Mian SHAH AHMAD vs KHURSHID ALAM BHATTI and others
This is a petition for special leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal against the anti-dated pro forma promotions of respondents Nos.1 to 3 as Principals in Government Commercial Training Institutes. The core legal question concerns the computation of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal when successive departmental representations are made against the same grievance. The Supreme Court held that the limitation period begins from the rejection of the first departmental representation and cannot be extended by filing a second representation seeking the same relief. The court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the appeal was barred by time and dismissed the petition, establishing that repeated representations do not furnish a fresh starting point for limitation.
- Whether the filing of a second departmental representation against the same grievance extends the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Does the limitation period for an appeal before the Service Tribunal run from the rejection of the first departmental representation?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment, dated 3-8- 1982 of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the petitioner's appeal against certain anti-dated pro forma promotions of respondents Nos.1 to 3 was dismissed. By Notification dated 27-9-1975 respondents Nos.1 to 3 were promoted as Principals in Government Commercial Training Institutes with effect from 1-7-1967 and 2-5-1968. On 28-10-1975, the petitioner filed a departmental representation challenging their promotions from back dates. His representation was rejected on 19-11-1975. The petitioner kept quiet till 30-6-1977 when he filed another representation to the same effect. This second representation was rejected on 8-1-1980. He then filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal on 17-2-1980. It was dismissed inter alia on the ground that it was barred by time.
2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are not persuaded that the view taken by the learned Tribunal on the question of limitation suffers from any infirmity. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that for the purpose of limitation the date of rejection of the second representation should be treated as the starting point. It is difficult to accept this contention, for, he concedes that in the second representation he was seeking the same relief as he had sought in the first representation. This petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.