S.M. TUFAIL AHMAD vs KAFILUDDIN AHMAD AND 2 Other
The petitioner, a former Assistant Administrative Officer, challenged the refusal of his request for a three-year extension in service beyond his superannuation date. He initially filed a civil suit seeking a declaration regarding his entitlement to the extension. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the abatement of the proceedings under the Service Tribunal Ordinance, 1973. The petitioner subsequently filed a review application, which was dismissed on grounds of being time-barred and lacking merit. A revision application to the High Court was also dismissed, affirming the trial court's decision. Upon seeking leave to appeal, the Supreme Court examined the procedural history. The Supreme Court held that the review application was clearly time-barred, having been filed eight months after the initial order, and the trial court correctly dismissed it on that basis. Consequently, the High Court's dismissal of the revision application was upheld. The Court affirmed the principle that a review application filed well beyond the statutory limitation period is not maintainable, and a revision against such a dismissal is liable to be rejected on that ground alone.
- Is a review application maintainable if filed after the expiration of the statutory limitation period?
- Does the promulgation of the Service Tribunal Ordinance 1973 cause the abatement of pending civil suits regarding service matters?
- Can a revision application be dismissed solely on the ground that the underlying review application was time-barred?
- Section 6, Service Tribunal Ordinance 1973
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.-- Petitioner who was serving as Assistant Administrative Officer in the Works and Rehabilitation Division of the Ministry of Labour and Works, Government of Pakistan was to retire from service on completion of his age of superannuation on 5-11-1967, but he was given one year's extension in service ending on 4-11-1968. He was then retired from service, and his request for further extension was refused. Afterwards, he proceeded on leave preparatory to retirement. However, on 30-11-1968 he filed a suit in the District Court, Karachi praying for grant of a declaration, inter alia, that he being physically and intellectually fit, his request for grant of extension in service for three years should not have been refused. The Additional District Judge, Karachi who dealt with the case dismissed the suit by the judgment dated 29-9-1973 for the reason that in the meanwhile Service Tribunal Ordinance was promulgated on 26-9-1973, and therefore, in view of the provisions of section 6 thereof, the suit stood abated. Petitioner filed review application against this judgment, but this was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi by the judgment dated 10-9-1974 on merits as well as for the following reasons:- "Besides a review application is competent only when it is preferred within a period of 90 days from the date of order; whereas it will appear in the present case that this application has been moved after a lapse of more than 8 months. Even on this account the application for review is barred and not maintainable in law. There is another aspect of the case namely that the plaintiff in suit had sought extension in service for a period of three years with effect from 4-11-1968 which period expired long ago and the relief sought in the suit even otherwise could not be legally granted to him. For these reasons I find no merit in this application which is hereby dismissed with costs."
2. Against this judgment petitioner filed a revision application in the Sind High Court which to was dismissed by a learned Judge of the High Court by the judgment dated 6-3-1983 on the ground, inter alia, that the suit filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed as having abated and since petitioner had filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal, according to the statement made by the learned counsel appearing for him, it will be heard and decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law, Petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the High Court, and he argued personally in support of the petition.
3. We find that apart from merits of the case learned Additional District Judge, Karachi dismissed the review application filed by the petitioner by the order dated 10-9-1974 on the ground that it was barred by the. Learned Judge in the High Court also noticed this fact. It was the order dated 10-9- 1974 dismissing the review application as the-barred that was challenged by the petitioner in the High Court in the revision application. Since the review application was obviously the-barred, no fault could be found with the learned Additional District Judge in dismissing it on that ground, and the revision application was also liable to be dismissed on that score alone. This petition therefore, has no merit, and is dismissed.