MAOBOOL ALAM MAZARI vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner, an Assistant Director in the Labour Welfare Directorate, was retired from service on 22-5-1986 upon completing 25 years of qualifying service. He initially challenged this retirement order via a writ petition in the High Court, which he subsequently withdrew before filing an appeal with the Service Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal correctly dismissed the appeal as time-barred, given the petitioner's claim that the retirement order was not communicated to him. The Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, noting that the appeal was filed well beyond the prescribed 30-day limitation period. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's finding that the petitioner's knowledge of the retirement order was established by his own act of challenging that specific order in the High Court within a fortnight of its issuance. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Does the filing of a writ petition against a retirement order constitute sufficient evidence of knowledge of that order for the purpose of calculating the limitation period for a service appeal?
- Can a service appeal be entertained if it is filed beyond the statutory 30-day limitation period without valid grounds for condonation?
- Is a Service Tribunal justified in rejecting a plea for condonation of delay when the appellant had previously challenged the impugned order in the High Court?
ORDER
1. ' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---The petitioner was an Assistant Director in the Labour Welfare Directorate.
2. By a notification dated 22-5-1986 he was retired from service on completion of 25 years of service qualifying him for pension and other retirement benefits. He filed a writ petition in the High Court to call in question the legality of the order of retirement. Later he withdrew the writ petition and filed an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. It was dismissed as barred by time. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. ' The petitioner filed the appeal before the Tribunal more than two months after the order of retirement was made where the prescribed period for this purpose was 30 days from the date of communication of the order. His appeal was, therefore, clearly barred by time. He sought condonation of the delay by alleging that the order of retirement had not been communicated to him. The learned Tribunal rejected this explanation after finding that he had within a fortnight of the passing of the order challenged its legality in the High Court through an incompetent writ petition.
4. We can find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal in this regard. Leave is refused.