1997 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

ZIA MAHMOOD AIIRZA, .J.‑‑‑This order will also dispose of two other connected petitions viz. C.P. 321!94 and C.P. 322/94 as the same judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal forms the subject‑matter of all these petitions.

2. Facts giving rise to these petitions briefly are that the petitioner Muhammad Iqbal who was serving as Assistant in the Interior Division, Government of Pakistan since the year 1981 was transferred to the Narcotics Control Division on 10‑3‑1991 case of the petitioner is that after he took, over in the Narcotics Control Division, question of seniority came up for consideration and the Establishment Division advised that as the transfer of the officials has been made in public interest, alongwith work and post, they will retain seniority in their new office from the date of their regular appointment in the Ministry of Interior. Petitioner is then stated to have made a representation to the competent Authority on 8‑6‑1991 claiming that he was second in seniority amongst the Assistants in the Narcotics Control Division and was entitled to be promoted as Superintendent (BPS‑16) in preference to those holding the said post. It was alleged by the petitioner that despite many reminders, the authorities took no action and the petitioner, therefore, made a request to the competent Authority on 19‑4‑1993 for issuing the seniority list of the Assistants and to make the promotion in accordance with the rules. According to the petitioner, the provisional seniority list was circulated by the department vide letter dated 4‑5‑1993 whereupon the petitioner made another representation on 17‑5‑1993 claiming seniority over Muhammad Javed respondent in C.P: 320/94, Azmat Khan respondent in C.P. 321/94 and Muhammad Aslam respondent in C.P.322194. It may be stated that all these officials were appointed/promoted in the Narcotics Control Division before the petitioner was transferred to this division. Petitioner's representations were rejected by the competent Authority on 17‑1‑1994

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed three appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal challenging the failure of the departmental authorities to promote him as Superintendent in preference to the respondents. The appeal, it is stated, were in time but by way of abundant caution, applications for condonation of delay were also filed. The Federal Service Tribunal, however, dismissed all the three appeals as time‑barred by a single judgment holding that the private respondents stood promoted during the years 1989 and 1990. Petitioner has now filed these petitions for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal.

4. Learned counsel appearing in support of these petitioners has contended that the departmental authority dismissed the petitioner's appeals/representations on 17‑1‑1994 and the petitioner filed the appeals before the Tribunal on 15‑2‑1994. That being so, the appeals before the Federal Service Tribunal did not suffer from the bar of limitation. It is further contended that since the departmental authority did not reject the petitioner's appeals/representations on the ground of limitation, the learned Tribunal was in error in dismissing the appeals as time‑barred for the reason that the respondents were promoted in the years 1989 and 1990. .

5. Leave is granted in all the three petitions to examine the aforenoted contentions. A.A./M‑3047/S Leave granted.