Pakistan Case Law
2010 PLC (C.S.) 875

Mirza DILSHAD BAIG vs ACCOUNTANT-GENERAL, SINDH and others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation2010 PLC (C.S.) 875
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition No,388-K of 2008 Appeal No,63(K)CS /2008
Date2008-10-09
Judge(s)Zia Perwez and Sabihuddin Ahmed
Authored byZia Perwez
ResultPetition dismissed
Summary

This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan via a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of being barred by a limitation period of more than seven years. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on the ground of limitation and the exercise of the power to condone delay. The Court held that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity justifying interference, noting that the power to condone delay in an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal is to be exercised by the Tribunal itself. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, laying down the principle that the Service Tribunal possesses the authority to condone delay and its decisions on limitation will not be interfered with absent a legal infirmity.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Whether the Federal Service Tribunal has the power to condone delay in filing an appeal?
  • Does the dismissal of a service appeal on the ground of a delay of over seven years warrant interference by the Supreme Court?
  • Can the Supreme Court interfere with an order of the Service Tribunal regarding limitation when no legal infirmity is shown?
service tribunallimitationcondonation of delaypetition for leave to appealcivil service

ORDER

' ZIA PERWEZ, J.---This petition is directed against the order dated 24-7-2008 whereby the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dismissed Appeal No,63(K)CS/2008 on ground of limitation being barred by more than seven years.

2. ground. In any event, the power to condone delay in an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal could be exercised by the Tribunal itself. The impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity justifying interference by this Court. The petition for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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