1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. While returning to Pakistan with the permission of the Competent Authority, the appellant went to Jeddah to perform Umra for which he had obtained required leave sanctioned from the Competent Authority.

4. According to him the amount of Rs. 12,500 so provided to him was insufficient and less than the D.A. admissible to Government officers going on foreign tours.

5. On 30‑1‑1992, the appellant submitted tour report to his parent department. Along with it also he submitted his claim of difference of D.A. vide a note dated 30‑1‑1992. In turn the department sought an explanation in this regard from the Establishment Division, which responding vide a letter dated 31‑3‑1992 informed the department that no participant was entitled to any D.A. individually from his parent department.

6. The appellant submitted representation against the said Establishment Division's letter on 9‑5‑1992 which was forwarded by the department to the Establishment Division for reconsideration on 11‑5‑1992. However, the same was rejected by the Establishment Division stating therein that foreign study tour was integral part of NIPA and therefore, cannot be treated as official tour for the purpose of admissibility of D.A. vide a letter dated 8‑10‑1992. Not being satisfied with the said reply, the appellant preferred appeal against such a rejection to the Secretary, Establishment Division on the same date. In the meanwhile, there was an exchange of correspondence in‑between the Establishment and Finance Divisions to resolve the issue of the D.A. for those who were being nominated for training in NIPA which also includes the foreign study tour. The appellant again submitted application to Finance Division who forwarded it in its original form to the Establishment Division quoting the case of one Saad Sharif. This application too was turned down. Yet another application was submitted by the appellant on 2‑7‑1995 to'. Secretary, Establishment Division as well as to the Secretary, Finance Division. That too was turned down. The appellant then submitted a review petition to the Secretary, Establishment Division against the order of Establishment Division dated 24‑5‑1995 on 4‑9‑1995. This too was turned down by the Establishment .Division vide a letter dated 19‑12‑1995 communicated to the appellant on 21‑12‑1995 against which he had submitted this present appeal before the Tribunal.

7. Pleading the case of the appellant, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that‑ according to the FR 6(ii), the civil servant could not be refused D.A. if he is permitted by the Competent Authority to proceed on official tour of a foreign country and that in a similar case one Mr. Saad Sharif was granted D.A. while he was trainee in NIPA vide a Finance Division's letter dated 21‑5‑1991.

8. The main issue before us is whether the foreign tour undertaken by the appellant falls within the ambit 9f official tour hence entitled to full D.A. under the law.

9. In its letter dated 30‑9‑1991 addressed to the appellant the NIPA had made clear vide para. 8 that: "The participants of the Advanced Course are taken to a ten days' study tour of a selected country in the region. The purpose is to provide them with an opportunity of making a comparative study of different models of development and administrative system. On return from tour each participant is required to submit a comprehensive report based on his study of different Organisations, Bureaus, Agencies etc., in these countries. "

10. It is clear from the above that he was completely given understanding of the nature of the foreign tour. It was in no way official tour dealing with official duties but rather a part of a training course, which was its objective. He accepted it and he did not raise any objection at that time. He should have agitated against it before proceeding on tour because he was informed by NIPA much earlier than actually taking the tour. Since he did not agitate at that time, he therefore, has no cause to agitate now.

11. While rejecting the representation of the appellant it has been amply clarified by the Establishment Division that it was a study tour and hence a part of the said training course.

12. Now coming to the law points, the letter dated 29‑9‑1991 reveals that the provisional course fee was enhanced from Rs.50,000 to Rs.62,

500. It was clarified in that letter that the additional amount was meant for foreign study tour. The appellant, however, did not challenge this O.M. in other word he accepted it. Otherwise, he would have challenged the said O.M. on the plea that the additional amount so provided was not sufficient, therefore, should have been made equivalent to D.A. as admissible to official going abroad on foreign tours, under the rules. However, he did not agitate at that time. Now he does not have any cause to agitate against it.

13. His first representation was rejected on 31‑3‑1991. Under the law, he should have come to this Tribunal within a period of thirty days on passing or that rejection order but he kept on resorting on submitting applications/representations/review petitions to the Secretary, Establishment Division as well as Secretary, Finance Division. Under the law, there is only provision of one representation. There is no provision for the second representation. To agitate now is blatantly time‑barred.

14. Although the learned counsel for the appellant took us to the respondent's letter of rejection dated 19‑12‑1995 arguing that since rejection was not based on the ground of time limitation; it meant, therefore, that time was condoned. We are unable to subscribe to such a view. His cause to agitate against non‑acceptance of his claim arose on 31‑3‑1991 i.e. almost four years ago. Now that old matter cannot be revived specially when the learned counsel for the appellant did not submit any application for condonation of delay. As such we do not find any force in his arguments. The learned counsel for the appellant also brought out at bar the precedent of one Saad Sharif ‑‑ a NIPA trainee of 8th Batch ‑‑ to have been granted D.A. permissible to officers going on official tour abroad. However, in this regard, the official position as contained in Establishment Division letter 'dated 19‑12‑1995 reveals that the U,S. Aid used to bear expenditure on per diam allowance of the participants of Ministries/Divisions except those from Police and Defence Services. Hence Saad Sharif who belonged to Police Service was allowed D.A. to that obtained by other officers of the same advance course for the same country for the durations of the foreign study tour. As such the appellant's case is clearly distinguishable from that of Saad Sharif, hence cannot be equated with that of his.

15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being misconceived is dismissed in limine Appeal dismissed.