ABDUL HABIB SATTI Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). ‑Mr. Abdul Habib Satti, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein be has impleaded Punjab Province through Secretary to Govern ment of Punjab, Communication & Works Department. Lahore and Muhammad Iqbal Akhtar, Head Clerk, Provincial Building Division, Jhang, as respondents.

2. The appellant has made this appeal against the orders of the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communication & Works Depart ment, Lahore, No. E. 111/1‑1/70, dated 3ist March, 1970 transferring Muhammad Iqbal Akhtar in public interest instead of his transfer on compassionate grounds and he has prayed that order of transfer of respon dent No. 2 be changed into on compassionate grounds instead of in the public interest.

3. The case is at the stage of preliminary hearing. However, the parawise comments were obtained from the respondent. We have heard the appellant and the learned District Attorney. A legal objection was raised by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is hopelessly time barred as the matter concerned to year 1970. Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Akhtar, Accounts Clerk, respondent No. 2 was transferred in the public interest vide Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communication & Works Department order, dated 3ist July, 1970. This has also been, acknowledged by the appellant himself through para. 7 of his appeal where in he had mentioned that he could not obtain the record about the service particulars of respondent No. 2 and he could prefer his representation lately, which was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide his order, dated 3ist May, 1982 (Annexure 'E‑). The appellant was confronted with the seniority list which was finalized and duly circulated vide No. 98‑101/E, dated Lyallpur 1st January, 1975, issued by the Superintending Engineer, Sargodba Provincial Buildings Circle at Layllpur to Executive Engineers Lyallpur/Jhang/Sargodha etc. by the respondent to show that the appel lant knew that he had been relegated in seniority vis‑a‑vis the respondent No. 2. Thus, there was no justification for the appellant for not represen ting against this seniority list immediately on its issue, as representations were invited within one month through above‑mentioned order. The appellant could not give any satisfactory reply for the same and thus it is proved that the appellant failed to file his representation during the year 1975, when the seniority list stood properly circulated, wherein under the head of the "posts of Accounts Clerk", the respondent No. 2 was shown at serial No. 7 and the appellant at serial No. 8. Thus, the respon dent No. 2 was shown senior to him, the fact which stood acknowledged by the appellant there and then. He is, thus, raising this issue in the year 1982, after a lapse of 7 years. Furthermore, no solid reasons and justi fications have been given to satisfy us to condone this delay in his petition made under section 5 of the Limitation Act, thus we refuse to condone it.

4. Keeping the above analysis in view, the appeal is dismissed in limine, as hopelessly time‑barred.

There will be no orders as to costs.

M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.