Pakistan Case Law
2007 C.L.R. 880

Muhammad Rafique and 5 others - vs Pakistan Telecommunication

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2007 C.L.R. 880
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petitions Nos. 565-K to 569-K and 828-K of 2003 Appeals Nos. 282-
Date2005-05-13
Judge(s)Nasir-ul-Mulk, Hamid Ali Mirza, M. Javed Buttar
ResultAppeal allowed/Case remanded..
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan by way of petitions converted into appeals, challenging the dismissal of the petitioners' service appeals by the Federal Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation. The core legal question is whether the service appeals filed by the petitioners were barred by time under the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Supreme Court held that since the departmental appeals were not responded to initially and the rejection was only communicated to the petitioners on 25.6.2002, the subsequent appeals filed on 25.7.2002 fell well within the prescribed thirty-day period from the date of communication of the order under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal and remanded the matters for decision on merits.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is time-barred when filed within thirty days of the communication of the departmental appellate decision?
  • Does the limitation period for filing a service appeal commence from the date of communication of the departmental authority's decision?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 4, Service Tribunals Act 1973
service appeallimitation perioddepartmental appealFederal Service Tribunalcondonation of delayremand

ORDER

HAMID ALI MIRZA, J. --- Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perusal the record.

2. The appeals of the petitioners were dismissed by learned Federal Service Tribunal on the ground that the appeals before the Tribunal were time barred as the same were. Not filed within 120 days from the date of termination orders. However, in the instant cases the petitioners filed departmental appeals before the competent authority which were not responded and no decisions were communicated to Them and for the first time on their reminder dated 4.6.2002, the respondents vide letter No. RRR-27-98/2002, dated 25.6.2002, communicated the petitioners that their appeals were rejected, therefore, the appeals having been preferred on 25.7.2002 cannot be said to be time barred. Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has prescribed period of thirty days from the date of communication of order on departmental appeals and in the instant cases communication for the first time about the decision of their appeals was conveyed to the petitioners on 25.6.2002, therefore, the appeals before the Service Tribunal cannot be said to be time barred.

3. In the circumstances, the finding of the Tribunal that appeals filed by the petitioners were time barred cannot be sustained. Accordingly the petitions are converted into appeals and allowed, consequently the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal are set-aside and the appeals are remanded to the Tribunal for decision of the same on merits after hearing the parties.Appeat allowed/Case remanded..

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.