GHULAM HAIDER CHANNA R vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND And Another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Sind Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against his retirement from service as time-barred. The petitioner was retired from government service on 16 October 1976 upon completing 25 years of qualifying service. He failed to file an appeal before the Service Tribunal within the prescribed period of limitation, instead pursuing remedies under Martial Law Order 23. Although a Review Board recommended relief, the competent authority rejected his petition in 1978. After pursuing other unsuccessful avenues, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal in 1984, which was dismissed due to the significant delay. The Supreme Court examined the circumstances and affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the appeal was clearly barred by time. The Court found no factual or legal error in the Tribunal's reasoning, emphasizing that the petitioner failed to adhere to the statutory limitation period, and consequently dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Can an appeal before the Service Tribunal be entertained when filed several years after the impugned retirement order?
- Does the pursuit of remedies under Martial Law Order 23 toll the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Martial Law Order 23
ORDER
1. ABDUL KADIR SHAIKH, J.--This is a petition for leave to appeal from the order of Sind Service Tribunal dated 29-7-1984 dismissing an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Provincial Government dated 16-10-1976 retiring him from service on completion of 25 years of service qualifying for pension. The appeal was mainly dismissed on the ground that it was time- barred. Having been filed as late as 9th May, 1984 when the impugned order sought to be challenged was passed as long ago as 16th October, 1976.
2. Petitioner who appears in person in support of the petition admits that he had not sought the normal remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal against the impugned order of his retirement from service within the period of limitation, and that he however sought remedy under the provisions of Martial Law Order 23 and although the Review Board constituted under the Martial Law Order recommended the acceptance of the petition, yet the competent authority under paragraph 5 of the Martial Law Order rejected his petition and the order in this behalf was conveyed to him under letter dated 8-10-1978. The petitioner then sought several other remedies but all these failed and finally the appeal by him before the Service Tribunal was also dismissed mainly on the ground that it was barred by time.
3. After having heard the petitioner in support of the petition, we find that no exception on facts or law can be taken against the view that have prevailed with the Service Tribunal in dismissing petitioner's appeal as barred by time. The petition is therefore dismissed.