2002 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑SA(1)(b) [as amended on 1‑2‑1999]‑‑‑Appeal before Service Tribunal‑‑ Limitation‑‑‑Civil servant, after amendment in S.4, Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act, 1975 could invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal directly without first availing the departmental remedy against his grievance‑‑‑Civil ‑servant despite same amendment, wasted considerable period by availing the departmental remedy and invoked appellate jurisdiction of Service Tribunal after more than five years from his grievance‑‑Excuse expressed by the civil servant for said inordinate delay was that he was unaware that any amendment had been effected in the Act‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Service Tribunal had rightly ignored said explanation on the ground that ignorance of law was no excuse‑‑‑Service Tribunal had rightly dismissed appeal being barred by time. Imdad Ali Mallick, Advocate for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 18th January, 2002. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Service Tribunal on 29‑9‑2001.

2. The facts relevant for the decision of this petition for leave to appeal are that the present petitioner was inducted in the Agriculture Department of Azad Kashmir Government as Assistant Director on 3‑9‑1978. Later on a seniority list was prepared by the Department in which the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 15 whereas respondent No.4 was placed at serial No.

18. The correctness of this seniority list was never challenged by respondent No.4. Thus by lapse of time it attained finality. According to the petitioner, contrary to the spirit of law and the seniority list which was prepared by the Department, respondent No.4 without considering the merits of the petitioner was promoted in supervisory grad‑ of B‑17 as Assistant Horticulture Officer vide Notification dated 7‑6‑1994. The petitioner moved a review petition before the Government and later on preferred an appeal, before the Service Tribunal. The same has been dismissed on the ground of limitation vide the judgment under challenge dated 29‑9‑2001.

3. Mr. Imdad Ali Mallick, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that his client who was inducted in Grade B‑17 is still in the same grade whereas a person junior to him in service stood, promoted in a supervisory position. In the light of this fact it was mandatory for the Government under law to redress the grievance of his client and subsequently when his client approached to the Service Tribunal, having exclusive jurisdiction in this regard on account of failure of Government to resolve the controversial issues, it should have provided relief to him but the same has been refused on the ground of limitation.

4. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner availed the right of appeal before the Service Tribunal on 8‑9‑1999 whereas through an amendment effected in Service Tribunals Act on February 1, 1999, the provisions of section 4(a) and (b) of the Service Tribunal Act, 1975 stood omitted. After the amendment a civil servant now can invoke the appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal f directly without first availing the departmental remedy. In the present case admittedly the present petitioner wasted a considerable period by availing the departmental remedy and thereafter invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. The excuse expressed by him for this delay is that he was unaware that any amendment has been effected‑in the Service Tribunal Act. The Service Tribunal has rightly ignored this explanation on the ground that ignorance of law is no excuse. The judgment of the Service Tribunal, therefore, suffers from no illegality.

5. In view of above, this petition having no force stands dismissed. H.B.T./256/SC(AJ&K) Petition dismissed.