Khan Sahib SHER MUHAMMAD MIR vs ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Central Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal regarding the restoration of his full pension benefits as time-barred and without merit. The petitioner, a retired Deputy Secretary, sought restoration of his full pension after repaying the commuted portion. Following a rejection by the Ministry of Finance in 1981, the petitioner engaged in repeated departmental representations rather than filing a timely appeal before the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing departmental representations after a final order could be excluded from the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was correctly dismissed as time-barred, affirming that time spent on repeated representations and reminders to higher authorities cannot be excluded from the statutory period of limitation. The Court established the principle that departmental redress must be sought within the prescribed legal framework, and failing to file an appeal within the statutory period after a final order renders the claim time-barred, regardless of subsequent representations.
- Can the time spent on repeated departmental representations and reminders be excluded from the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Is an appeal before the Service Tribunal time-barred if filed after the statutory period following the communication of a final order from the Ministry of Finance?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 7-10-1984 of the Central Service Tribunal; whereby a service appeal relating to petitioner's pensioner benefits, was dismissed as time-barred as also without merit.
2. The petitioner had retired as Deputy Secretary in 1953. By 1963 he had paid back the commuted portion of pension to the Government. He, therefore, sought the restoration of full pension to him from the year 1963. The Ministry of Finance, vide their letter, dated 26th December, 1981, turned down his request. The petitioner, however, addressed representations and letters to the Ministry as also to the President several times but ultimately finding no favourable response, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 19-1-1983. The Tribunal held that the petitioner should have filed the appeal within 30 days of the communication of a letter of Finance Ministry, dated 26-12- 1981. As he failed to do so till 19th January, 1983, the appeal was time-barred. The Tribunal also was of the view that the petitioner's case was weak on merits. Accordingly, his appeal was dismissed 'both on grounds of limitation and for want of merit'. Leave to appeal has, therefore, been sought from the impugned judgment.
3. The petitioner has himself appeared and argued the case on merits. There might be some force in it, but we do not want to make any comments on it as in our view the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was time-barred.
4. The petitioner himself has admitted in the Petition for Leave to Appeal that after the receipt of the letter, dated 26th December, 1981, he approached 'the higher authorities concerned--F. Ms. Etc. And the President He had made similar statement in his grounds of appeal submitted before the Tribunal. According to him, it was necessary to seek departmental redress, and thus, he did so by writing letters and reminders to the higher authorities.
5. Under the law the petitioner could have challenged the order, dated 26-12-1981 before one higher forum and after waiting for the prescribed period he could file an appeal before the Tribunal.
6. Instead he kept on making representations and sending reminders to the higher authorities. The time thus spent, as held by this Court, cannot be excluded from period of limitation. See: Shafqat Ahmad v. Government of Punjab 1986 SCMR 30. The petitioner's appeal, therefore, was rightly held by the Tribunal to be time-barred and was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
7. We, however, feel that in dismissing the appeal as time-barred the Tribunal in the peculiar circumstances of this case, should not have made any remarks about the merits of the case. It is, therefore, observed that they shall not operate against him if he makes any fresh representation.
8. With these observations, this petition is dismissed.
Cited by 10 cases
- ATTAULLAH BROHI vs SINDH AGRICULTURAL SUPPLIES ORGANIZATION through Managing Director, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 3 others 2004 PLC (C.S.) 1300
- MUHAMMAD YOUSUF vs INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, PUNJAB CIVIL 2003 PLC (C.S.) 675
- Dr, FIDA MUHAMMAD vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD 2002 PLC (C.S.) 474
- Major (R.) KHALID LATIF CHAUDHRY vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, ISLAMABAD and 3 others 1999 PLC (C.S.) 510
- ANWAR MUHAMMAD Versus GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE 1995 PLC(CS) 1157
- PROVINCE OF SIND Versus MUHAMMAD NAWAB 1989 CLC 2110
- S. ZAHID HASAN vs CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE and 4 others 1989 PLC (C.S.) 656
- KHALID KARIM CHAUDHRY and others vs THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE and 3 others 2002 PLC (C.S.) 1113
- Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad FAZAL ZAMAN vs DIRECTOR GENERAL 2016 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 307
- MUHAMMAD NAWAZ MINHAS vs DIRECTOR GENERAL, PAKISTAN RANGERS 2017 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 9