Qazi SARDAR BAHADAR vs SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH, ISLAMABAD AND OTHERS
The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk, challenged the termination of his services after overstaying his ex-Pakistan leave. Having gone abroad in June 1978, the petitioner sought multiple extensions, eventually requesting a five-year extension in March 1980. However, his services had already been terminated effective December 1979. Upon receiving notice of termination in April 1980, the petitioner did not seek reinstatement until November 1982. His subsequent departmental appeal was rejected as time-barred, a decision upheld by the Federal Service Tribunal on May 22, 1983. The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed the matter, considering the significant delay in challenging the termination. The Court held that there were no sufficient grounds to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, as the departmental appeal was hopelessly time-barred. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, reinforcing the principle that administrative remedies must be pursued within the prescribed statutory limitation periods and that unexplained, substantial delays in challenging termination orders preclude judicial intervention.
- Can a service appeal be entertained when the departmental appeal is hopelessly time-barred?
- Does the failure to challenge a termination order within the prescribed limitation period preclude judicial relief?
ORDER
' M. S. H. QURAISHI, J.-The petitioner, an Upper Division Clerk in the Central Government Hospital, Rawalpindi, went abroad on 7th June, 1978 on four months' ex-Pakistan leave. According to him, the leave had been extended by another four months and then for six months. He applied for further extension of the leave for a period of five years in March, 1980 but in the meantime his services had been terminated with effect from 12- 12-1979, the intimation of which was received by him while still abroad on 17-4-1980. He applied for reinstatement on 18-11-1982 but the same was rejected on 6-3- 983, against which he preferred an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal. The Tribunal declined to interfere as in its view the appeal filed by the petitioner in the Department had been hopelessly time-barred and had been rightly dismissed. The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the petitioner's appeal by the impugned order dated 22-5-1983.
2. We have heard the petitioner in person but we find no good ground to interfere. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused. ,
Cited by 13 cases
- Muhammad Furqan Khan vs Chief Secretary, Government of Balochistan 2022 PLC (C.S.) 1459
- Haji ABDUL QAYYUM vs CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER/CEO MEPCO and 2 others 2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 52
- SECRETARY (C&W) PUNJAB LAHORE etc vs ZAFAR IQBAL, etc 2019 PLJ Tr.C. (Labour) 47
- SECRETARY (C&W) PUNJAB LAHORE Versus ZAFAR IQBAL 2019 PLC 79
- ASHRAF SUGAR MILLS LIMITED Versus ABDUL GHAFFAR 2018 PLCN 5
- Sheikh LAEEQ AHMAD Versus SHABBIR AHMAD 2017 CLCN 37
- MUHAMMAD AZAM Versus ABDUL QAYYUM KHAN 2017 CLCN 48
- MUNIR AHMAD vs CHAIRMAN, WAPDA 2010 SCMR 1982
- MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs I.G. ISLAMABAD, etc. 2011 PLJ SC 297
- MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and others 2011 SCMR 8
- MUHAMMAD ISLAM vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL, ISLAMABAD and others 2011 PLC (C.S.) 1
- MUHAMMAD WASEEM vs CHIEF POST MASTER, G.P.O., GUJRAT And Another 1991 SCMR 1792
- Present: Shafiur Rahman, Afmal Mian and Rustam S. Sidhwa, H FAZAL ELAHI 1990 PLD Supreme Court 692