1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN (MEMBER).‑‑‑The appellant was employed as Clerk‑in‑Charge in the Audit Department of Pakistan Railways in 1980 when he was asked to work against the post of Accountant (BPS‑16). He performed the duties of higher post from 1‑12‑1980 to 10‑121985 when he was promoted as Accountant on regular basis.

2. In accordance with section 17 of the Civil Servants Act he was entitled to the salary in BPS‑16 for five years but he did not demand. Allegedly there were verbal requests. In writing he made the first representation on 3‑12‑1989 followed by reminders dated 3‑7‑1991, 10‑3‑1993 and 17‑11‑1994. Allegedly for the first time he received a reply dated 16‑8‑1995 whereby his request was rejected. Thereafter, he filed another appeal to the Prime Minister on 10‑9‑1995 which has not been responded and the appellant has come up before this Tribunal on 7‑1‑1996 asking for the salary of BPS‑16 from 1‑12‑1980 to 10‑12‑1985.

3. We have listened to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant in preliminary hearing. The question of limitation is a fatal one in this case. The cause of action accrued to the appellant in 1980 and it continued till December, 1985. He did not ask for the salary of higher post till 1989, therefore, the period of appeal had already lapsed under section 22 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 on 9‑1‑1986. It has been held in several precedents that when the appeal before the concerned department is barred by time, the appeal before the Tribunal does not lie.

4. Although the clear provision of statute cannot be bye‑passed but even if it is supposed that the Department considered the appeal of 1989 or that of 1994 and rejected it on merits on 16‑8‑1995 and time is allowed to run, there from even then the appellant approached this Tribunal on 7‑1‑1996 almost five months thereafter and thus the appeal is hit by section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to 1994 PLC (C.S.) 411; 1995 PLC (C.S.) 1103; PLD 1994 SC 348 and PLD 1987 SC 612 but these precedents are not at all relevant to the point in issue. While seeking condonation of limitation under section 5 of the Limitation Act (which is applicable to the proceedings before this Tribunal but no application for condonation has been made in this appeal) one has to give explanation for each day of delay. Weeks can be ignored, as per above precedents, if sufficient cause is shown, but months and years cannot be condoned simple on verbal requests. The statute of limitation and the statutory provisions of limitation have to be applied strictly otherwise the very spirit of law will be negated. Express statutory provisions of law have to be honoured to uphold the concept of supremacy of Legislature.

6. In brief the first representation/appeal to the department was barred by time to the tune of more than four years; and so the appeal based on the reply to representation will be definitely barred. However, the appeal is also affected by limitation after the receipt of the "final order" in August, 1995. The issue of 1980 cannot be agitated in 1996 (after sixteen years) by any stretch of the limitation period. Hence the appeal fails which is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./14/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.