SHAH MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY Versus FEDERAL SERVICE TRIBUNAL
This matter arises from a petition filed against the order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, who had been reverted from the post of Deputy General Manager to Manager in Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, contended that his departmental appeals and subsequent representations remained pending before a Reinstatement Review Committee and that a final reply was only conveyed on 2-1-1999, rendering his appeal before the Tribunal within time. The core legal question was whether the Service Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without considering the pendency of the matter before the review committee. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal overlooked crucial facts regarding the pendency of the petitioner's case before the committee, and thus the finding on limitation required reconsideration. The Court set aside the impugned judgment and remanded the case back to the Tribunal for reconsideration, laying down the principle that the pendency of a matter before a competent review or administrative committee must be factored into the computation of limitation for filing service appeals.
- Whether the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal stands extended when a departmental representation or review remains pending before a competent committee?
- Can the Service Tribunal dismiss a service appeal as time-barred without considering the factual background regarding the pendency of administrative proceedings?
- Section 4, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
MAMOON KAZI, J .---The petitioner joined Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation on deputation on 7-10-1981 and voluntarily got his retirement from his parent department, Government Polyclinic, Sargodha, vide order, dated 15-2-1990. He was then appointed as Deputy General Manager with effect from 7-10-1989 but vide order, dated 21-7-1992, he was reverted to the post of Manager.
2. The order passed by the Service Tribunal indicates that the petitioner filed his departmental appeal on 20-8-1992 and thereafter, he filed further appeals, dated 7-9-1994, 24-10-1997 and 14-12-1998 respectively. Consequently, there being no provision in the Service Tribunals Act for subsequent appeal, it found that the petitioner's appeal filed before it was time-barred and dismissed the same.
3. Our attention has been invited to the' memorandum of appeal tiled by the petitioner before the Tribunal which indicates that after change of administration in the Pakistan Steel Mills, the case of the petitioner had been referred to "Reinstatement Review Committee" to review the cases of employees whose services has either been terminated or who had been dismissed or reverted from their original positions held by them and it remained there under process. The case of the petitioner is that although, the Ministry of Production, Government of Pakistan (respondent No.2) promoted 55 managers, some of whom were even junior to the petitioner to the grade of Deputy General Managers but the case of the petitioner failed to receive favourable consideration. The petitioner filed his representation before the respondent No.4 which finally conveyed its reply to the petitioner on 2-1-1999 therefore, according to Mr. Ali Akbar, the appeal of the petitioner was not time-barred as against such order the petitioner filed his appeal before the Tribunal on 30-1-1999.
4. Perusal of the impugned judgment of the Tribunal indicates that such fact has been completely overlooked by the Tribunal in its impugned judgment. In case the petitioner's case has been referred to the said Committee and there it remained pending for decision, there was no occasion of him to approach the Tribunal unless a final decision was taken in this regard. Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal that the case of the petitioner had become time-barred appears to be requiring reconsideration.
5. In the result, the petition is converted into an appeal and the judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded for reconsideration.
Q.M.H./M.A.K./S-82/S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal allowed
Cited by 4 cases
- Muhammad Ajmal vs Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc K.L.R. 2016 Labour and Service
- Muhammad Ajmal vs Chairman Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc. 2016 LHC 1679, 2016 C.L.R. 964
- MUHAMMAD AJMAL vs CHAIRMAN PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 2018 PLC 189
- ASLAM PERVAIZ SOOMRO vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INDUSTRIES AND PRODUCTIONS, ISLAMABAD and 5 others 2003 PLC (C.S.) 191