GHULAM SHABBIR vs DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others
This petition challenges a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, who had been compulsorily retired under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, filed a departmental appeal followed by a service appeal before the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's service appeal was maintainable despite the delay, specifically regarding the calculation of the limitation period when a departmental appeal remains pending or uncommunicated. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was clearly barred by time. The Court laid down the principle that under the relevant service laws, a civil servant is required to file a service appeal before the Service Tribunal within thirty days after the lapse of ninety days from the filing of a departmental appeal, regardless of whether the departmental appeal has been formally rejected or communicated to the petitioner. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision and declined to grant leave to appeal.
- Does the failure to communicate the rejection of a departmental appeal extend the limitation period for filing a service appeal?
- What is the prescribed timeline for filing a service appeal before the Service Tribunal after the filing of a departmental appeal?
- Is a service appeal maintainable if filed after the expiration of the statutory limitation period following the lapse of ninety days from the departmental appeal?
- Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000
' NASIR-UL-MULK, J.---This petition is directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Karachi Bench, dated 9-9-2010, dismissing the petitioner's appeal in limine. The petitioner was awarded major penalty of compulsory retirement under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 by order dated 25-9-2002. He filed Departmental Appeal on 12-10-2002 and Service Appeal before the Service Tribunal on 13-4-2005 which was dismissed as barred by time.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that his Departmental Appeal, rejected on 30-3-2004, was not communicated to the petitioner. This argument is not relevant as after lapse of 90 days from filing of Departmental Appeal, the petitioner had 30 days to file service appeal before the Service Tribunal whether or not his Departmental Appeal was rejected. His appeal before the Tribunal was clearly barred by time and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Leave declined.
Cited by 1 case
- F.G. SIR SYED COLLEGE RAWALPINDI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF. DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and 2 others 2017 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 131