1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN ZAKIR Versus MINISTRY OF DEFENCE through Muhammad Shafat
| Citation | 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Aftab Ahmad, Roshan Ali Mangi, Nasim Sabir Syed and Muhammad Raza Khan, Members |
| Parties | MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN ZAKIR Versus MINISTRY OF DEFENCE through Muhammad Shafat |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Aftab Ahmad, Roshan Ali Mangi, Nasim Sabir Syed and Muhammad Raza Khan, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN ZAKIR Versus MINISTRY OF DEFENCE through Muhammad Shafat). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mumtaz Ellahi Bhatti for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 30th November, 1996.
- 2. The appeal came up for hearing before the Bench on 30‑11‑1996 and Mr. Mumtaz Ellahi Bhatti, Advocate who appeared on behalf of the appellant argued the matter on the question of limitation. He could not satisfy us on the point except that the appellant had been continuously agitating his grievance before various authorities by making repeated applications/representations. We are sorry we cannot help the appellant as the law on the subject is absolutely clear. A 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 him prefer an appeal to the Tribunal, after exhausting the departmental remedy, provided by clause (a) to sub‑rule (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. In this case the appellant was removed from service by order dated 16‑12‑1980. He appears, to have made a departmental appeal on 23‑2‑1988, i.e. about eight years after his removal, which was rejected by order, dated 8‑3‑1988 and the appellant continued to make further representations to other authorities, which would not extend the limitation. It was held by the honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as PLD 1990 SC 951, that if the departmental appeal is time barred, the appeal to the Tribunal shall also be treated as incompetent. There is no application for condonation of delay either. In these circumstances, we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal in limine as patently time barred.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 4(1)(a)‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Civil servant who was removed from service on account of unauthorised absence, filed Departmental appeal after about 8 years from his removal which was rejected‑‑‑After rejection of Departmental appeal civil servant instead of approaching any legal forum, continued to make repeated applications/representations to various Authorities and filed appeal before Service Tribunal after 16 years of his dismissal from service‑‑‑Departmental appeal filed by civil servant after 8 years of his removal itself being hopelessly time‑barred, appeal filed before Service Tribunal after 16 years of its removal from service and after about 8 years from rejection of Departmental Appeal, was also incompetent being barred by time especially when appellant had failed to explain such inordinate delay in filing appeal. PLD 1990 SC 951 ref.
Judgment & Decree
AFTAB AHMAD (MEMBER). ‑‑‑‑The facts as given in the memo of appeal are that the appellant Mushtaq Hussain Zakir, who had been a UDC in the PAF Peshawar, was removed from service with effect from 10‑4‑1980, on account of unauthorised absence. He filed an appeal against the order of removal, dated 16‑12‑1980, with the departmental authority on 23‑2‑1988, which was rejected as per letter dated 8‑3‑1988 being time‑barred. The appellant instead of approaching any legal forum continued to make repeated applications/representations to various authorities including the Secretary, Defence Minister, Prime Minister and GHQ etc. and finally presented the present appeal before the Tribunal on 16‑11‑1996.
2. The appeal came up for hearing before the Bench on 30‑11‑1996 and Mr. Mumtaz Ellahi Bhatti, Advocate who appeared on behalf of the appellant argued the matter on the question of limitation. He could not satisfy us on the point except that the appellant had been continuously agitating his grievance before various authorities by making repeated applications/representations. We are sorry we cannot help the appellant as the law on the subject is absolutely clear. A 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 him prefer an appeal to the Tribunal, after exhausting the departmental remedy, provided by clause (a) to sub‑rule (1) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. In this case the appellant was removed from service by order dated 16‑12‑1980. He appears, to have made a departmental appeal on 23‑2‑1988, i.e. about eight years after his removal, which was rejected by order, dated 8‑3‑1988 and the appellant continued to make further representations to other authorities, which would not extend the limitation. It was held by the honourable Supreme Court in the case reported as PLD 1990 SC 951, that if the departmental appeal is time barred, the appeal to the Tribunal shall also be treated as incompetent. There is no application for condonation of delay either. In these circumstances, we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal in limine as patently time barred. H.B.T./252/ST.F. Appeal dismissed.