1984 PLP (C (PLC)

S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN)‑ ‑ Muhammad Ilyas, Senior Civil Judge, Muzaffargarh has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the order, dated 20th January. 1980 whereby the representation for the grant of N. P. S. 18 with effect from the earlier date (15th October, 1973) was rejected. He has impleaded the Province of the Punjab through the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Services, General Administration and Information Department, as respondent. 2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that his appeal be accepted and order issued vide letter No. 1‑13/79‑S. O. S. (X), dated 20th January, 1980 whereby the appellant's representation for the grant of said grade was filed, be declared illegal, void and ineffective and further prayed that the appellant be declared entitled to Grade‑18 w. e. f. 15th October, 1973 and to refix the pay in Grade‑18 from the said date. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as Senior. Civil Judge in the Judicial Department under the respondent from 20th October, 1967. He was granted Grade‑18 w. e. f. 25th August, 1975, vide Notification No. 1‑13/79‑S. O. S. (X), dated 24th November, 1979. According to the schedule to the Punjab (Gazetted) Civil Services Pay Revision Rules, 1973, separate N. P. S. for Civil Judges and the Administrative Civil Judges were prescribed under the Administration of Justice :‑ (1) Punjab Civil Service 500‑50‑1,000/50‑1,250 (Judicial Branch). (N. P. S. 17). (2) Administrative Civil 1,000 ‑75‑1,750 Judge (one in each (N. P. S.‑18). district). The schedule was subsequently amended w. e. f. 1st March, 1972 vide Notification No. FDPS 2‑38/74, dated 10th June, 1976 as under :‑ Punjab Civil Service 500‑50‑1,000/ 15% of the (Judicial Branch). 60‑1,250 regular strength of Civil Judge will be in N. P. S. 1.18 (1,000‑75‑1,750) 4. By virtue of the said amendment and the rules the Senior Civil Judges and Administrative Civil Judges, were shown in the same integrated list of service and a rider was placed that 15% of the regular strength of the Civil Judges will be inducted in N. P. S. 18 w.e.f. 1st March, 1972 by notification, dated 10th June, 1976. 5. We have heard the appellant in person as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department. The appellant has made a grievance of the fact that 19 Administrative Civil Judges were included in the notification of 24th November, 1979 in which his name finds mention at serial No. 51, which according to the appellant, should not have been included as they form a separate entity. It has been argued that if these 19 persons are declared to have a separate entity the appellant would be entitled to N. P. S.‑18 from an earlier date than the date so allowed to him. On the other hand learned District Attorney has submitted that the appellant's appeal is barred by time and be dismissed on this score alone. With regard to the merits of the case it has been submitted that according to rule 17 of the Punjab (Gazetted) Civil Services (Pay Revision) Rules, 1973, the Government is competent to amend the schedule appended with the rules and the act of the Government by holding that the Administrative Civil Judges and Senior Civil Judges, belonged to the same cadre, was fully justified. 6. We have given our anxious thought to the short points raised by both the parties and first of all we will deal with the preliminary objection regard ing limitation. In this respect our attention has been drawn by the learned District Attorney to the civil suit filed by the appellant in the Court of Senior 'Civil Judge of Bahawalnagar, on 4th November, 1980 which was dismissed on 30th September, 1981 and the plaint was returned to the appellant on the same date under Order VII, rule 11, C. P. C. The contents of the said judgment, dated 30th September, 1981 reveal that the appellant was allowed two months period by the said Court to enable him to file an appeal before the Punjab Service Tribunal. We are of the considered opinion that such like sanction of time was not within the jurisdiction of Senior Civil Judge, therefore, period so extended would be of no avail to the appellant. No body even the Court can keep alive the period of limitation if it starts running against the individual as the same is not permitted under the Limitation Act. We, therefore, hold that the period of limitation started running against the appellant from the date of communication of the impugned order which is dated 20th January, 1980. In this manner the appeal is barred by time by about two years. 7. With regard to the merits of the case we find that 19 persons holding the rank of Administrative Civil Judge included in the notification belong to the same cadre, a point also conceded by the appellant while arguing his case. We takes strength to our above observation from the P. C. S. Judicial Branch Service Rules, 1962, which clearly lays down that there is no distinctive cadre of Administrative Civil Judge and that of Senior Civil Judges. We also have examined rule 17 of the Punjab (Gazetted) Civil Servants (Pay Revision) Rules, 1973 and hold that the Government is fully competent to amend the schedule appended with the rules. 8. In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that the~ appeal is liable to be dismissed as time‑barred as well as en merits, we therefore, dismiss the same without any order as to costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.