SIBTE AKHTAR vs PAKISAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION through Managing Director
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal regarding service benefits and seniority. The petitioner, a former employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, had his services terminated in 1981, reinstated in 1989, and subsequently opted for compensation in 1990. Nine years later, in 1999, the petitioner sought to challenge his retirement group and seniority status. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal as time-barred. The core legal question was whether the petitioner's claim was maintainable after such a significant delay, regardless of the applicability of specific service regulations. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had slept on his rights for nine years, which did not constitute a reasonable time for seeking redress. The Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal, ruling that even if specific statutory limitation periods were debated, the doctrine of laches or the requirement to act within a reasonable time precluded the petitioner from agitating stale claims after nearly a decade of inaction.
- Does a delay of nine years in challenging a service-related grievance constitute a reasonable time for seeking legal redress?
- Can a petitioner agitate a stale claim regarding seniority and retirement group after accepting compensation and remaining silent for nearly a decade?
- Regulation 86(2), P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations 1985
' RASHID AZIZ KHAN, J.---Facts leading to the filing of this petition are that petitioner was an employee of respondent-Corporation. His services were terminated in the year 1981 but thereafter in 1989, on his representation before the Review Board, his termination was set aside. The respondent-Corporation gave him an offer either to join the service or get compensation. The petitioner opted for the compensation which was duly paid to him in the year 1990. The petitioner being satisfied with the compensation, did not agitate the matter any further. However, in 1999 he made a representation before the respondent-Corporation to the effect that he should have been retired in Group-VII instead of Group-VI and also claimed seniority as was given to some of his juniors. The representation made by the petitioner failed. He then approached the Federal Service Tribunal but his appeal was dismissed on the sole ground that it was hopelessly barred by time, therefore, the present petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Regulation 86(2) of P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985 was not applicable to his case, therefore, his petition before the Tribunal was not barred by time. Argued that the learned Tribunal should have decided the matter on merits. The above contentions, on the other hand, were opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-caveator.
3. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the order impugned with their assistance.
Without giving any finding regarding application of P.I.A.C. Employees (Service and Discipline)
Regulations, it is observed that the petitioner slept over his so-called right for 9 years and thereafter, woke up and started agitating for the same. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument, that P.I.A.C. Regulations were not applicable, the petitioner should have made the representation within reasonable time and period of 9 years is certainly not a reasonable time. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity of law in the order impugned which could prompt us to interfere with the same. Resultantly, this petition fails which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.