Mirza AFZAL BAIG vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal concerning a claim for promotion to BPS-18 and condonation of delay. The core legal questions involve whether the service appeal was barred by limitation under the Service Tribunals Act 1973 and whether matters relating to the determination of fitness for promotion are barred from the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under proviso (b) to Section 4(1) of the said Act. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Service Tribunal rightly concluded the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period without sufficient ground for condonation and that it was barred under proviso (b) to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 regarding determination of promotion. The petition was accordingly dismissed as disclosing no legal error or question of public importance.
- Whether an appeal before the Service Tribunal filed beyond the prescribed period after exhausting departmental remedies is liable to be dismissed for limitation?
- Does proviso (b) to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 bar an appeal relating to the determination of fitness for promotion?
- Can leave to appeal be granted against a service tribunal order when no question of public importance or legal error is made out?
- Section 4(1), Service Tribunals Act 1973
' MUHAMMAD RAF1Q TARAR, J.---Mirza Afzal Baig petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal dated 3-8-1993 whereby his service Appeal No, 223-R of 1993 was dismissed.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Section Officer on ad-hoc basis in April 1975. He was placed on regular basis with effect from 4-3-1986 and continued till 2-6-1992 when he sought voluntary retirement from service. He maintained that some of his colleagues were promoted in BPS-18 and he was also entitled to same relief with effect, from 17-9-1986. He made an application to the Establishment Division on 21-11-1992 but without any response. Then he filed appeal before the Tribunal on 24-7-1993. Alongwith the appeal he filed an application for condonation of delay. The learned Federal Service Tribunal held that after filing the departmental appeal on 21-11-1992 the appellant Was required to file the appeal within 120 days but he filed the same much after the prescribed period and there 'was no good ground for condonation of delay. It was further held that the appeal was hit by proviso (b) to Section 4(1) of the Service Tribunal Act because it related to 'determination for promotion'.
3. We have heard the petitioner in person. He has not been able to point out any infirmity or legal error in the impugned judgment nor any question of public importance is involved. There is no merit in this petition and the same dismissed.