2012 PLP 80 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SULEMAN — Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD — Respondent
| Citation | 2012 PLP 80 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Jawwad S. Khawaja and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SULEMAN — Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 80 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 80 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mahmood Akhtar Shahid Siddiqui, Jawwad S. Khawaja and Mian Saqib Nisar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 80 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SULEMAN — Petitioner Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX/ WEALTH TAX, FAISALABAD — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Faiz-ur-Rehman, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Mian Yousaf Omer, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji M. Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th February, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the order dated 19-7-2003 passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore Bench in Appeal No.459(L)(CS) of 2002).
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 212(3)
Non-filing of appeal before Service Tribunal within 90 days of filing departmental representation
Dismissal of appeal by Service Tribunal
Appellant's plea that after filing representation on 13-9-1999, he filed reminder on 28-4-2001, which were dismissed vide order dated 11-6-2002, thus appeal thereagainst before Tribunal was not time-barred; and that during such period, he had approached the High Court
When departmental appeal was not decided within 90 days, then appellant could file appeal before Tribunal under Proviso (a) of S. 4 of Service Tribunal Act, 1973
Appellant had not explained such long period
Limitation could not be calculated from the reminder for not being a representation for first time
Appellant's action to ,have approached High Court during such period was absolutely irrelevant and would not extend period of limitation
Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Aggrieved of his non promotion, the petitioner states to have filed a representation on 13-9-1999, which, according to him, was within the prescribed limitation; however, it remained undecided constraining the petitioner to submit a reminder dated 28-4-2001, which was turned down on 11-6-2002, whereafter the petitioner statedly filed the appeal before the Tribunal well within the limitation commencing from the order dated 11-6-2002, but this has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that his departmental appeal was beyond the limitation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the reminder dated 28-4-2001 and the order dated 11-6-2002 passed thereupon stated that he had filed the representation on 13-9-1999, which has been so acknowledged in the order ibid, therefore, such being within the period of limitation, therefore, the view set out by the Tribunal, holding it to be barred by time is erroneous and illegal.
3. We are afraid that the above plea has no force for the reason if the representation of the departmental appeal was not decided within a period of 90 days, the petitioner under proviso (a) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 could file the appeal before the Tribunal and that has not been so done. It has not been explained as to why for such long period, the petitioner kept mum and did not approach the Tribunal, rather purportedly initiated a remainder, which, in fact, was rightly considered by the Tribunal being the representation for the first time and calculated the limitation therefrom. The submission that during this period the petitioner also approached the High Court, suffice it to say that such action of the petitioner was absolutely irrelevant and would not extend the period of limitation.
4. Resultantly, this petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed. Leave to appeal declined. S.A.K./M-70/SC Leave refused.