Mirza AFZAL BAIG vs SECRETARY, ESTABLISHMENT DIVISION, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD and another
The petitioner, a former Section Officer, sought leave to appeal against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that dismissed his service appeal regarding a claim for promotion to BPS-18. The petitioner, who had voluntarily retired, contended he was entitled to promotion retrospectively from 1986, similar to his colleagues. The Tribunal had dismissed his appeal on two primary grounds: first, that the appeal was filed well beyond the statutory limitation period of 120 days following his departmental representation, with no sufficient grounds for condonation of delay; and second, that the matter related to the 'determination of fitness for promotion,' which is barred from the Tribunal's jurisdiction under the proviso to the Service Tribunals Act. Upon review, the Supreme Court found no legal infirmity or error in the Tribunal's judgment and determined that no question of public importance was involved. Consequently, the Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it, affirming the Tribunal's decision regarding both the limitation bar and the jurisdictional exclusion concerning promotion matters.
- Does the Federal Service Tribunal have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters relating to the determination of fitness for promotion?
- Is an appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal maintainable if filed after the expiration of the 120-day period following a departmental representation?
- Can a service appeal be entertained if it lacks sufficient grounds for the condonation of delay?
- Section 4(1), Service Tribunals Act 1973
' MUHAMMAD RAFIQ 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.