MUHAMMAD ANWAAR BUTT Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
The petitioners sought leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 against a Service Tribunal decision that dismissed their appeal as time-barred. The petitioners, who were deprived of a special research allowance by a Finance Department order, challenged the order before the Service Tribunal after a delay. Counsel for the petitioners argued that the delay should be condoned because similar cases were pending before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the pendency of identical cases in the Supreme Court does not constitute a valid justification for condoning a patent delay in filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal, especially when no satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioners failed to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of filing a departmental representation against the impugned order. Consequently, the Court refused to grant interim relief, noting that the petitioners had taken a calculated risk in their approach to the litigation.
- Does the pendency of identical cases before the Supreme Court constitute sufficient grounds for condoning a time-barred appeal before a Service Tribunal?
- Is the filing of a departmental representation a mandatory jurisdictional requirement before approaching a Service Tribunal?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J. --The petitioners seek leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the decision of the Service Tribunal dated 14-5-1987 holding their appeal to be time- barred.
2. The petitioners were in receipt of a special pay at the rate of 20$ of their pay for research work that they were doing. By an order of the Finance Department dated 3-4-1986 they were deprived of it. The actual deprivation took place when in October they were made the payments less this allowance. They challenged the order before the Service Tribunal by filing an appeal on 20-1-1987. It was held to be barred by time.
3. Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though in fact the appeal was time-barred, it should have been entertained because in identical cases the Tribunal had allowed the relief to others and those cases had come to the Supreme Court and were pending in appeal.
4. The reason advanced by the learned counsel can hardly be called a justification for condoning the delay when patently it exists and no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. Besides, it also appears that the petitioners have not satisfied the jurisdictional requirement of filing an appeal or a representation against the order by which they are aggrieved. However, in view of the fact that similar appeals are said to be pending on the same subject in this Court, this petition to come up for hearing along with them. There will be no interim order to protect the interest of the petitioners in the meantime, for they have taken a calculated risk.
S.Q./M-215/S Order accordingly.