MUQARRAB KHAN NIAZI vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND OTHERS
This matter arises from a petition challenging the petitioner's reversion from the post of Senior Broadcast Engineer to Broadcast Engineer under section 3 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. The core legal question concerns the computation of limitation for filing an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal against the rejection of a departmental representation, and whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was time-barred. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Federal Service Tribunal correctly found the appeal to be barred by time, noting that even if the communication regarding the rejection of the representation was not received, the petitioner failed to file the appeal within the prescribed 120 days from the lodging of the representation as established by precedent. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal is barred by limitation if filed beyond the prescribed period from the rejection of a departmental representation?
- When does time begin to run for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal if no communication regarding the disposal of a departmental representation is received?
- Section 3, Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.-The petitioner herein challenges his reversion from the post of "Senior Broadcast Engineer" to the post of "Broadcast Engineer" pursuant to the exercise of powers under section 3 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. This order is dated the 3rd of December, 1978.
2. ' The petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Broadcast Engineer on some date between 1st of January, 1972 and 5th of July, 1977 which apparently was irregular although no reason was assigned for his reversion. The petitioner thereupon sent a representation against this order on the 14th of December, 1978, but as no decision was taken, he sent a petition on the 3rd of September, 1980 to the President and the Chief Martial Law Administrator. He was informed by letter dated the 21st of January, 1981, by the C. M. L. A's. Office that his departmental appeal was rejected on the 27th March, 1980. Lastly, he filed an appeal on the 9th of February, 1981, before the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation by order dated the 26th of April, 1983, The Tribunal held that after the receipt of the letter dated the 27th of March, 1980, informing him of the dismissal of his representation he should have preferred an appeal within 30 days, but not having done so his appeal was time-barred. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that although the appeal was barred by over nine months yet no application for condonation of delay was filed.
3. ' The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal erroneously computed the time from the receipt of the letter dated the 27th of March 1980, but, in fact, no such communication was received by the petitioner, and it was only on the receipt of the letter dated the 21st of January, 1981, that the petitioner came to know about the rejection of his representation. If time was calculated from the date of this letter then the appeal was within time. Be that as it may, if the petitioner failed to receive any communication in regard to the disposal of his departmental representation then he should have filed an appeal within 120 days from the date of the lodging of his representation as held by this Court in Kadir Bux v. Province of Sind and another . No legal justification was made out either before the Service Tribunal or before us as to why the petitioner waited beyond this period for lodging the appeal.
4. ' There is, therefore, no force in this petition, which is dismissed. 1982 SCM R 582
Cited by 1 case
- Dr.Mrs. NOUSHABA SYED vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES 2004 PLC (C.S.) 480