1990 PLP 1433 (SCMR)

RUSTAM S. SIDHWA, J.‑‑‑Through this petition Mirza Ansar Baig, petitioner, seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, dated 24th April, 198'), dismissing in limine his appeal.

2. Brief facts of the case arc that Mirza Ansar Baig, petitioner, was appointed as an Assistant Sub‑Inspector in the Federal Investigating Agency on 16th August, 1975, whereas Gul Sonober, Shaukat Ali, Ghulam Nabi and Subha Sadiq, respondents Nos. 4 to 7, were appointed to the same post on 19th and 20th August, 1975. On 1st August, 1983, the said respondents Nos. 4 to 7 were promoted as Sub‑Inspectors, F.I.A., whereas the petitioner was promoted as Sub -Inspector, F.I.A., on 15th May, 1985. It is alleged that in the meantime an appeal having been taken before the Federal Service Tribunal as regards promotions made by the Federal Investigation Agency on Zonal basis, the said Tribunal accepted the appeal of some of the officers of the F.I.A., on the ground that promotions should have been made on am all Pakistan basis. On 19th November, 1987, respondents Nos. 4 to 7 were promoted as Inspectors, F.I.A. On 6th July, 1988, the petitioner was given promotion as Sub‑Inspector with effect from 1st August, 1983, the date on which his immediate juniors had been promoted to that post. It is the case of the petitioner that when he went to receive the arrears of his pay, after the order of 6th August, 1988, had been issued, he came to learn that respondents Nos. 4 to 7 had already been promoted as Inspectors on 19th November, 1987. He, therefore, preferred a departmental appeal on 22nd October, 1988, but not receiving any reply within 90 days, riled an appeal with the Federal Service Tribunal on 19th February, 1989. The appeal, however, was dismissed in. limine on 24th April, 1989, against which judgment the petitioner seeks leave to appeal.

3. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that as he did not come to know of the promotions of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 as Inspectors till sometime after 6th July, 1988, when the order regarding his pro forma promotion as Sub-Inspector with retrospective effect from 1st August, 1983, had been made and he had gone to the office to collect arrears of his pay, it is asserted that both his departmental appeal which he filed on 22nd October, 1988, and the appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal which he filed on 19th February, 1989, were within time and that the finding of the Federal Service Tribunal that his departmental appeal was time‑barred is based upon erroneous assumptions and misappreciation of the facts.

4. The petitioner's departmental appeal dated 22nd October, 1988, which is t at page 31 of the paper‑book, clearly shows that the same was preferred so as to seek seniority over respondents Nos. 4 to 7 and consequential benefits regarding pay and allowances from such date that his seniority was fixed, whereas the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Federal Service Tribunal is against the promotion of respondents Nos. 4 to 7 as Inspectors and his entitlement to pro forma promotion as such with retrospective effect from the date on which the said respondents had been promoted. In these circumstances, the Federal Service Tribunal was correct in holding that as no departmental appeal was filed in time against the order of promotion of the respondents dated 19th November, 1987, the present appeal before them against the said order of promotion was time‑barred. There being no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. A.A./A‑699/5 Petition dismissed.