Rana MAHMOOD AHMAD vs WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
The petitioner, an ex-Line Superintendent, sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his appeal against removal from service under Section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. The Tribunal had rejected the petitioner's appeal on the grounds that it was time-barred and declined to exercise discretion in his favour, citing the principle that ignorance of law is no excuse. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner's counsel failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in invoking the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Consequently, the Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that in the absence of a valid justification for the delay, the court would not interfere with the Tribunal's refusal to condone the limitation period. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly declined.
- Can an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal be dismissed solely on the ground of limitation?
- Is ignorance of law a valid ground for condoning delay in filing an appeal?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with a Tribunal's refusal to exercise discretion regarding limitation when no satisfactory explanation for the delay is provided?
- Section 17(1-A), WAPDA Act 1958
ORDER
1. ' GHULAM MUJA DDID, J.--Rana Mahmood Ahmad son of Aleemuddin, ex-Line Superintendent Grade-I, Jauharabad Sub-Division seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 13-5-1984. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner which was against his removal from service under section 17(1-A) of the WAPDA Act. His appeal unfortunately was not considered on merits but was thrown out as being hopelessly barred by time.
2. ' Learned counsel appearing in support of this petition could not give any satisfactory explanation as to why jurisdiction of the Tribunal was invoked so late.
3. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the explanation offered by the petitioner and other circumstances declined to exercise discretion in favour of A the petitioner on the ground that "ignorance of law is no excuse.
4. ' Nothing can be done for the petitioner. Leave is declined.