Agha HUSSAIN NAQVI vs DIRECTOR OF LABOUR WELFARE and others
The petitioner, a former civil servant, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his appeal challenging his compulsory retirement from service. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal was competent and whether his subsequent representations in 1981 could revive a cause of action arising from his retirement in 1964 and the alleged disposal of his departmental appeal in 1966. The Supreme Court held that the Service Tribunal correctly determined that the departmental appeal had been disposed of in 1966, a finding supported by the departmental record. Consequently, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, as the Service Tribunals Act precluded appeals against departmental orders issued before 1st July 1969. The Court affirmed that a civil servant cannot revive a stale claim for reinstatement by filing fresh representations decades after the initial retirement, as such actions do not enlarge the period of limitation or confer a fresh cause of action. Leave to appeal was refused.
- Can a civil servant revive a stale claim for reinstatement by filing fresh representations decades after retirement?
- Does the Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a departmental order passed before 1st July 1969?
- Does a subsequent representation to a departmental authority enlarge the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Article 212(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
- Section 4, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
1. ' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioner, a former civil servant, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, dated 13th December, 1982 whereby it was held that his appeal was neither competent nor was it within time.
2. ' The petitioner was at one time employed as Labour Inspector in the Provincial Government. He was charge- sheeted and an inquiry was held into his conduct of acquiring property beyond his known sources of income and without the permission of the competent authority. When called upon to show cause against disciplinary action on 5th February, 1964, he opted for retirement. He was compulsorily retired from 8th of August, 1964. He preferred a departmental appeal. He moved applications to the Governor in 1981 seeking re-instatement in service whereupon he was told that his case had been examined and the department was unable to accede to his request. He took this to be the final disposal of his matter and challenged the refusal to re-instate him as without lawful authority.
3. ' The Service Tribunal took the view that the appellate authority had disposed of his departmental appeal on 4th of March, 1966 and the subsequent effort made by the petitioner in 1981 did not enlarge the period of limitation.
4. Keeping in view section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act the Service Tribunal held that no appeal lay to the Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority trade any time before 1st of July, 1969. It was held to be incompetent.
5. ' The petitioner's main grievance is that his appeal was never disposed of and he was never informed of its disposal.
6. We find that a finding of fact with regard to the disposal of his departmental appeal in 1966 has been recorded by the Tribunal. After getting the record from the Department, we find that this finding of fact is in conformity with the record. On that finding the Service Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and it was incompetent before it.
7. ' The petitioner having reconciled to his retirement as along ago as 1966 could not revive his re-instatement in service in 1981. The order invoked by the petitioner for enlarging the period of limitation and for conferring a fresh cause of action is of no avail to him. Leave to appeal is refused.