1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

S. 4

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act (VI of 1976), S. 21

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1982, R. 8

Appeal-- Limitation

Departmental appeal preferred by appellant against order of his retirement from service was turned down by competent authority whose order attained finality

Appellant instead of filing appeal before Service Tribunal filed representation in a wrong forum although remedy of filing representation was not available to him

Appeal of appellant before Service Tribunal was thus hopelessly time-barred--Held, period spent in pursuing representation could not be allowed to appellant, as last date for filing appeal before Service Tribunal had already expired

Plea taken by appellant for condonation of delay was devoid of force

Appeal was dismissed as time-barred. Sardar Rafique Mahmood for Appellant. Mr. Muhammad Sadiq Khan, Ex. Deputy Range Officer/ Forester has filed the instant appeal under section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and has impleaded Conservator of Forests, Circle Mirpur, Chief Conservator of Forests, Secretary Forests and Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through Chief Secretary as respondents.

2. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant was serving as Deputy Range Officer Bagh Division in 1982, from where he proceeded on one month leave w.e.f 18-8-1982. In the meantime he was transferred to Rawalakot. Instead of resuming his duty after availing of the leave, the appellant applied for further three months leave on medical grounds. But the leave was not allowed and notices were issued to him calling upon him to resume his official duties. In response to the notices, the appellant joined his duties at Bagh and submitted a copy of his joining report to the Forests Division Bagh. On receipt of his joining report he was, however, directed to join at Rawalakot the new place of his posting. The appellant again applied for a few days leave and thereafter he absented himself from duty. A notice was issued through newspaper directing him to join his new assignment failing which his services shall be terminated. But he did not join his duties and was reported to have left for abroad. Consequently, he was compulsory retired from service w.e.f 18-9-1982 by Conservator of Forests, Circle Mirpur vide his order dated 23-4-1983. The appeal brought by him against his retirement order was rejected by Chief Conservator of Forests vide his order dated 12-3-1987 and the representation dated 4-4-1982 before the Prime Minister was also not successful.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and gone through the record of this case. I am of the considered view that the instant appeal is badly time-barred. The departmental appeal preferred by the appellant against the order of his retirement from service was turned down by the Chief Conservator of Forests on 12-3-1987. This order of the Chief Conservator of Forests was final against which the appellant should have filed an appeal under section 4 of the Act within the stipulated period of 30 days. It was contended that the period spent by him in pursuing the representation before a wrong forum may be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act. The representation was not filed by the appellant himself and it was brought by Lumberdar Ghul Hussain Khan a local Councillor on 4-4-1989 for his reinstatement in service. Even if the said application may by any stretch of imagination be treated a representation, the remedy of representation available under section 21 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servant Act 1976 and rule 8 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the Appeal Rules) is to be availed of only in those circumstances where the remedy by way of an appeal or review is not available to a civil servant. In the instant case after availing of the remedy of appeal, the period spent by the appellant in pursuing the remedy of so called representation cannot be allowed which was also filed at a belated stage through a third person. Under rule 8 of the Appeal Rules, a representation can be made to the next higher authority within a period of 60 days of communication of such order and the aggrieved civil servant alone is competent to do that. The sub-rule (3) of rule 8 of the Appeal Rules read with rule 5 of the Appeal Rules are very much clear on this point that the procedure provided for appeals shall mutatis mutandis apply to the representation. Apart from it, the last date for filing this appeal before the Tribunal had already expired when the remedy by way of the said representation was sought before the Prime Minister. The plea taken by the appellant for the condonation of delay involved in this case is, therefore, devoid of force and the appeal is held as time-barred.

4. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal being hopelessly time-barred is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./104/SrA Appeal dismissed.