1984 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing : 25th June, 1982. S. ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHRY (MEMBER). ‑Muhammad Aslam Khan, has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Services Tribunal Act, 1974 wherein he has impleaded Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Education Department, Lahore as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the notification dated 30th December, 1979 (Annexure K') in so far as it denies financial benefits from back date in its para. 2 as well as notification dated 1st February, 1982 (Annexure N') in so far as it denies promotion to the appellant to N. P. S. 19 w. e. f. 22nd December, 1979 be set aside. He has also prayed that respondent Government may also be directed that the appellant be considered for pro forma promotion as Assistant Professor (Grade 18) and Professor (Grade 19) w. e. f. 1st July, 1963 and 22nd December, 1979, respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as Lecturer in Physics under the Punjab Government on 14th October, 1952 and was confirmed in that capacity: Later on he proceeded on deputation the Technical Cadre of Government Polytechnic Institute against an Ex‑cadre post. The appellant remained unconfirmed there and continued holding his lien on the post of Lecturer. That after some time appellant requested for his repatriation from the Technical Education to his parent College Cadre but was denied that basic right. The appellant continued agitating this issue with the Department as well as he filed an appeal No. 2051848 of 1976 to the Punjab Services Tribunal. During the pendency of the said appeal, the Education Department on 12th October, 1978 issued a notification to repatriate the appellant to the general college side with immediate effect. Consequently by judgment dated 4th February, 1979 of the Punjab Services Tribunal, the said appeal was considered to have borne fruit. However, the appellant pressed that during his absence from his parent cadre, a number of his juniors had been promoted and that his claim for promotion from the dates his juniors were promoted was pending with the Department. Accordingly the Tribunal was pleased to order that the said representation should be disposed of by the Department in accor dance with the law. Consequently the appellant was promoted as Assis tant Professor in N. P. S. 18 vide notification dated 30th December, 1979. The appellant was also promoted from N. P. S. 18 to N. P. S. 19 vide notification dated 1st February, 1982. The grievance of the appellant is that he should be given the perform promotion as Assistant Professor in N. P. S. 18 and Professor in N. P. S. 19 w. e. f. 11th July, 1963 and 22nd December, 1979 respectively, the dates from which his juniors were promo ted. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. The case has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Attorney and has been discussed in detail on merits. During the course of the argument of this case on merits, the learned District Attorney took up an important legal objection i. e. The appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is not maintainable. It was vehemently argued by the learned District Attorney that both the impugned notifications were issued by the Governor Punjab and no appeal lies to the departmental authority as per section 21 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, where an order is made by the Governor. Thus, on issuing of notifications dated 30th December, 1979 and 1st December, 1982, the appellant should have filed the appeal to the Tribunal within 30 days as per section 4 of the Punjab Services Tribunal Act, 1974. It is pointed out by the learned District Attorney that in the case of notification dated 30th December, 1979 the appeal is time‑barred by 2 years 3 months and in case of notification dated 1st February, 1982 it is time‑barred by one month. It was, thus, submitted by the learned District Attorney that the appeal is liable to fail on this score alone and be rejected accordingly. Concluding the arguments, the learned District Attorney submitted that as the appel lant's counsel has failed to cross this hurdle, to adjudicate this issue further on merits will be an exercise in futility especially, when the appel lant has also failed to file any appeal under section 5 of the Limitation Act, to request for condonation of this delay.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant could not successfully rebut the above legal objection of the learned District Attorney regarding appeal being time‑barred.

6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the arguments of the parties and have also carefully scrutinized the notifications dated 30th December, 1979 and 1st February, 1982 through which the appellant was promoted in N. P. S. 18 and N. P. S. 19, respectively. Both these notifications have been ordered by "The Governor Punjab" and thus we are in agreement with the arguments, of the learned District Attorney that the time limit will run from the dates of issue of these notifications as per section 21 (2) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974. The appellant was required to submit the appeals within 30 days of the dates of issue of these notifications. Thus, the appeal is time‑barred by two years and three months in case of notification dated 30th December, 1979 and by one month in case of notification dated 1st February, 1982.

7. Keeping the above analysis in view, we hold that the appeal is time‑barred, is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. There will be no order as to‑costs. A. E. Appeal dismissed.