeal /representation addressed to the Secretary wherein he stated that on 17‑3 1977 also he had submitted a representation on the same subject and has then submitted 2 more applications.
4. By order dated 5‑11‑1977 the application dated 2‑10‑197 was rejected and the appellant was informed accordingly.
5. It appears that the appellant again submitted an application on 25‑9‑1978 but this too was turned down on 21‑11‑1978. The appellant has now challenged the order by way of this appeal.
6. The appeal was filed on 21‑12‑1978. The original order whereby the appeal was rejected is dated 5‑11‑1977. Counting from that day the appeal is barred by time and the delay of over one year is not explained. The appellant however contends that the last order was
passed on 21‑11‑1978 and that time should be counted from this day. In this contention there is no substance because only one appeal lies from an order of this kind and that appeal having been rejected on 5‑11‑1977, the appellant could have come to the Tribunal at the latest by 5‑12‑1977. The subsequent applications made by the appellant from time to time are not contemplated by any law or rules and the reply sent thereon does not give him any fresh cause of action. These subsequent applications are in the nature of petitions which have no sanction behind them and therefore cannot be taken into consideration. The order of 25‑11‑1978 passed on those representations does not open the issue afresh.
7. Since this appeal before the Tribunal was filed after over a year of the appellate orders it is hopelessly barred by time and is consequently dismissed in limine. S.O./410/Sr. F Appeal dismissed.