MUHAMMAD WASEEM vs CHIEF POST MASTER, G.P.O., GUJRAT And Another
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal on the grounds of limitation. The petitioner, a temporary Postal Clerk, had his services terminated after failing to appear before a selection committee. Following the rejection of his departmental representation, he filed an appeal before the Tribunal, which was time-barred. The petitioner sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, citing vague 'unavoidable reasons,' which the Tribunal found insufficient. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner attempted to introduce new grounds for delay, specifically claiming illness supported by medical certificates. The Supreme Court held that it could not grant leave to appeal based on a ground (illness) that was never urged or pleaded before the Tribunal. Affirming the Tribunal's reliance on established precedent regarding the sufficiency of grounds for condonation, the Court ruled that the Tribunal correctly exercised its discretion in refusing to condone the delay. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
- Can a petitioner introduce new grounds for condonation of delay before the Supreme Court that were not raised before the lower Tribunal?
- Is a vague plea of 'unavoidable reasons' sufficient to justify condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when the underlying service appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal due to time-barring and lack of sufficient cause for delay?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
ORDER
AJMAL MIAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 23-12-1989 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No.310(R)/88 filed by the petitioner, dismissing the same on the, ground of limitation.
2. The facts to be noted are that on 13-6-1988 the petitioner was appointed as a Postal Clerk (B-7) in Gujrat Postal Division until further orders against a vacant post on the condition that his appointment was purely on temporary basis and his services could be terminated at any time without assigning any notice or reason. It appears that as the petitioner was at S.No. 7 in the list of the dependants of the employees of the department, he was not hopeful of being regularly appointed in a post in the said Division. He, therefore, applied to the Post Master General to be shifted to the Gujrat. G.P.O. Which was separate . Administrative unit. Thereupon, he was asked to appear before the Selection Committee, pertaining to G.P.O., Gujrat Division. However, he did not appear before the said Committee. Thereupon his services were terminated by an order dated 20- 7-1988. Against the above order, the petitioner filed departmental representation on 21-7-1988 which was declined. Thereupon, he filed the service appeal before the Tribual on 13-12-1988 as per averments contained in para. 1 of the memo. Of petition for leave to appeal. Since the above appeal was time-barred, the petitioner filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for the condonation of delay on the ground that on account of "unavoidable reasons" he was unable to file the same within the prescribed limitation but the Tribunal found the above ground insufficient to condone the delay and, therefore, dismissed the above appeal by the impugned judgment. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition, Ch. Muhammad Akram, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioner, has contended that factually the petitioner was sick and, therefore, he could not file the service appeal within the prescribed period and, therefore, the Tribunal should have condoned the delay. In support of his above submission, he has shown two alleged medical certificates recently obtained by the petitioner. However, we find from the contents of the petitioner's application under section 5 of the Limitation Act that no such plea was raised before the Tribunal and the reason for the delay as observed hereinabove given was "unavoidable reasons" which was found not sufficient by the Tribunal. We cannot grant leave on a ground which was not even urged before the Tribunal for the condonation of delay. The Tribunal has declined to condone the delay upon relying the' judgment of this Court in the case of Qazi Sardar Bahadur v Secretary, Ministry of Health (1984 SCMR 177). We see no reason to grant leave to appeal. Leave is accordingly refused.