MAZHAR HUSSAIN vs GENERAL MANAGER OPERATIONS, RAILWAY
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding a claim for promotion on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner, a retired railway employee, sought promotion effective from 1998, despite retiring in 2001. The Tribunal had summarily dismissed the appeal as time-barred, citing the significant delay between retirement and the grievance notice. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal erred in failing to consider whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, particularly given the petitioner's contention that the respondent department was responsible for delays in processing his grievance. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal failed to properly evaluate whether the respondent department's conduct contributed to the delay. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, converted the petition into an appeal, and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a decision on merits within thirty days. The key principle established is that a tribunal must adjudicate whether a department's own procedural delays justify condoning a delay in filing an appeal.
- Does a service tribunal have a duty to consider whether a department's delay in processing a grievance justifies condoning a delay in filing an appeal?
- Can a service tribunal summarily dismiss an appeal on limitation grounds without evaluating the petitioner's explanation for the delay?
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI. J.---Petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 3-1-2011 vide which the learned Federal Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal shortly on the ground that "after having retired from service on 16-1-2001 the appellant claimed promotion with effect from 8-1-1998. His claim is hopelessly time barred.
2. Petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal while dismissing his appeal on question of limitation did not appreciate that petitioner has not been indolent in agitating for his rights; that initially he knocked the door of the Labour Court and having failed in his attempt to get the relief from there, he approached the Federal Service Tribunal, which instead of adverting to the merits of the case, dismissed the appeal on question of limitation although the said delay had fully been explained in paras 6 and 7 of his memo Of appeal before the Service Tribunal.
3. Learned Deputy Attorney-General having gone through the memo. Of appeal filed before the Service Tribunal submits that the learned Tribunal should have condoned the delay and ought to have decided the appeal on merits.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent Railway Department submits that the conduct of the petitioner has been contumacious and the learned Service Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal as time barred because petitioner was retired on 16-8-2001 whereas he gave grievance notice to the Department on 18-6-2006 i,e, after five years. He added that on the application of the petitioner, the Competent Authority had directed an inquiry and in terms of the report submitted, it was found that petitioner's claim was baseless. When asked about the date of submission of the inquiry report, learned counsel for the respondent Railway Department admitted that he is not sure of the date of the said report.
5. Responding to the afore-referred contention of learned counsel for the respondent Railway Department, petitioner submitted that although he had sent his grievance notice in August, 2006 but the respondent Department delayed the matter and immediately after the adverse decision taken by the Department in the afore-referred inquiry, he challenged the same before the Service Tribunal by way of appeal which stands dismissed vide the impugned judgment.
6. Having heard petitioner, learned Deputy Attorney-General and learned counsel for the respondent, we find that the question whether the respondent Department is responsible for delay in deciding petitioner's grievance petition/claim, required consideration and on that would depend the question whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned or not. That being so, the stand taken by learned DAG is fair. In the afore-referred circumstances, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed, the impugned judgment is set aside. Petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal bearing No, 265(L) of 2008 shall be deemed to be pending to be decided within 30 days of petitioner's appearance before it. Parties are directed to appear before the Service Tribunal on 2-8-2011.