1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others
| Citation | 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Ch. Hassan Nawaz and Kh. Abdul Jalil, Members |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others |
| Primary Law | Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Railway Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Ch. Hassan Nawaz and Kh. Abdul Jalil, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD IQBAL Versus THE GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Aslam for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th December, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Rr. 5 & 6‑‑Scrvicc Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4‑‑Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5‑‑Railway employee‑‑Reversion‑‑Such employee's appeal having been filed more than thirty days after communication of rejection of his departmental appeal, was time‑barred‑‑No substantial reason having been advanced for condonation of delay in filing appeal, same was dismissed as time‑barred.
Judgment & Decree
CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).‑‑The appellant was reverted from the post of a Stenographer (BPS‑15) to that of a Stenotypist (BPS‑12) for a period of six months, by order dated 22‑2‑1988 (Annex. L) in consequence of disciplinary proceedings.
2. On 2‑4‑1988, more than a month after the impugned order had been passed, he submitted a departmental appeal (Annex. M) against the impugned order to the competent authority; which appears from letter dated 10‑8‑1988 (Annex. P) to have been rejected. He was asked to report to J.O./Confidential Section for appearing in the test for proficiency in shorthand and typewriting at 10‑00 a.m. on 16‑8‑1988.
3. The present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 to challenge the validity of the impugned order dated 22‑2‑1988 was instituted on 27‑12‑1988.
4. Since the appeal has been filed more than thirty days after the communication of order dated 10‑8‑1988 rejecting his departmental appeal, it is evidently time‑barred. In the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act, no substantial reason has been advanced, with the result that we have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal in limine as time‑barred it is, therefore, ordered accordingly. A.A./450/Sr. F Appeal dismissed.