Sufi SIDDIQUE AKBAR vs SECRETARY, F.W.L. and FISHERIES, PUNJAB
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by a civil servant against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal on the ground of limitation. The core legal question concerns the determination of the correct starting point for limitation in a service appeal where the petitioner challenged a departmental order regarding his scale of pay. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the special order passed on 5-6-1978 correctly served as the starting point for agitating the grievance, and subsequent delayed representations could not bridge the long gap of limitation. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on limitation as unexceptionable and dismissed the petition without entering into the merits. The key principle laid down is that repeated departmental representations do not extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal.
- What is the starting point for limitation in a service appeal involving a departmental grievance?
- Do repeated departmental representations extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-- Leave to appeal has been sought by a civil servant from judgment, dated 14-3-1983 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, whereby his service appeal was dismissed amongst others, on ground of limitation.
2. ' Learned counsel argued that if 30-6-1982, the date when dismissal of petitioner's departmental appeal was communicated would have been taken as the starting point for limitation, his appeal could have been held as within time. The petitioner was denied the relief he claimed in his departmental appeal, since 1975. However, a special order in that behalf was passed on 5-6-1978 which was rightly been held to be the starting point for agitating the grievance in departmental forum and then before the Service Tribunal. The contention of the learned counsel that this order was in favour of the petitioner is not tenable, as para. 2(ii) of this order regarding petitioner's scale of pay in N.P.S. 6 effective since 1-1-1975, remained throughout as his grievance which was agitated before the Tribunal, as also during the arguments before us. His representations before filing regular departmental appeal on 1-11-1981, are of no avail to him for bridging the long gap of limitation period. The decision of the Tribunal on question of limitation being unexceptionable, we dismiss this petition without going into the other questions of merits involved therein. 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.