MUHAMMAD ANWAR vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others
This matter concerns petitions for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioners' appeals on the grounds of limitation. The petitioners, formerly registration clerks, challenged a 1979 government notification abolishing their cadre and reverting them to the Deputy Commissioner's establishment. Initially, the petitioners sought relief through civil suits and writ petitions in the High Court, which were dismissed or rejected on the basis that their proper remedy lay with the Service Tribunal. Upon subsequently approaching the Service Tribunal, their appeals were dismissed as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing remedies in civil courts and the High Court under mistaken legal advice could be excluded from the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to the deduction of the period spent in pursuing incorrect forums. The Court affirmed that mistaken legal advice does not constitute a valid ground for condoning delay or extending the limitation period for service appeals.
- Can the period spent pursuing a remedy in a civil court or High Court under mistaken legal advice be deducted when computing the limitation period for an appeal before a Service Tribunal?
- Does the dismissal of a writ petition on the ground that the remedy lies with the Service Tribunal entitle a petitioner to condonation of delay for the time spent in the High Court?
- Registration Act 1908
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These petitions for special leave to appeal arise from the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal whereby the petitioners appeals were dismissed on the ground of limitation.
2. Prior to 1963, there used to be officials, known as registration clerks, in the establishment of the Deputy Commissioners to attend to the work of registration of documents under the Registration Act. In 1963, a separate cadre known as the West Pakistan Registration Department Ministerial Establishment was constituted and the registation clerks were inducted into the cadre. By a notification issued on 28-1-1979, the cadre was abolished and the registration clerks were reverted to the Establishment of the Deputy commissioner as before. Except Mian Shams-ud-Din who filed a writ petition in the High Court, the other petitioners filed civil suits to call in question the ligality of the notification. The writ petition of Mian Shams-ud-Din was dismissed as incompetent on the ground that his remedy laid with the Service Tribunal. He filed an intra-Court appeal which was dismissed on 30-9-80. The suits filed by the other petitioners were withdrawn from various Civil Courts of the Province by the High Court to itself and by an order dated 20-10-1981 a learned Single Judge rejected the plaints on the same ground. The petitioners then filed appeals before the Provincial Service Tribunal. As already indicated, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as barred by time.
3. In support of these petitions it is contended that the petitioners had taken resort to the Civil Court and the High Court under mistaken legal advice and for that reason they were entitled, in computing limitation, to the deduction of the period which they had spent in pursuing their remedy in the Civil Courts or the High Court. The learned Tribunal examined this plea and for cogent reason rejected it. We find no basis to take a different view in the matter. These petitions are accordingly dismissed.