GULFRAZ RAJA vs CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION
The petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal challenging a seniority list before the expiration of the mandatory 90-day period required for the departmental representation to be decided. Consequently, the Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal as premature. The petitioner sought leave to appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to consider whether the Service Tribunal should have adjudicated the appeal on its merits, given that the cause of action matured during the pendency of the appeal proceedings. The core legal question is whether a Service Tribunal is justified in dismissing an appeal as premature when the statutory waiting period for departmental exhaustion expires while the appeal is already pending before the Tribunal. The Court suggests that in such instances, deciding the matter on merits rather than dismissing it on technical grounds would better serve the ends of justice and avoid unnecessary, protracted litigation.
- Can a Service Tribunal dismiss an appeal as premature if the statutory waiting period for departmental representation expires while the appeal is pending?
- Is it appropriate for a Service Tribunal to decide an appeal on merits if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the proceedings?
ORDER
FAZAL ILAHI KHAN, J.---The petitioner's representation against the seniority list remained undecided when he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal before the expiry of 90 days. The learned Tribunal, therefore, dismissed his appeal on the short ground of it being premature.
2. Leave is granted to consider the contention whether disposal of the appeal on merits, when the cause of action matured during the pendency of the appeal would have shortened the litigation and would have met the ends of A justice. A.A./G-560/S