MUHAMMAD JAWED Versus KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY
MUHAMMAD AYUB KHAN (MEMBER)‑ ‑‑We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the facts agitated in the appeal.
2. A perusal of the record shows that the appellant was serving under the Karachi Electric Supply Company when by an order, dated 2‑8‑1997 he felt aggrieved due to his reversion from the post of OSD (Grade‑VI) (Surplus Pool) to the post of Chief Law Officer (Grade‑IV) and was also suspended. By another order, dated 13‑8‑1997 he was served with a charge‑sheet. The appellant feeling aggrieved, filed a departmental appeal before the competent Authority on 19‑9‑1997 which remained unresponded and thereafter, a Civil Suit No. 1064 of 1997. was filed in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, (South; Karachi, (VIII) on 19‑9‑1997 regarding permanent injunction but this was rejected under Order VIII, Rule XI. C.P.C., for lack of jurisdiction, the appellant being a civil servant within the meaning of section 2‑A, of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, which is effective from 10‑6‑1997. This order was passed on 19‑1‑1998. A scrutiny of the file further reveals that against this order the appellant went to the Court of District Judge, Karachi, in appeal, on 20-1‑1998 where stay order was granted till 14‑2‑1998. It, however, appears that the next date of hearing of the appeal has been fixed for 3‑9‑1998.
3. It is pertinent to note that section 2‑A, was added in the Service 'tribunals Act, 1973 (Act XVII of. 1997) and is effective from 10‑6‑1997 where under:‑‑---
"Service under any authority, corporation, body, or organization established by or under a Federal Law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest is hereby declared to be Service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of this Act." meaning thereby that the appellant by virtue of this legal position became a civil servant for the purpose of seeking legal remedy he tore this Tribunal anti as such he was under: a legal obligation to rush to this Tribunal for seeking legal remedy but instead of doing so he approached incompetent and unauthorised forums i.e. before the Courts of Civil Judge and the District Judge which under the amended law, are not legally authorised to adjudicate upon the matters relating to the terms and conditions of the civil servants. In other words, statutory rights of such civil servants stand excluded from the jurisdiction/purview of the Civil Court's, inclusive of the Honourable High Courts.
4. The impugned order, whereby the appellant got aggrieved was passed on 2‑8‑1997 and by which he was reverted from the post of O.S.D. (Grade‑VI) (Surplus Pool) to the post of Chief Law Officer, (Grade‑IV) and was also suspended. The appellant also felt aggrieved by another order, dated 13‑8‑1997 whereby he was served with a charge‑sheet. In view of this situation, he was legally required to file a departmental appeal before the competent Authority within 30 days and in case being unresponded, he should have approached this Tribunal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, within 120 days, as required, whereas he has come to this Tribunal on 29‑8‑1998 i.e. after one year and 27 days and thus the appeal is prima facie hit by limitation. No doubt an application for condonation of delay has been filed but we are tot the least moved for the reason that no cogent and legal pleas are embodied therein specially when by the time the cause of action accrued to him the appellant had already been clothed with status and position of a civil servant by virtue of insertion of section 2‑A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. "Delay defeats equity, and time and tied wait for none" are the well‑known legal maxims. The appellant apparently remained inactive for a period of more than one year and now he must face the legal consequences of his contumacious conduct demonstrated in the case. It is deemed proper to quote a Persian statement:‑‑
"Whatever we do we bear its burden as you sow, so shall you reap." based on the injunctions of the Holy Qur'an and contained in Sura Al‑Baqrah Verse 2:286, the relevant portion of which reads:‑‑
? ("Allah tasketh not a soul beyond its scope. For it (is only) that which it hath earned, and against it (only) that which it hath deserved.")
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid discussed, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
H.B.T./288/ST/F ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.