This appeal was filed against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which had dismissed the appellant's service appeal as being hopelessly barred by time. The appellant challenged the dismissal, asserting that the appeal before the Tribunal was within the prescribed period. Upon review of the record, the Supreme Court observed that the initial departmental appeal was filed on 28-6-2003 against an order dated 30-4-2003, which was significantly beyond the mandatory 30-day limitation period. The Court held that even if a subsequent appeal to the Service Tribunal is filed within time, no relief can be granted if the underlying departmental appeal was time-barred. The Court found the Tribunal's decision to be reasonable and supported by cogent grounds, noting that the appellant failed to identify any jurisdictional error or legal infirmity. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that a time-barred departmental appeal precludes the grant of relief in subsequent judicial proceedings.
' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---This appeal, with the leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment dated 5- 7-2010 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad whereby appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed as the same was hopelessly barred by time.
2. Heard' the learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record minutely.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal filed by the appellant before the Service Tribunal was not barred by time. He has drawn our attention at page 45 of the original order passed by the departmental authority dated 30-4-2003 and departmental appeal on 28-6-2003 at page 52, which admittedly filed much after expiry of 30 days from the order passed by the competent authority.
4. We have taken into consideration arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. From perusal of the record it appears that the departmental appeal of the appellant was barred by time, even if the appeal filed before the Service Tribunal was in time, no relief can be granted to him. If any case-law is required one can see the cases of Muhammad Aslam v. WAPDA and others, (2007 SCMR 513) and Zia ur Rehman v. Divisional Superintendent Postal Services, Abbottabad and others (2009 SCMR 1121).
5. Having considered the matter from all angles in the light of material on file, we are of the view that the impugned judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal is eminently reasonable and proceeds on cogent ground.
The learned counsel for the appellant was unable to advert jurisdictional error or legal infirmity, which would justify interference.
' In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the listed appeal which is dismissed.