2004 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Petitioners in person Nemo for Respondent (in both matters). Date of hearing: 4th June, 2003. JAVED IQBAL, J‑‑‑These petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the judgment dated 18‑1‑2001 passed by learned Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore, whereby the appeals preferred on behalf of petitioners have been dismissed. The above captioned petitions are being disposed of by, this common order as identical questions of law and facts are involved in the matters.

2. Precisely stated the facts of the case are that the petitioners were performing their duties as Guards in the Pakistan Railways and their pay, according to them, could not be fixed in accordance with revised pay scales of 1991 and certain benefits were given to their colleagues but they were deprived of the same without any lawful justification. The petitioners approached the forums available in the departmental hierarchy on 29‑8‑2000 by means of appeals which were not responded. Being aggrieved appeals were filed before the Federal Service Tribunal which were rejected vide judgment impugned, hence these petitions.

3. The petitioners appeared in persons and contended that legal and factual aspects of the controversy have not been examined in its true perspective which resulted in serious miscarriage of justice and they have been deprived of their legal rights without any rhyme and reason. It is argued that their pay should halve been fixed in accordance with revised pay scales of 1991 and it hardly matters if the department was approached after couple of years as the legal rights accrued in their favour after the revision of pay scales could not have been infringed. It is urged with vehemence that they were subjected to sheer discrimination as their pay was not fixed properly in accordance with revised, pay scales of 1991 as compared to that of their colleagues causing irreparable financial loss which aspect of the matter has totally been ignored by the learned Service Tribunal cousin; serious prejudice against them.

4. We have carefully examined the contentions as agitated by the petitioners in the light of record of the case made available and perused the judgment impugned carefully. It is an admitted feature of the case that pay scales were revised in the year 1991 and the petitioners had approached the department for redressal of their grievances by means of departmental appeals dated 29‑8‑2000. The petitioners could not furnish any plausible justification for such an inordinate delay in approaching the department. They went into deep slumber and woke up after a decade for the reasons best known to them which, however can be termed as classic example of laxity and their casual approach. When the departmental appeal was barred by time how the appeal before the Service Tribunal could be in time. No application for condonation of delay was filed before the learned Service Tribunal. The petitioners even could not produce the order whereby their pay could not be fixed in accordance with the revised pay scales of 1991. The petitioners also could not point out the formula qua fixation of pay which was adopted in favour of their colleagues by depriving them from proper fixation of their pay. The petitioners have absolutely no case on merits warranting interference in the judgment impugned being well based. These petitions being devoid of merits are dismissed and leave 'refused M.H./M‑24/S Leave refused