ZIA MOHIUDDIN KHAN vs SECRETARY GENERAL, FINANCE And 4 Other
The petitioner, an Inspector in the Department of Central Excises and Land Customs, sought leave to appeal against the order of the Services Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal as barred by time. The core legal question revolved around whether the petitioner was entitled to exclude the time spent on making multiple representations under the Civil Servants Act for the purpose of computing the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Services Tribunal was correct in dismissing the appeal as time-barred, finding that the statutory provision does not permit a series of successive representations to continuously extend the limitation period. The key principle laid down is that the making of multiple or second representations does not entitle a civil servant to exclude time under the law for the purpose of overcoming limitation delays in service appeals.
- Whether multiple representations made by a civil servant extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Can time spent on a second representation be excluded for computing the period of limitation under the Civil Servants Act?
- Whether an appeal filed before the Service Tribunal beyond the prescribed period of one month is liable to be dismissed as time-barred?
- Section 22(2), Civil Servants Act 1973
- Section 4, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, J.--The petitioner was appointed as an Inspector in the Department of Central Excises and Land Customs in 1943. In 1977 his claim for the counting of war service .For seniority from 1-6-1941 was accepted. On 5-1-1972 he applied for permission to proceed on L.P.R. For one year. The Central Board of Revenue accepted it on 19-2-1972 and the same was conveyed to him in May, 1972. Meanwhile the appellant requested for withdrawal of the option for retirement, vide telegram, dated 17-3-1972. On 24-9-1972 the Central Board of Revenue informed him that they were not prepared to change the decision. He claimed to know about it on 24-11-1973. He approached the Services Tribunal which threwout his appeal on the ground of limitation.
Hence this petition for special leave to appeal.
2. It is not denied that the final reply by the Finance, Secretary was received by the appellant on 18-3-1977 but he submitted his appeal to the Service Tribunal on 2-10-1977, that is to say, much beyond the period of one month which is allowed for filing such appeal. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was allowed under section 22(2) of the Civil Servants Act to make a representation and since he made several representations he was entitled to exclude time taken by him in making these representation without computing the purpose of filing the appeal. It was under this law that the petitioner submitted that he made a representation on 5-6-1977 to the Secretary Ministry of Finance and that he had to wait for ninety days under section 4 of the said Act if the appeal is not disposed of.
3. This was a second representation and the Tribunal was therefore right in not permitting the petitioner to take advantage of it because section 22(2) of Act LXXI of 1973 does not permit a number out representations to be made. We, therefore, agree with the Tribunal that the appeal before it was barred by time and consequently decline to interfere with its order and, therefore, dismiss the petition and decline to grant leave to appeal.