1998 PLP 1153 (SCMR)
KHALID WAHEED‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 1153 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslant Zahid, Munawar Ahmad Mirza and Abdur Rehman Khan, JJ |
| Parties | KHALID WAHEED‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 1153 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 1153 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasir Aslant Zahid, Munawar Ahmad Mirza and Abdur Rehman Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 1153 (SCMR) (KHALID WAHEED‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE CHAIRMAN, PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION CORPORATION and 12 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 16th March, 1998.
- M. Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court with Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 4‑9‑1995 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal No. 319(R) of 1995). (a) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 22(2)‑‑‑Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, R. 3‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 212(3)‑‑‑Limitation‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether in the circumstances of the case Service Tribunal was right in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as barred by time. (b) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 22(2)‑‑‑Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977, R. 3‑‑‑Appeal‑‑‑Limitation‑‑ Mere repetition of representation or appeal hoping to receive some reply from department cannot help to extend period of limitation which on broad principles is co‑related with date for cause of action. Zafar Mahmood v. WAPDA 1991 SCMR 640; Malak Muhammad Khan v. Inspector‑General of Police 1992 SCMR 1136; Muhammad Raz Khan v. Government of N.‑W.F.P. PLD 1997 SC 397 and Muhammad Hasham v. Inspector‑General of Police 1990 SCMR 1440 ref.,
Judgment & Decree
"FAZAL KARIM, J.
Leave to appeal is granted to consider whether in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was right in dismissing the petitioner's appeal as barred by time."'
7. Mr. M. Munir Peracha, ASC, learned counsel for appellant strenuously urged that whenever departmental appeal of aggrieved employee is decided on merits, a fresh cause of action arises, therefore, according to him, rejection of service appeal merely for being barred by time was materially defective. Reliance was placed on the observations in the case of Zafar Mahmood v. WAPDA (1991 SCMR 640).
8. We have carefully perused the entire material and considered relevant case-law. It is quite apparent from record that appellant was duly informed on 8th June 1992 about rejection of representation initially submitted by him. Admittedly, despite being fully conscious, appellant practically did not take any legal step till 15th December, 1994 when appeal/review was filed wherein correction in fixation of date regarding promotion to B-11 was challenged. There is absolutely no explanation for extraordinary long silence of about thirty months. Firstly, it may be seen that second appeal/review filed by petitioner on 15th December, 1994 was rejected without adverting to merits, which is manifestly reflected on bare perusal of order dated 4th July, 1995. Therefore, reference to abovequoted report has no applicability. Secondly, appellant has not been able to furnish sufficient ground for condoning inordinate delay. Needless to say that mere repetition of representation or appeal hoping to receive some reply from department cannot help to extend period of limitation which on broad principles is - co-related with date for cause of action. The Federal Service Tribunal has exhaustively discussed the legal aspects in the concluding para. of the impugned judgment, which does not suffer from any legal defect or infirmity. This legal position also finds support from the observations in the cases reported as Malak Muhammad Khan v. Inspector-General of Police (1992 SCMR 1136), Muhammad Raz Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. (PLD 1997 SC 397) and Muhammad Hasham v. Inspector-General of Police (1990 SCMR 1440). For the above reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. M.B.A./K-13/S Appeal dismissed