1991 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

3. the appellant has argued the appeal himself. He has urged following grounds:-- (i) That he was retired from service as a matter of punishment as per directive of the President contained in letter dated (sic)-11-1979. (ii) That the impugned order was not passed by the competent authority which was the Railway Board, whereas the order was made in the name of the President. (iii) That he was retired on recommendation of a Screening Committee which is not envisaged under the provisions of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. (iv) That the Screening Committee had taken cognisance of punishment of his reversion awarded on him in 1975 under the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, and which he had challenged before this Tribunal and his appeal was allowed with aspersions on the department. (v) That his retirement was made as a matter of punishment as indicated in the written objections that he was compulsorily retired but no proceedings were taken against him under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules. " As regards the apparent objection of limitation, the appellant has urged that the impugned order was made without jurisdiction and was void ab initio and there is no period of limitation for challenging such order in the light of the authorities cited as (i) P L D 1985 SC (Pak.) 104; (ii) PLD 1965 SC 68; (iii) PLD 1966 SC 276:(iv) PLD 1967 SC 294: and (v) PLD 1969 Lahore 1039.

4. In addition to his oral arguments, he has filed his written arguments which include reference to some Quranic injunctions in respect of administration of justice.

5. The respondents have been represented at the hearing of the appeal by Harz Tariq Naseem, Standing Counsel. He has urged that the impugned order was made by the President who was the competent authority as the appellant was Grade-20 officer serving in connection with the affairs of the Federation, and Railway Board was a subordinate body. He has next urged that the appellant invoked jurisdiction' of this Tribunal against that order in Appeal No.43 (L)/8I which was dismissed in limine by order dated 3-4-1982 and he did not prefer appeal before the Supreme Court against that order and, therefore, he cannot maintain another appeal before the Tribunal. He has contended that the impugned order was made on 23-11-1980 and his remedy stood closed by 3-4-1982 when his Appeal No.43(L)/81 before this Tribunal was dismissed in limine and no relief revived after the subsequent decisions of the Federal Shariat Court and the Supreme Court that the provisions of sections 13 (i) and (ii) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 were repugnant to the injunctions of Islam He has pointed out that the Federal Sliariat Court as well as the Supreme Court had allowed time to the Government to make appropriate amendment in section 13 of the Civil Servants Act as to make provision for opportunity of notice and hearing to the affected persons before making order of retirement from service. He has made reference to the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1990 S C M R 1508 that the decision in respect of the repugnancy of the provisions of section 13 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 was prospective and not retrospective.

6. The appellant has preferred this appeal on 18-4-1988 for setting aside the order of his retirement from service made as far back as 23-11-1980. He had challenged the same order before this Tribunal in appeal No.43(L)/81 and it was disposed of on 3-4-1982 that it had abated by virtue of the provisions of Article 13(1) of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, although its merits also were adversely commented upon. He did not challenge that decision before the Supreme Court. Therefore, that decision of the Tribunal became final. There is no provision under law for reopening of his case before this Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal is not maintainable,

7. The first round of the litigations ventured by the appellant against the impugned order dated 23-11-1980 stood closed by the dismissal of his appeal before this Tribunal, being Appeal No.43 (L)/81, by order dated 3-4-1982 which was not appealed against. He opened another round of litigation by making a petition dated 25-12-1987 to the Prime Minister. He remained quiet for the long period of nearly five years and eight months, between 3-4-1982 and 25-12-1987, although the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 was repealed in December, 1985 but he did not re-agitate the matter anywhere. His petition dated 25-12-1987 to the Prime Minister was not and could not be termed as a departmental appeal. This appeal is, therefore, time-barred as well. The contention of the appellant that the impugned order was viod ab initio and, therefore, no period of limitation could be construed have run against it in the light of the authorities, referred to above, is not tenable. This ground was considered in his earlier Appeal No. 43(L)/81 and was repelled in the order dated 3-4-1982. Suffice to mention that the order of retirement of the appellant was made by the President who is the repository of Authority of making appointments of the civil servants as provided under section 5 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973 and every civil servant holds office during the pleasure of the President as laid down in section 4 of the said Act. Even if the Railway Board was the controlling authority in respect of service under the Pakistan Railways, the final authority vests in the President and, therefore, the impugned order was made by the competent authority. The directive of the President contained in letter dated 15-11-1979 objected to by the appellant was not directed against the appellant only but it was a policy decision that the cases of the civil servants who had put in mole than 25 years service qualifying for pension may be reviewed for retirement as to make room for the civil servants waiting for promotion and a policy was laid down for undertaking such exercise as to avoid discrimination in taking decision lt was a just and fair policy and any aspersions against it are unjustified. The order of retirement of the appellant was passed in normal course and in accordance with the law then prevailing and was made by competent authority. That being the case, the appellant cannot escape the question of limitation in his way in filing the appeal, which is not maintainable otherwise also, as discussed above.

8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is not maintainable and is also time-barred and is dismissed as such. No order is made for costs. M.Y.H./622/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.