This petition for leave to appeal challenged an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, Karachi Bench, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The Tribunal found that the appeal, filed on 22-3-2008 against an order dated 15-6-2007, was beyond the period of limitation, despite a departmental appeal filed on 15-7-2007 that remained unresponded. The Tribunal held that successive departmental appeals do not extend the period of limitation and that the question of limitation is not a mere technicality but has substantial bearing on the merits of a case. The Supreme Court noted that the petitioner's counsel did not dispute the appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred. Finding no valid reason to interfere with the impugned order and no question of law of public importance involved, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.---This petition for leave to appeal assails the order dated 27-10-2011, in Appeal No,27(K)CS/2008, passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, Karachi Bench, whereby the said appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time.
Relevant discussion contained in the impugned order reads as follows:- "6. We have considered the above arguments arid carefully perused the record. Apparently, appeal is time barred, as the appellant has approached this Tribunal on 22-3-2008 against the order dated 15-6-2007 after filing a departmental appeal on 15-7-2007, which remained un-responded.
An application for condonation of delay has also been filed along with the appeal wherein no reasonable ground has been taken except that the appellant has been continuously approaching the respondents for promotion in the cadre of Commercial Inspector BS-16 as per merit, but the same remained unresponded. Last application submitted on 20-11-2007, has not been responded to. It may be mentioned here that successive departmental appeal cannot extend period of limitation. We rely on 1998 SCMR 882, 19991 PLC (C.S.) 510 and 1999 PLC (C.S.) 862. Besides, it has been held in 2010 SCMR 1982 that, "civil servant remained in deep slumber for more than 20 years and it was too late in the day to question the legality of additional note. No plausible justification could be furnished by civil servant for the delay, except that question of limitation was nothing more but a technicality, which was an incorrect approach. Question of limitation could not be taken lightly, as in service matters such question should be B considered seriously." In 2011 SCMR 8, it was also held that, "Question of limitation cannot be considered a "technicality" simpliciter as it has got its own significance substantial bearing on, merits of case."
2. Learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has not disputed that in fact the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal was barred by time. This being the position, we find no valid reason for interference in the impugned order. Besides, no question of law of public importance is involved in this petition. Dismissed. Leave refused.