ABDUL KARIM vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding his service grade placement. The petitioner, a former Secretary/Chief Officer in the Town Committee of Rajanpur, challenged his induction into the junior grade of class II service, arguing he should have been placed in the senior grade, similar to two other officers whose representations for grade upgrades were accepted by the Government in 1981. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal was time-barred and whether he had a valid claim on merits. The Supreme Court held that the petition was barred by four days, for which no satisfactory explanation was provided. Furthermore, the Court found no merit in the case, noting that the petitioner's initial grade placement occurred in 1964 and he failed to challenge it for nearly two decades. Consequently, the Court upheld the Service Tribunal's decision that the appeal was time-barred and dismissed the petition, reinforcing the principle that inordinate, unexplained delay in challenging administrative service decisions renders claims non-maintainable.
- Does an inordinate delay of nearly two decades in challenging a service grade placement render an appeal before the Service Tribunal time-barred?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when the petitioner fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for a delay in filing?
ORDER
' SAAD SA OOD JAN, J.--The petitioner joined service as Secretary/Chief Officer on 26-4-1963 in the Town Committee of Rajanpur in district Dera Ghazi Khan. On 8-10-1963, the West Pakistan Local Councils and the Municipal Committees Service Rules were published. In accordance with the rules the West Pakistan Local Council Service was constituted. On 6-4-1964, the petitioner was inducted into the service in the junior grade of class II.
2. Ghulam Farid and Pir Muhammad Shah who were serving as Chief Officers in the Municipal Committees of Leiah and Pakpattan, respectively, were similarly inducted into the service in the junior grade of class II. They made representations to the Government for being placed in the senior grade on account of the status of the Committees in which they were working, their lengths of service and the salaries they were drawing at the time of induction. By an order dated 22-74981 the Government accepted their representations and placed them in the senior grade. After the acceptance of their representations, the petitioner also made a similar representation which was rejected by the Government whereupon he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that it was barred by time. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. This petition is barred by four days. The learned counsel is not in a position to give any satisfactory explanation for condonation of the delay. Even on merits, he does not appear to have any case. The order by which the petitioner was placed in the junior grade was made on as far back as 6-4-1964. It does not appear that he made any representation seeking the senior grade for almost two decades. The learned Tribunal was therefore right in holding that his appeal was barred by time. The petition is accordingly dismissed.