1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

BASHARAT AHMED SHEIKH, J.

This appeal by leave of the Court, relates to the interpretation of section 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunal Act which reads as follows:-- "

4. Appeal to Tribunals.

(1) Any civil servant aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority, in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service, may, within thirty days of the communication of such order to hire, or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, whichever is later, prefer appeal to the Tribunal: Provided that-- (a) where an appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority is provided under the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Civil Servants Act, 1976, or any rules, against any such order, no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal unless the aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to such departmental authority and a period of ninety days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred; (b). ........................................................................................................ (c) ...................................................................................................... (2) ......................................................................................................... The Service Tribunal has dismissed the appeal of the present appellant on the ground that the period spent by the appellant in prosecution of the revision petition filed by him before the Inspector-General of Police, which is provided under Rule 16".32 of the Police Rules, could not be deducted in computing the period of limitation for the purposes of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has hell that since the proviso reproduced above only refers to an appeal, review and representation and does not mentioned a revision petition; it was not necessary for the appellant to file a revision petition. In reaching the conclusion as aforesaid, the Tribunal has relied on a case decided by Service Tribunal of Sindh Muhammad Boota v. The State 1988 P L C (C.S.)

165. The Sindh Tribunal, while holding that limitation starts running from the date of Deputy Inspector-General's order and time consumed in disposal of the revision petition filed with the Inspector-General of Police would not be deducted, adopted the reasoning that the order passed by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police was the final appellate order within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act and appeal should have been filed against the Deputy Inspector-General's order within limitation. In our view the term `representation' is wide enough to include a revision petition and cannot be restricted to the narrow interpretation which has been adopted by the learned members of the Tribunal. Unlike the words `appeal' and `review', the word `representation' does not have a fixed connotation and should be liberally construed to include a revision petition. The reasoning adopted by the Sindh Service Tribunal fails to take note of the fact that opening part of section 4(1) is controlled by part (a) of the proviso which clearly lays down that no appeal can be filed in the Service Tribunal unless departmental remedies have been exhausted. Consequently the order of the Service Tribunal is set aside and the case is remanded to the Tribunal for adjudication of the other points involved in the appeal filed by Aziz-ur-Rehman appellant. A.A./301/S.C.A. Case remanded.