SHAUKAT AL1 vs THE COMMISSIONER and 2 others
This matter arises from a petition filed by a Superintendent in the Office of the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, who sought leave preparatory to retirement (L.P.R.) before attaining the age of superannuation. Following the enhancement of the retirement age under the Interim Constitution, the petitioner applied for the cancellation of his L.P.R., which was refused by the competent authorities, culminating in a final order by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner subsequently filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, Lahore, which was dismissed as time-barred due to the absence of any application for the condonation of delay. The core legal question was whether the appeal before the Service Tribunal was barred by limitation and whether a final order had been passed by the competent authority. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Commissioner had indeed passed a final order and that the appeal before the Service Tribunal was patently time-barred without an application for condonation of delay, thereby upholding the Service Tribunal's decision and dismissing the petition. The key principle laid down is that failure to file an appeal within the prescribed limitation period without seeking condonation of delay justifies its dismissal.
- Whether an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal without an application for condonation of delay can be entertained when patently time-barred?
- Does a refusal of representation by higher authorities extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
ORDER
' MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.-- The petitioner who was Superintendent in the Office of the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division and was to attain the age of superannuation (55 years) on 10-4-1977 applied to the Commissioner on 7-1-1972 for leave preparatory to retirement for one year. He proceeded on said leave from the 11th of April, 1972. On the enforcement of the Interim Constitution the age of retirement was raised to 58 years and consequently on 11-7-1972 he applied for cancellation of his L.P.R. The request was turned down as were representations made by him to various authorities.
Finally on 19-1-1976 the Board of Revenue put a seal of approval on the L.P.R. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, Lahore, on 5-7-1976. The appeal was patently time-barred and since there was no application for the condonation of delay. The appeal was rejected.
2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner before us that no final order had been passed by the Commissioner and there was, therefore, no delay. This is a preposterous proposition. A The Commissioner had passed a final order in the case and it was after that the party knocked the doors of other authorities. We find, therefore, no fault with the order of the Service Tribunal and dismiss this petition. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.