ISHTIAQ AHMED vs THE MEMBER, FINANCE, RAILWAY BOARD, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and 3 others (Copy)
This matter arises from a petition challenging the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding the restitution of advance increments as time-barred. The core legal question is whether the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal runs from the date of the departmental order or from the date of its communication to the aggrieved civil servant. The Supreme Court found that the withdrawal order passed by the department was never communicated to the petitioner, and the department continued paying the increments up to February, 1990, with knowledge of the order only arising when deductions were made. The court held that an uncommunicated administrative order cannot adversely affect a civil servant or trigger the period of limitation against them. The key principle laid down is that limitation for filing departmental appeals or service tribunal appeals commences from the date of actual or constructive communication of the adverse order to the affected employee, and departments cannot take advantage of their own failure to communicate orders.
- Does limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal run from the date of an uncommunicated departmental order?
- Can an administrative order withdrawing financial benefits take effect without being communicated to the civil servant?
- Whether the continued payment of disputed increments constitutes evidence of lack of communication of a 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whereby his appeal against the order of the authority declining his prayer for restitution of advance increments withdrawn from him on 25-9-1989, was dismissed.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 uptil 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 Admittedly this concession was withdrawn vide order dated 25-9-1989 but the order was never communicated to him, so much so, that he was paid the increments even alongwith the pay of February paid to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.