ATIQ AHMAD KHAN vs CHAIRMAN, P.O.F. WAH CANTT. And Another
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner was removed from service on 18-9-1986 for prolonged absence from duty. After his initial removal, he pursued various representations and a mercy petition, the final rejection of which was communicated on 29th October, 1988, before approaching the Service Tribunal in November, 1989. The core legal question was whether the time spent pursuing mercy petitions and miscellaneous representations extends the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal correctly concluded that the appeal was time-barred, as miscellaneous applications and mercy petitions do not earn condonation of delay in service matters. The key principle laid down is that the pursuit of extra-statutory representations or mercy petitions does not extend the prescribed period of limitation for approaching a service tribunal.
- Does the time spent in making mercy petitions or miscellaneous representations extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Is an appeal filed before the Federal Service Tribunal long after the original removal order maintainable when the intervening delay is only explained by unauthorized representations?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 19-12-1988 whereby his appeal was dismissed as time-barred.
2. The petitioner was removed from service on 18-9-1986 for absence from duty from 28-11-1984 to 13-9-86. He claims to have filed an appeal to the Prime Minister, the very next month. He then kept on repeating his representations and one such representation which is described as a mercy petition was disposed of on 29th October, 1988 informing him that his case had been reconsidered and it was found not possible to reopen the case afresh as it stood rejected by the competent authority. In November, 1989, he approached the Service Tribunal. The Tribunal held that there was no provision for a mercy petition against the orders passed in disciplinary cases and time spent in making miscellaneous applications did not earn condonation in service matters. Treating the appeal as time-barred, it was rejected.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was final order which was communicated to him and so the petitioner was within time in approaching the Tribunal.
4. The original order was dated 18-9-1986 and his appeal had been filed the very next month. He has not been able to explain the intervening period except by reference to Miscellaneous applications and such applications do not earn condonation. The Tribunal has correctly held that the appeal was time-barred and has rightly declined to entertain it. No ground is made out and leave to appeal is refused.