1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ASLAM GONDAL Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and 5 others
| Citation | 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim, Chairman, Noor Muhammad Magsi and Roshan Ali Mangi Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM GONDAL Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and 5 others |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Abdul Razzaq A. Thahim, Chairman, Noor Muhammad Magsi and Roshan Ali Mangi Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM GONDAL Versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, ISLAMABAD and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 7th September, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 4
Departmental appeal against seniority list issued by Authority in which co-civil servants were shown senior to civil servant, was filed by civil servant after about one year from issuance of that list
Such appeal being time-barred,- was rightly dismissed by Competent Authority without going into merits
Departmental appeal being time-barred, appeal before Service Tribunal would also be time-barred and incompetent. Muhammad Arshad Saeed, D.I: G. v. Secretary, Establishment Division and others 1994 SCMR 1033 and Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik PLD 1990 SC 951 ref. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
S. 4
Departmental appeal against seniority list issued by Authority in which co-civil servants were shown senior to civil servant, was filed by civil servant after about one year from issuance of that list
Such appeal being time-barred,- was rightly dismissed by Competent Authority without going into merits
Departmental appeal being time-barred, appeal before Service Tribunal would also be time-barred and incompetent. Muhammad Arshad Saeed, D.I: G. v. Secretary, Establishment Division and others 1994 SCMR 1033 and Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik PLD 1990 SC 951 ref. Appellant in person. Date of hearing: 7th September, 1995. ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN): --Appellant is working as U.D.C. in the office of the Inspector-General of Police, Islamabad. A seniority list of U.D.Cs. was issued in 1993 wherein, private respondents 2 to 6 were shown senior to the appellant. Being aggrieved, he filed departmental appeal on 12-9-1994 but the same was dismissed by the I: G. vide order, dated 26-7-1995 as being badly. time-barred. Under the rules, the appellant was supposed to file departmental appeal against the seniority list, within thirty days, which was issued in October, 1993, and departmental appeal having been made on 12-9-1994 after about one year was hopelessly time-barred and rightly dismissed by the Competent Authority, without going into the merits. The contention of the appellant is that seniority order is void and therefore, limitation does not apply. We are sorry, we do not subscribe to this view, as the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Arshad Saeed, D.I.-G. v. Secretary, Establishment Division and others reported in 1994 SCMR 1033, has held that plea of void order cannot circumvent the bar of limitation and the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 being a special law, appeals have to be filed within the time limit provided in the Act. Furthermore, it has also been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik, reported in PLD 1990 SC 951, that if the departmental appeal is time-barred, the appeal before the Tribunal would also be time-barred and incompetent. On both counts, the appeal is dismissed in limine, as time-barred. H.B.T./1094/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.