1994 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant, Pervez Ijaz Sheikh, had been working in B‑19 in the Postal Group with effect from 13‑8‑1983, and transferred/posted tinder section 10 in the Secretariat Group as Deputy Secretary vide Notification of 3‑9‑1984. He had regularly been inducted in the Secretariat Group as Deputy Secretary with effect from 23‑9‑1984 vide Notification dated 29‑12‑1988. He had prayed since he had been working in B‑19 in the Postal Group with effect from 13‑8‑1983 he should be considered as Deputy Secretary with effect from 13‑8‑1983 and accordingly assigned the seniority in the Secretariat Group, as other officers who had been inducted from other Groups/Cadres in B‑19, had been given the benefit of seniority as Deputy Secretary of their last Government service in B‑

19. But he had been deprived off. He had made a representation to the Secretary, Establishment on 14‑9‑1989 enclosing a copy of Appeal No. 265(R) of 1989 (Manzoor Hussain and others v. Government of Pakistan and others) and Civil Appeal No. 54 of 1991 (Government of Pakistan v. Manzur Hussain and others which had been decided in favour of Manzur Hussain and others. Deriving/claiming the principle and guidelines decided in the said appeals in his favour for claim of his seniority as Deputy Secretary with effect from 13‑8‑1983. The representation had not been responded to. He had made another representation, which was replied vide letter dated 25‑10‑1993 informing that his request could not be acceded to.

2. According to learned counsel for the respondent Division, appellant's earlier representation was hit by time limitation, as the appellant had never represented against the seniority lists of Deputy Secretaries issued in 1990 and 1993. Moreover, the appellant was to make an Appeal as Deputy Secretary and to implead the Deputy Secretaries of disputed seniority over them as private respondents; but at the time of submission of Appeal, the appellant was serving as Joint Secretary and had impleaded the names of Joint Secretaries as private respondents 2 to

21. The learned counsel had mentioned that the appeal was badly misconceived and incompetent, because there was no practical grievance with the appellant to impugned the seniority of Joint Secretaries (B‑20) officers i.e. respondents 2 to 21, whereas he had only grievance, if any, about his seniority as Deputy Secretary for which he had never represented/agitated. Accordingly the present appeal was out of tune, hit by limitation, misconceived and incompetent. Further, after the case of Manzur Hussain and others had been decided by the learned Tribunal in Appeal No. 265(R) of 1989, he had never represented or agitated his point of grievance with the respondent Division or in the learned Tribunal. As such he had exhausted all the possible timely opportunities and the instant appeal was badly time‑barred and it should be dismissed. 3 After hearing the parties, we find that the appellant, while he had been inducted/serving as Deputy Secretary (B‑19), he had never represented /taken up the matter of relaxation of his seniority in the Secretariat Group with effect from 13‑8‑1983 i.e. the date of his promotion in B‑19 in the Postal Group. The instant appeal had been preferred by him, when he was a Joint Secretary and had impleaded some Joint Secretaries as private respondents 2 to

21. This did not sound well and had no justified base, because there is no practical grievance with the appellant with respect to his seniority as Joint Secretary (B‑20) and, if at all he had a grievance, it was in the time and cadre of Deputy Secretary (B‑19) for which he had missed to avail the timely opportunities and never represented/agitated against. Accordingly the instant appeal, which is totally out of tune, hit by limitation, misconceived and incompetent is dismissed. 4.No order for costs. A.A./917/Sr.F Appeal dismissed