Dr. ABDUL HALIM vs SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others
This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's service appeal by the Punjab Service Tribunal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner challenged adverse entries recorded in his Annual Confidential Reports for the years 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1982. After his departmental representation was rejected, he approached the Tribunal with a delay of 58 days, explaining that he was mistaken about the limitation period. The Tribunal found the explanation unsatisfactory and dismissed the appeal as time-barred. The core legal question is whether the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay in filing the service appeal gives rise to a question of law warranting interference by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the determination of whether a case for condonation of delay is made out on facts falls within the exclusive domain of the Tribunal, and its decision thereon does not raise any question of law. Leave to appeal was accordingly refused, affirming that factual findings on limitation by the Tribunal are final.
- Whether the determination of a case for condonation of delay by the Service Tribunal gives rise to a question of law?
- Is a mistaken belief regarding the limitation period a sufficient ground to interfere with the Service Tribunal's finding on delay?
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---In the Annual Confidential Reports of the petitioner for parts of the years 1977, 1978, 1979 and 1982, adverse entries were recorded. These were communicated to him by a letter dated 22-5-1984. He filed a representation for the expunction of these entries. His representation was rejected. He then preferred an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. This was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. It is not disputed that the petitioner's appeal before the learned Tribunal was out of time by 58 days. When called upon to explain the delay by the learned Tribunal, he stated that he was mistaken about the period within which the appeal had to be filed. The learned Tribunal did not find this explanation to be satisfactory.
3. The question whether on facts a case for condonation of delay had been made out was one for the Tribunal to decide. Its decision in this regard does not give rise to any question of law. Leave is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- ABDUL GHANI CHANNA vs VAKIL AHMED KHAN and another 2007 PLC (C.S.) 839