SAFDAR ALI RANDHAWA vs SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, LAHORE
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal as withdrawn. The petitioner, a civil servant, had been retired under Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Following the dismissal of his initial departmental appeal, he filed a second, unauthorized appeal to the Secretary of the Agriculture Department, subsequently approaching the Service Tribunal after that was also dismissed. The petitioner contended that he had not withdrawn his appeal before the Tribunal and challenged the validity of his retirement based on Shariat rulings declaring provisions allowing retirement without show-cause notices as un-Islamic. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred, as he had no legal justification for pursuing a second departmental appeal rather than approaching the Tribunal after the first appeal. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Shariat jurisdiction decisions do not have retrospective effect. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, finding no grounds for interference with the Tribunal's order.
- Is a second departmental appeal, not provided for in service rules, a valid ground for condoning delay in approaching the Service Tribunal?
- Do decisions rendered under Shariat jurisdiction have retrospective effect on service matters?
- Does the filing of an unauthorized second departmental appeal toll the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Section 12(ii), Punjab Civil Servants Act 1974
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 3-8-1991 dismissing the service appeal of the petitioner as withdrawn.
2. The petitioner retired from the service on completion of 25 years of service by reference to clause
(ii) of Section 12 of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, on 7-5-1986. He appealed against his retirement but it was dismissed on 13-4-1987. He preferred a second appeal on 19-9-1987 which was dismissed on 5-7-1989. This second appeal was addressed to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Agriculture Department, Lahore. The reason for filing a second appeal not warranted in the Rules of service was provided by submitting that the post which the petitioner was holding before his retirement stood upgraded and his promotion had been ante-dated entitling him to prefer an appeal to the Secretary of the Government. On dismissal of the appeal he came before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has recorded that he had withdrawn his service appeal. The petitioner states that in fact he had not withdrawn the appeal, and that he wanted to press it. He relies on the judgment in the domain of Shariat whereby .This provision or such provisions empowering the Government to retire without show-cause notice have been held to be un-islamic and ultra-vices.
3. From the facts stated, even if we ignore what the Service Tribunal has recorded about the departmental appeal having been withdrawn by the petitioner himself, his appeal before the Tribunal was time-barred because to the Secretary to the Government and waiting for his order and then there was no justification for the petitioner preferring the second appeal coming to the Service Tribunal. He should have, after filing first appeal within period specified, approached the Service Tribunal. Besides, the decisions in the Shariat jurisdiction have not been given retrospective effect.
4. No case is made out for interference. Hence, leave to appeal is refused.