MUMTAZ AHMED vs SPEAKER, NATIONAL ASSEMBLY and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 2-2-1998, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal on the ground of limitation despite upholding it on merits. The core legal question concerns the computation of limitation for filing a service appeal in light of the insertion of section 2-A into the Service Tribunals Act, which brought employees of the National Assembly within the definition of civil servants, altering previous jurisprudence where such employees were not considered civil servants. The Supreme Court held that the contentions raised regarding the impact of the statutory amendment on the limitation period require detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal, laying down that subsequent statutory amendments bringing certain personnel within the ambit of civil servants and altering jurisdictional status warrant closer scrutiny regarding the computation of limitation periods for approaching the Service Tribunal.
- Whether the insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act affects the computation of limitation for filing appeals by employees previously not classified as civil servants?
- Did the Federal Service Tribunal err in dismissing the service appeal on the ground of limitation after upholding it on merits?
- Whether pursuing a writ petition in the High Court affects the limitation period for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal?
- Section 4, Service Tribunals Act 1973
- Section 2-A, Service Tribunals Act 1973
ORDER
' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 2-2-1998. The learned Tribunal though upheld the contention of the appellant on merits but dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation.
2. In seeking leave to appeal the learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the order reverting the petitioner to the department where he was previously employed was passed on 28-2-1997. The petitioner came to know about the above order on 28-4-1997. This order was challenged by the petitioner and two other employees of the National Assembly in Writ Petition No. 455 of 1997 before the High Court of Lahore which was disposed of on 15-5-1997. Before disposal of the writ petition the petitioner claims to have preferred a departmental appeal on 14-5-1997 and after waiting for the statutory period prescribed under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, he preferred the appeal before the Tribunal, which according to him, was within time. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the Service Tribunals Act was amended in June, 1997 and section 2-A was added. As a result of this amendment in the Service Tribunals Act the petitioner fell within the definition of civil servant while prior to this date in view of the decision of this Court in the case 'of Shahid Iqbal v. Government of Pakistan (1995 SCM R 660) the employees of the Senate and the National Assembly were not treated as civil servants. It is accordingly contended that after that amendment brought in the Service Tribunals Act in June, 1997 his appeal before the learned Service Tribunal was within time and competent.
3. The contentions raised by the learned counsel need examination and we accordingly grant leave to appeal.