Pakistan Case LawARMY NO. 8470067 MUHAMMAD FARRUKH BASHIR BHATTI Versus ENGINEERINCHIEF, GHQ, RAWALPINDI and another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed his service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner contended that after his departmental representation against adverse ACR entries was disposed of, he filed an appeal under the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, which was later returned as not maintainable. He argued that the time spent pursuing that appeal constituted a valid ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Service Tribunal under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court found the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel to require consideration and accordingly granted leave to appeal.
- Whether the time spent pursuing an incompetent appeal before an appellate authority constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does the pursuit of a mistaken remedy before an appellate authority attract the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
ORDER
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 9-6-1994 whereby the learned Tribunal dismissed Service Appeal of the petitioner as time-barred.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after the disposal of his representation by the Departmental Authority against adverse entries in the ACR he preferred a regular appeal under the provisions of Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977 to the Appellate Authority which was returned on 13-4-1994 with the observation that the appeal is not maintainable, and within one month of the order of the Appellate Authority the appeal was presented before the Service Tribunal. The learned counsel accordingly contends that in these circumstances even if it was found that the appeal before the Appellate Authority filed by the petitioner under the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977 was not competent it was valid ground for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal both under section 5 and section 14 of the Limitation Act.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel require consideration and we accordingly grant leave to appeal. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Judges on this bench
- Saiduzzaman Siddiqui789 judgments
- Mukhtar Ahmed Junejo485 judgments