1985 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

5. The learned counsel for the appellant was asked to put forth his view points on this issue to cross the hurdle, for the appeal being hopelessly time‑barred, as pointed out by the learned District Attorney. The appellant's counsel could not successfully rebut the same. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no doubt, the appeals of the appellant were rejected in the years 1978, 1980 and 1981, but the real issue, which was required to be agitated in the case of the appellant, only cropped up on issue of the seniority list by the respondent No.1 on 22‑3‑1982 (Annexure 'N'). As the appellant was not given correct place in this seniority list, hence, he was obliged to make a representation on 24‑3‑1982 which was rejected on 17‑5‑1982 by the respondent No.1 and thus the appellant had to file another represen tation to the Chief Engineer, on 29‑5‑1982, which is still pending for decision. On this, the learned District Attorney, pointed out, that if a reference is made to the appeal, dated 29‑5‑1982 filed by the appellant to the Chief Engineer, Punjab Building Department, Lahore, referred to above by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is clear that the appellant is claiming the seniority on the basis of his continuous service since 20‑8‑1958, the matter which was closed by the departmental authorities in the year 1978.

6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the parties and perused the documents so produced. It is advisible to first settle the preliminary objection raised by the learned District Attorney to proceed further in this matter. The history of this case and the documents so produced by the appellant and the respondents, reveal the following facts:‑ (i) It was decided by the SGA&I Department, Punjab vide their letter No. SGA&I III (S&GAD)1(5)/74, dated 27‑7‑1977 that the seniority of the staff rendered surplus on account of abolition of the Offices of the Deputy Chief Engineer, Buildings and Highways at Bahawalpur, should be determined from the date of absorption in various Departments/Offices. This decision was noted by the appellant on 3‑10‑1977 with the remarks "I am submitting a representation in this behalf separately". (ii) The appellant made appeals,, dated 8‑10‑1977 and 27‑9‑1978, against the above decision of the S&GAI Department. The appellant was informed clearly vide his S. E.'s Endorsement No. 5006/E dated 27‑11‑1978 that the Government's latest advice is quite clear and there is no point in making a fresh reference to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, C&W Department, Lahore. Thus, the matter was settled once for all on 27‑11‑1978 as for as the seniority of appellant was concerned. (iii) However, the appellant filed further appeals on 28‑2‑1979, 13‑11‑1979 and 21‑7‑1980 on the same issue, but, he was again conveyed vide Endorsement No.4975/E, dated 13‑11‑1980 by the Superintending Engineer, the orders of the Chief Engineer Building Department, Punjab, Lahore, dated 6‑11‑1980, the para. 3 of which mentions "You are also advised not to refer this case again and again when the Government has given final decision on more than one occasions." Even, if lenient view in this matter is taken and the appellant' case is considered sympathetically, the appellant could be given concession upto this date i.e. 13‑11‑1980, for exhausting his right of appeal/ representation to the departmental authorities. Thus, the appellant was required to file an appeal before the Tribunal within period for 30 days of this date i.e. 13‑11‑1980.

7. The appellant, however, continued to agitate the same issue in one way or the other as is clear from the following details:‑ (i) He filed a representation, dated 15‑3‑1981 for promotion as Circle Superintendent, which was rejected vide S.E. No. 1343/E, dates 9‑4‑1981. (ii) He filed an appeal, dated 24‑3‑1982 against the fixation of the seniority by respondent No.1. vide his Order No.63/IV, dates 22‑3‑1982, which was rejected vide respondent No.1, Order No. 1753/E, dated 17‑5‑1982. (iii) On this, the appellant, yet filed another appeal, through proper channel to the Chief Engineer, on 29‑5‑1982, which is still pending. (iv) Without waiting the result of the disposal of the appeal, dated 29‑5‑1982, the appellant has, now, filed this appeal to the Tribunal on 16‑6‑1982. All the above appeals/representations, do not help the appellant to extend the period for limitation in his favour by filing these unnecessary appeals/representation as the seniority issue had already been closed in the year 1978/1980 by the departmental authorities. The learned counsel for the appellant, during the course of his arguments has not been able to convince me successfully, for the condonation of the delay. The appellant has also not filed any application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to persuade this Tribunal for condonation of the delay as well.

8. As mentioned above, taking a lenient view, if the last and final date for rejection of the appeals of the appellant is taken as 13‑11‑1980, the appellant was required to file the appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days of this date. The appellant has filed the appeal to the Tribunal on 16‑6‑1982. Thus, the appeal is time‑barred by more than 1 years.

9. Keeping the above analysis in view, I hold that the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and the delay is due to the negligence on the part of the appellant. Reliance is made on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as P L D 1976 S C 258, wherein it has been held that repeated representations do not enhance the scope of limitation in order to keep the matter alive. As the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred, I do not find any justification in going into the further details and merits of the appeal which is dismissed on this score alone. There will be no order as to costs. M.Y.M. Appeal dismissed.