MUHAMMAD YUNUS vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This appeal arose from a judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal, which dismissed the petitioner's service appeal on the grounds that it was barred by limitation. The core legal question was whether the appeal before the Tribunal was filed within the statutory period of limitation, specifically regarding the calculation of time taken for obtaining a certified copy of the impugned departmental order. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal failed to correctly account for the time elapsed between applying for and receiving the certified copy of the Divisional Commissioner's order. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the petitioner had applied for the certified copy on 4-4-1998, and it was prepared and supplied on 3-9-1998. Consequently, the appeal filed on 17-9-1998 fell within the prescribed 30-day limitation period. The Court held that the Tribunal erred in its calculation of time. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on the merits, establishing the principle that the period spent obtaining certified copies must be accurately excluded when calculating limitation.
- Does the time taken to obtain a certified copy of an order count towards the limitation period for filing an appeal?
- Is an appeal filed within 30 days of receiving a certified copy of the impugned order considered within time before a Service Tribunal?
' QAZI MUHAMMAD FAROOQ, J.---This appeal has arisen from the judgment, dated 26-2-1999 of the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, whereby the petitioner's service appeal was dismissed as barred by time.
2. There is no need to advert to the factual matrix of the case as the sole point for determination involved in this petition is restricted to the question of limitation.
3. Ch. Muhammad Saddique ASC, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that the Tribunal was in error in not noticing that the petitioner had applied for copy of the order, dated 18-3-1998 of the Divisional Commissioner on 4-4-1998. The copy was prepared on 3-9-1998 and supplied to the petitioner on that very date. The precise plea is that had the calculation been made by taking into consideration the contents of the pro forma available at page 23-A of the paper book, the appeal would not have been dismissed as barred by time.
4. The pro forma at page 23-A of the paper book makes it manifest that on 4-4-1998, the petitioner had applied for certified copy of the order of the Divisional Commissioner, dated 18-3-1998, whereby the departmental appeal against the order of this dismissal passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 17-7-1997 was turned down, and the certified copy was prepared and supplied to him on 3-9-1998. The appeal before the Tribunal was filed on 17-9-1998. The record produced by the representative of the respondents also discloses the same. The appeal having been filed within the prescribed period of 30 days was thus within time.
5. For the reasons stated above, this petition is converted info appeal and by allowing the same the impugned judgment is set aside and the appeal is remanded to the Tribunal for its decision on
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD ASHRAF vs PAKISTAN RAILWAYS through its Chairman Lahore 2010 PLJ Tr.C. (Services) 120