SIBTE AKHTAR vs PAKISAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION
The petitioner, a former employee of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, had his services terminated in 1981, reinstated through a Review Board in 1989, and subsequently opted for compensation, which was paid and accepted in 1990. Nine years later, in 1999, he made a representation claiming a different retirement group and seniority, which was rejected. His subsequent appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal was dismissed as time-barred. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation and whether the delay of nine years in agitating the grievance was fatal. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had slept over his alleged right for nine years, which period was certainly not a reasonable time to approach a forum even if the specific service regulations were deemed inapplicable. Consequently, the petition failed and leave to appeal was refused, laying down the principle that stale claims involving prolonged delay without a reasonable explanation cannot be entertained in service matters.
- Whether an employee who accepts compensation upon termination can agitate service seniority and retirement group matters after a lapse of nine years?
- Does a delay of nine years in making a representation regarding service grievances constitute an unreasonable delay barring relief?
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a service tribunal's dismissal of an appeal on the ground of limitation when the claim is hopelessly stale?
' 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-WI 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.