ABDUL SATTAR Versus CHIEF CONSERV ATOR OF FORESTS, PUNJAB

S. ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (.MEMBER) .‑Mr. Abdul Sattar, Forester has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Conservator of Forests, Lahore Circle, Lahore and 16 others (As per list attached) as respondents.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that impugned order, dated 25th October, 1981 of Respondent No. 1 be set aside, be declared as confirmed, with effect from 15th February, 1953 or in alterna tive with effect from 1st April, 1958 and to fix his seniority above Respondent No. 3. Furthermore, he has prayed that he be declared eligible for promotion and other benefits from the date his next junior Respondent No. 3 has been given.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as Forester on temporary basis on fixed pay against a temporary post with effect from 16th February, 1950. His post used to be created every year so be was appointed temporarily on yearly basis. He continued on a temporary post till he was appointed on regular basis, w. e. f. 1st March, 1955. According to rule 9 (2) (a) (ii) of Punjab Forest Subordinate Service (Executive Section) Rules, 1944, the appellant was required to undertake after the expiry of one year work in the Forest Department the course of training at the School. Consequently he was provided with a chance in 1956, but during the test held at Rawalpindi on the admission to Forest School, Ghoragali, he used unfair means and was debarred from competing the examination during the next two years. Later on the appel lant also fell ill and could not avail the chance of training till April, 1960. Thus it was on account of the appellant himself that he could be proceed on training earlier as mentioned above. Respondents Nos. 3 to 18, were deputed to receive training at the Forests School earlier than the appellant because they bad good record of service whereas the service record of the appellant was not satisfactory at that time. This fact was in the knowledge of the appellant so he did not make any representation or appeal to the competent authority. Further he was not considered suitable for confir mation during the year 1958 to 1963 due to his unsatisfactory service record. Consequently the appellant was confirmed as Forester with effect from 1st July, 1964. Thus the Foresters or the Respondents Nos. 3 to 18 who were confirmed earlier than the appellant were given due seniority from the date of their confirmation on the seniority of the Foresters was required to be determined from the date of confirmation in accordance with the Punjab Forest Subordinate Service (Executive Section) Rules, 1944. Thus the appellant who was confirmed later to the respondents was given proper and due place of seniority from the date of confirmation. After lapse of prolonged period of 17 years, the appellant represented against his confirmation, on 8th April, 1981. The representation was turned down by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Punjab vide dated 25th October, 1981. Hence this appeal.

4. The case was argued by the counsel of both the parties i.e. appel lant's counsel and District Attorney; wherein the legal objection was taken up by the District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Respon dents that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred as the appellant is asking his confirmation w. e. f. 15th February, 1953 or from 1st April, 1958 after lapse of years together. The appellant felt satisfied with the orders of departmental authorities for years and it was on 8th April, 1981 when he made a representation to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab against his confirmation. Thus the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is not maintainable.

5. We have considered the view point of the parties on the issue and have also consulted the record carefully, are in agreement with the learned District Attorney and‑we have satisfied ourselves that the appeal is hope lessly time‑barred. The matter concern the decision of the departmental authorities regarding confirmation of the appellant made in the year 1964 ; claiming his confirmation, w. e. f. 15th February, 1953 or 1st April, 1958 and fixing his seniority accordingly, which is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. It is further clear that the appellant remained satisfied regarding his confirmation with the decisions of the departmental authorities and did not agitate this issue for years together till he chose to make a representation to the Chief Conservator of Forests, Punjab, Lahore in the year 1981 and then came to this Tribunal on 13th December, 1981, after rejection of his appeal by the C. C. F. Lahore. Thus, the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred, suffer from laches and is not maintainable.

6. Keeping in view the above analysis, we holds that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed as such.

There will be no orders as to costs.

M. I. Appeal dismissed.