MUHAMMAD IDREES ALVI vs EMPLOYEES' OLDAGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION and 4
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenging a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal. The petitioner, an employee of the Employees' Old-Age Benefits Institution, had challenged the promotion and seniority of a colleague, respondent No. 4, before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds that he failed to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Tribunal. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted two primary defects: first, the petition for leave to appeal was time-barred by six days without a valid explanation; and second, the petitioner had subsequently received a promotion, rendering the petition infructuous, a fact which the petitioner did not deny. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused leave to appeal and dismissed the petition. The Court held that a petition filed beyond the limitation period without sufficient cause is liable to be dismissed, and further observed that a petition becomes infructuous when the underlying grievance, such as a claim regarding promotion, is resolved by the petitioner's own subsequent advancement.
- Can a petition for leave to appeal be dismissed solely on the ground of being time-barred?
- Does a subsequent promotion of a petitioner render a pending service appeal regarding seniority infructuous?
- Is it mandatory to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the Federal Service Tribunal?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' NAZIM HUSSAIN SIDDIQUI, J.---Petitioner Muhammad Idrees, under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 1-3-1999 of Federal Service Tribunal, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner and respondent No,4 Iqtidar Rahim Khan are the employees of Old-Age benefits Institution. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner had impugned the approval of promotion order of said respondent from the post of Assistant Director to Deputy Director with effect from 12-5-1998 assigning him seniority over the petitioner. Learned Tribunal held that the petitioner had not preferred any appeal/representation to the departmental authority against the impugned order before approaching the Tribunal and dismissed the appeal.
3. Admittedly, the petition is time-barred by 6 days. No valid explanation has been furnished in this regard. On this ground alone, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Besides Syed Zaki Muhammad, learned Deputy Attorney-General states that the petitioner has also been promoted and the petition has become infructuous. The factum of promotion has not been denied by the petitioner.
In consequence, leave to appeal is refused and the petition is dismissed. The petitioner may, if aggrieved, claim his seniority before the competent Authority according to law. 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.