MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal filed against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The petition before the Supreme Court was filed with a delay of 23 days. The petitioner sought condonation of this delay, arguing that he did not receive a certified copy of the Tribunal's judgment in a timely manner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could claim ignorance of the judgment's issuance to justify the delay, given the Tribunal's record of dispatching the copy via registered post. The Court held that under Rule 21 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974, the Tribunal is obligated to send certified copies to parties. Furthermore, relying on Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court established the principle that where a document is sent by registered post, there is a legal presumption of service. Consequently, the Court rejected the petitioner's explanation for the delay, finding the petition time-barred and dismissing it accordingly.
- Does the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 apply to judgments dispatched by a Tribunal via registered post?
- Is a petition for leave to appeal maintainable when filed after the expiry of the limitation period without a valid ground for condonation?
- Does the burden of proof shift to the petitioner to rebut the presumption of service when the Tribunal records indicate a judgment was sent by registered cover?
- Rule 21, Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1974
- Section 27, General Clauses Act 1897
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.- This petition for leave to appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21st October, 2000 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Camp at Quetta, whereby service appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed.
2. This petition is barred by 23 days. An application has been filed for condonation of the delay on the ground that judgment was announced by the Tribunal on 21st October, 2000 and after having waited for copy of the judgment from the Federal Service Tribunal, petitioner himself applied for its copy on 6th December, 2000 because in the meanwhile, he did not receive certified copy of the judgment of Tribunal according to Rules and thereafter on obtaining other documents, filed instant petition before this Court.
3. We pointed out to the learned counsel that under Rule 21 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure)
Rules, 1974, Tribunal, after signing of the judgment, is bound to send certified copy of the judgment to the parties concerned under registered cover and according to endorsement on copy of the judgment annexed with the memo, of petition. Tribunal has issued copy of the judgment to petitioner on 6th November, 2000. Therefore, it would be deemed that copy of the judgment was duly received by the petitioner because it was sent under the registered cover and if petitioner contends otherwise, then the burden shifts upon him to satisfy that Tribunal has not sent copy of the judgment under registered cover, therefore, petitioner did not receive it.
Learned counsel stated that although there is endorsement on the judgment annexed with the memo, of petition that one copy was issued on 6th November, 2000 but he did not receive it.
We are not inclined ta agree with him for the reasons that under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, presumption is that the service has been duly effected upon the petitioner under a registered cover envelope containing judgment and it was received by him, therefore, arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner, seeking condonation of the delay in filing of petition on this ground is not acceptable legally.
Thus in view of above discussion, petition is dismissed being barred by time.