SU BHANU DDIN vs DIRECTOR, ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL ENGINEERING, G.H.Q., RAWALPINDI
This matter arises from a petition directed against the judgment and order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the ground of limitation. The core legal question concerns whether the petitioner's service appeal before the Tribunal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation after the communication of the departmental order regarding his claim for a selection grade as a Stenographer. The Supreme Court held that the petition must be dismissed as the petitioner failed to file his appeal before the Tribunal within 30 days of the receipt of the order of the Ministry of Defence and did not file any application for condonation of delay. The key principle laid down is that statutory limitation periods for service appeals must be strictly adhered to, and an appeal filed beyond the prescribed period without an application for condonation of delay is incompetent and liable to be dismissed.
- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal filed beyond the period of thirty days from the communication of the departmental order is barred by limitation?
- Is it mandatory to file an application for condonation of delay when an appeal is filed after the expiry of the period of limitation?
ORDER
' MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- This petition is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, dated 29th August, 1983 whereby appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. The petitioner was serving as Stenographer in E.M.E. Workshop since 1st December, 1962, having joined Government service w,e,f, 28-1-1946. At that time there were two posts of stenographers in the E.M.E. Workshop but in 1969 the number was increased to three and the petitioner being the senior most, claimed selection grade as provided under Army Instructions Pakistan No,143/49. The claim for selection-grade was not granted to him on the ground that on the publication of the new pay-scales on 1-12-1962 the Army Instructions issued in 1963 did not mention of the pay-scales or selection-grade stenographers.
3. The petitioner made a representation on 25-3-1981 to the Ministry of Defence who, according to the petitioner, did not reply but a reply was received by him from the G.H.Q. That the petitioner's case was being considered by the Ministry of Defence. The petitioner waited for a reply for more than 90 days as required by law but nothing was heard and, therefore, he moved the Federal Service Tribunal on 2-9-1981 for adjudication of the dispute. The learned Tribunal found that the petitioner's case was unassailable and the Department's attitude was not logical. The appeal was, however, dismissed on the ground of limitation.
4. Petitioner was heard in person but he has not been able to show that the point regarding the limitation resulting in the dismissal of his appeal by the Service Tribunal was incorrect. As a matter of fact the order of the Ministry of Defence was communicated to the petitioner on 14-3-1981 which was impunged before the Tribunal. He should have preferred his appeal before the learned Tribunal within 30 days of the receipt of the said order. He failed to do so and filed the appeal as late as on 2-9-1981. Moreover, no application for the condonation of delay was filed by him. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Service Tribunal. . Petition dismissed.