BILQEES AKHTAR vs DIRECTOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS (EE) PUNJAB, LAHORE
This petition for leave to appeal challenges an order of the Punjab Service Tribunal which dismissed the petitioner's appeal on the grounds of limitation. The core legal question is whether the petitioner's appeal before the Service Tribunal was time-barred, given that the impugned order regarding her reinstatement and treatment of the intervening period as leave without pay was passed on 13-12-2000, while the appeal was filed on 29-8-2002. The Supreme Court held that the appeal was indeed grossly time-barred. The Court further noted that the petitioner's reliance on a belated departmental representation was misplaced, as there is no provision for a second appeal under the relevant service rules. Consequently, the Court found no legal or factual infirmity in the Tribunal's decision. The key principle laid down is that the filing of a departmental representation does not extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal, especially when such representation is not provided for or maintainable under the applicable service rules.
- Does the filing of a departmental representation extend the limitation period for filing an appeal before a Service Tribunal?
- Is an appeal filed nearly two years after the impugned order passed by a departmental authority maintainable before a Service Tribunal?
- Can a second appeal be maintained against a service order where the relevant rules do not provide for such a remedy?
ORDER
' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.---Heard the petitioner in person. Petitioner submits that learned Service Tribunal has erred in holding that the appeal was barred by time.
2. We do not find substance and merit in the said contention. The impugned order dated 13-12- 2000 was passed by Director, Elementary Education, Rawalpindi whereby the petitioner was reinstated but her intervening period was treated as leave without pay. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order of the Director, Elementary Education, Rawalpindi with regard to non- payment of her salary in respect of intervening period before the Punjab Service Tribunal on 29-8- 2002 when the impugned order was passed on 13-12-2000 thus the filing of appeal was grossly time-barred, considering that filing of belated departmental representation to the Director, Education Punjab, Lahore which too was not maintainable as there was no such provision of second appeal under the rules.
3. In the circumstance we find no legal or factual infirmity with the impugned order, hence leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.