Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AZIZ-UR-REHMAN VS Respondent: INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
1991 P L C (C
1991 P L C (C.S.) 565
[Supreme Court (AJ&K)]
Present: Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, CJ. and Basharat Ahmed Sheikh, J
AZIZ-UR-REHMAN---Appellant
Versus
THE INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, AZAD GOVERNMENT OF
THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR and 2 others---Respondents
Civil Appeal No.57 of 1990, decided on 9th March, 1991.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Service Tribunal, dated 25-3-1990, in Service Appeal No.397 of 1988).
Police Rules, 1934---
----R. 16.32---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, S.4---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.47---Words `representation', `appeal' and review'---Connotation---Service Tribunal dismissing civil servant's appeal on the ground that period spent by him in prosecution of revision petition filed before Inspector-General of Police, could not be deducted in computing period of limitation for purposes of appeal before Tribunal, in so much as proviso of S.4, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, only refers to appeal, review and representation but does not mention revision---Validity of---Term `representation' was wide enough to include revision petition and same could not be restricted to narrow interpretation which had been adopted by Service Tribunal---Unlike words `appeal' and `review', word `representation' had no fixed connotation and should be liberally construed to include a revision petition---Opening part of S.4(1), Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, was controlled by part (a) of proviso, which laid down that no appeal could be filed before, Service Tribunal unless departmental remedies had been exhausted---Civil servant by filing revision had, in fact, exhausted all the departmental remedies thus entitling him to deduct the time spent in revision while computing period for filing of appeal-- Case was remanded to Service Tribunal for adjudication of other points involved in appeal]. ---Muhammad Boota v. The State 1988 P L C (C.S.) 165 dissented from].
Muhammad Boota v. The State 1988 P L C (C.S.) 165 dissented from.
Sardar Rafique Mahmood for Appellant.
Abdul Rashid Abbasi for the Respondents.
Date of hearing: 2nd March, 1991.
JUDGMENT
BASHARAT AHMED SHEIKH, J.---This appeal by leave of the Court, relates to the interpretation of section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act which reads as follows:--
"4. Appeal to Tribunals.--- (1) Any civil servant aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority, in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service, may, within thirty days of the communication of such order to hire, or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, whichever is later, prefer appeal to the Tribunal:
Provided that--
(a) where an appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority is provided under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, or any rules, against any such order, no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal unless the aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to such departmental authority and a period of ninety days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred;
(b). ........................................................................................................
(c) ......................................................................................................
(2) .........................................................................................................
The Service Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the present appellant on the ground that the period spent by the appellant in prosecution of the revision petition filed by him before the Inspector-General of Police, which is provided under Rule 16".32 of the Police Rules, could not be deducted in computing the period of limitation for the purposes of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has hell that since the proviso reproduced above only refers to an appeal, review and representation and does not mentioned a revision petition; it was not necessary for the appellant to file a revision petition. In reaching the conclusion as aforesaid, the Tribunal has relied on a case decided by Service Tribunal of Sindh Muhammad Boota v. The State 1988 P L C (C.S.) 165. The Sindh Tribunal, while holding that limitation starts running from the date of Deputy Inspector-General's order and time consumed in disposal of the revision petition filed with the Inspector-General of Police would not be deducted, adopted the reasoning that the order passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was the final appellate order within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act and appeal should have been filed against the Deputy Inspector-General's order within limitation.
In our view the term `representation' is wide enough to include a revision petition and cannot be restricted to the narrow interpretation which has been adopted by the learned members of the Tribunal. Unlike the words `appeal' and `review', the word `representation' does not have a fixed connotation and should be liberally construed to include a revision petition. The reasoning adopted by the Sindh Service Tribunal fails to take note of the fact that opening part of section 4(1) is controlled by part (a) of the proviso which clearly lays down that no appeal can be filed in the Service Tribunal unless departmental remedies have been exhausted.
Consequently the order of the Service Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication of the other points involved in the appeal filed by Aziz-ur-Rehman appellant.
A.A./301/S.C.A. Case remanded.