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sought leave to appeal against an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which had dismissed his service appeal as withdrawn.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 after completing 25 years of service under Section 12(ii) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. Following the dismissal of his initial departmental appeal, the petitioner filed a second, unauthorized appeal to the Secretary of the Agriculture Department, subsequently approaching the Service Tribunal only after that second appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court examined whether the petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was maintainable. The Court held that the petitioner's appeal was time-barred because the filing of a second, unauthorized departmental appeal did not justify the delay in approaching the Service Tribunal. The Court further noted that even if the withdrawal of the appeal before the Tribunal were contested, the delay in filing the initial appeal to the Tribunal rendered the matter non-maintainable. Additionally, the Court clarified that decisions rendered under Shariat jurisdiction regarding retirement provisions do not have retrospective effect. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
- Does the filing of an unauthorized second departmental appeal extend the limitation period for approaching the Service Tribunal?
- Do judgments rendered under Shariat jurisdiction declaring retirement provisions un-Islamic have retrospective effect?
- Is a service appeal maintainable before the Tribunal if the petitioner fails to approach the Tribunal within the statutory period after the first departmental appeal?
- 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against the order of the Punjab Service Tribunal dated 3-8-1991 dismissing the service appeal of the petitioner as withdrawn.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 vires.
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 there was no justification for the petitioner preferring the second appeal to the Secretary to the Government and waiting for his order and then 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.