Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: AFZAL BAIG VS Respondent: SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD
1995 P L C (C
1995 P L C (C.S.) 102
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Muhammad Rafiq Tarar and Saeed-uz-zaman Siddiqui, JJ
Mirza AFZAL BAIG
versus
SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and another
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 433 of 1993, decided on 30th November, 1993.
(On appeal from the order dated 3‑8‑1993 of the Federal Service Tribunal, in Appeal No. 223‑R of 1993).
Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S. 4(1), Proviso (b)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art 212(3)‑‑ Dismissal of civil servant's appeal as time‑barred‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Civil servant after filing of departmental appeal was required to file appeal before Service Tribunal within 12A) days but he filed the same much after the prescribed period and there was no good ground for condonation of delay‑‑‑Appeal before Service Tribunal was also hit by proviso (b) to S. 4(1), Service Tribunals Act, 1973, for it related to "determination for promotion"‑‑‑No infirmity or legal error in the judgment in question was pointed out nor any question of public importance was involved‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Petitioner in Person.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 30th November, 1993.
JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ TARAR, J.‑‑‑Mirza Afzal Baig petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal dated 3‑8‑1993 whereby his service Appeal No. 223‑R of 1993 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Section Officer on ad‑hoc basis in April 1975. He was placed on regular basis with effect from 4‑3‑1986 and continued till 2‑6‑1992 when he sought voluntary retirement from service. He maintained that some of his colleagues were promoted in BPS‑18 and he was also entitled to same relief with effect from 17‑9‑1986. He made an application to the Establishment Division on 21‑11‑1992 but without any response. Then he filed appeal before the Tribunal on 24‑7‑1993. Along-with the appeal he filed an application for condonation of delay. The learned Federal Service Tribunal held that after filing the departmental appeal on 21‑11‑1992 the appellant was required to file the appeal within 120 days but he filed the same much after the prescribed period and there was no good ground for condonation of delay. It was further held that the appeal was hit by proviso (b) to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunal Act because it related to determination for promotion'.
3. We have heard the petitioner in person. He has not been able to point out any infirmity or legal error in the impugned judgment nor any question of public importance is involved. There is no merit in this petition and the same dismissed.
AA./A‑1080/S Petition dismissed.