MUHAMMAD NAWAZ vs PRESIDENT, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN and others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal. The petition was filed with a delay of 23 days. The core legal question concerned whether the delay in filing the petition could be condoned on the ground of non-receipt of a certified copy of the Tribunal's judgment. The Supreme Court held that under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, when a judgment copy is dispatched under registered cover, a legal presumption of proper service arises, and the burden shifts to the petitioner to prove non-receipt, which was not satisfied in this case. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as being barred by time, laying down the principle that the statutory presumption of service under registered cover applies unless validly rebutted.
- Whether delay in filing a petition can be condoned based on the alleged non-receipt of a judgment copy sent by registered post?
- Does a presumption of proper service arise under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 when a document is dispatched under a registered cover?
- Upon whom does the burden lie to prove non-receipt of a judgment dispatched under registered cover by a tribunal?
- 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 to 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.