MUHAMMAD FARRUKH BASHIR BHATTI vs ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF, GHQ, RAWALPINDI and another
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal as time-barred. The petitioner had initially filed a representation against adverse entries in his Annual Confidential Report (ACR) to the departmental authority. Subsequently, he filed an appeal under the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, which was returned by the appellate authority on the grounds of non-maintainability. The petitioner then approached the Service Tribunal within one month of that order. The petitioner argued that the time spent pursuing the appeal before the appellate authority, even if ultimately found incompetent, constituted a valid ground for condonation of delay under the Limitation Act, 1908. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by the petitioner's counsel regarding the condonation of delay under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, required detailed consideration. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine whether the time spent in pursuing an incompetent departmental appeal can be excluded or condoned when calculating the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal.
- Can the time spent pursuing an incompetent appeal before an appellate authority be considered a valid ground for condoning delay under the Limitation Act 1908?
- Does the pursuit of an incompetent departmental appeal justify the application of Section 5 or Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 to extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Section 5, Limitation Act 1908
- Section 14, Limitation Act 1908
- Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules 1977
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.