Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: Ch. UMAR DIN VS Respondent: GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Mian Burhanuddin Khan, M. S. H. Qureshi, Shafi-ur-Rehman Title: Ch. UMAR DIN vs GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN And Other Case No.: Civil Petition No.228-R of 1984 Appeal No.199(R) of 1982 Date of Judgment:1984-10-21 Reported As: 1985 SCMR 174 Result: Petition dismissed
Judgment ORDER M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.-- The petitioner had been appointed as Assistant with effect from 13-11-1972 in the Ministry of Production. He was transferred to the Ministry of Religious Affairs in the same post with effect from 15-1)-1976. In the seniority list of Assistants in the latter Ministry issued on 5-6-1980, he was assigned seniority from that date, i.e., 15-11-1976. He made a representation against it on 16- 6-1980 claiming seniority from 13-11-1972. By letter, dated 14-7-1982 he was informed by the Ministry that "the case of his seniority is, however, being determined in consultation with the Establishment Division. The decision taken in the matter will be communicated to him in due course". He, thereupon, filed an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal on 25-11-1982, which was dismissed by the impugned order, dated 19-5-1984 on the ground of limitation, as also on merits. 2. The appeal of the petitioner was obviously the-barred as h had not filed the same within the period of limitation from making the representation. The petitioner, who personally argued the case before us, referred to the letter of the Ministry, dated 14-7-1982 to urge that limitation was to count from that date. But that letter, not being final order, was not appeal able. The Tribunal was, therefore, justifies in dismissing the appeal as the-.Barred, and as such no case is made out for interference in that regard. However, since a final determination of his seniority is yet to be made by the Ministry, he would be entitled to press for such determination notwithstanding the view taken by the Tribunal. With this observation the petition is dismissed.