2013 PLP 911 (SCMR)
ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 911 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (c) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 911 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (c) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 911 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Muhammad Ather Saeed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 911 (SCMR) (ABDUL SATTAR — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghulam Rasool Mangi, Advocate Supreme Court and Ghulam Qadir Jatoi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Sanaullah Noor Ghori, Advocate Supreme Court and A.S.K. Ghori, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.1.
- Ashiq Raza, D.A.-G. for Respondents Nos.2 and 3.
- Date of hearing: 6th June, 2012.
- 2. Learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has not disputed that in fact the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal was barred by time. This being the position, we find no valid reason for interference in the impugned order. Besides, no question of law of public importance is involved in this petition. Dismissed. Leave refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from order of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (Karachi Bench) dated 27-12-2011 passed in Appeal No.27(K)CS/2008.)
S. 4
Filing of appeal before Service Tribunal
Successive departmental appeals cannot extend period of limitation (for filing appeal). 1998 SCMR 882; 1999 PLC (C.S.) 510 and 1999 PLC (C.S.) 862 ref.
S. 4
Filing of appeal before Service Tribunal
Question of limitation should be considered seriously in service matters. 2010 SCMR 1982 rel.
S. 4
Filing of appeal before Service Tribunal
Question of limitation cannot be considered a technicality simpliciter as it had its own significance and would have substantial bearing on the merits of the case. 2011 SCMR 8 rel.
Judgment & Decree
ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.
This petition for leave to appeal assails the order dated 27-10-2011, in Appeal No.27(K)CS/2008, passed by Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, Karachi Bench, whereby the said appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by time. Relevant discussion contained in the impugned order reads as follows:-- "
6. We have considered the above arguments and carefully perused the record. Apparently, appeal is time barred, as the appellant has approached this Tribunal on 22-3-2008 against the order dated 15-6-2007 after filing a departmental appeal on 15-7-2007, which remained un-responded. An application for condonation of delay has also been filed along with the appeal wherein no reasonable ground has been taken except that the appellant has been continuously approaching the respondents for promotion in the cadre of Commercial Inspector BS-16 as per merit, but the same remained un responded. Last application submitted on 20-11-2007, has not been responded to. It may be mentioned here that successive departmental appeal cannot extend period of limitation. We rely on 1998 SCMR 882, 1999 PLC (C.S.) 510 and 1999 PLC (C.S.)
862. Besides, it has been held in 2010 SCMR 1982 that, "civil servant remained in deep slumber for more than 20 years and it was too late in the day to question the legality of additional note. No plausible justification could be furnished by civil servant for the delay, except that question of limitation was nothing more but a technicality which was an incorrect approach. Question of limitation could not be taken lightly, as in service matters such question should be considered seriously." In 2011 SCMR 8, it was also held that, "Question of limitation cannot be considered a "technicality" simpliciter as it has got its own significance and would have substantial bearing on merits of case."
2. Learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner has not disputed that in fact the appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal was barred by time. This being the position, we find no valid reason for interference in the impugned order. Besides, no question of law of public importance is involved in this petition. Dismissed. Leave refused. MWA/A-3/SC Petition dismissed.