ISHTIAO AHMED vs THE MEMBER, FINANCE, RAILWAY BOARD, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD And 3 Others
This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal as time-barred. The core legal question concerns the computation of limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal where the adverse departmental order withdrawing advance increments granted under an Incentive Scheme was never communicated to the civil servant, and payments continued to be made. The Supreme Court found force in the contention that the withdrawal order dated 25-9-1989 was never communicated to the petitioner, as evidenced by the continuous payment of increments up to February 1990, and that knowledge of the order was only acquired when deductions were made. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a decision on merits. The key principle established is that limitation for filing an appeal against a departmental order begins from the date of communication or actual knowledge of the order, and non-communication vitiates the plea of limitation.
- Does limitation for filing a service appeal run from the date of an uncommunicated departmental order?
- Whether continued payment of a benefit indicates lack of communication of its withdrawal order?
ORDER
1. WALI MUHAMMAD KHAN, J: --Ishtiaq Ahmed, petitioner herein, calls in question the judgment dated 26-4-1993 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, whereby his appeal against the order of the authority declining his prayer for restitution of advance increments withdrawn from him on 25-9-1989, was dismissed.
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the petitioner graduated from the Sindh University on 2- 11-1981 while serving as Upper Division Clerk in the Railways, and on his application, four advance increments under the Incentive Scheme were granted to him with effect from 2-11-1981, the date on which he improved his qualifications which he received uptill February, 1990. Admittedly this concession was withdrawn vide order dated 25-9-1989 but the order was never communicated to him, so much so, that he was paid the increments even alongwith the pay of February paid to him in the month of March. According to him, he got knowledge of the order on 11-4-1990 when the increments had been deducted from his pay for the month of March. His representation having failed, he preferred appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which was dismissed as time-- barred.
3. We have heard Ch. Abdur Rehman, Advocate for the petitioner, and have perused the record of the case.
4. The documents placed on the file reveal that the department continued paying the increments up to the end of February, 1990 and, as such, there is force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 25-9-1989 through which the advance increments were, withdrawn from the petitioner was never communicated to him.