1989SCMR680 (PLP)

‑‑‑S.4‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)‑‑Petitioner's representation against fixation of his seniority having been rejected by Government, his appeal against such rejection before Service Tribunal was dismissed as time‑barred‑ Petition for leave to appeal being also barred by four days, no satisfactory explanation for condo nation of delay had been given‑‑Petitioner had no case even on merit‑‑His placement in junior grade was made almost two decades back during which period no protest had ever been made by him to seek senior grade‑ Service Tribunal, held, was right in holding that petitioner's appeal was barred by time. Riaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Oadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 8th November, 1988. SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner joined service as Secretary/Chief Officer on 26‑4‑1963 in the Town Committee of Rajanpur in district Dera Ghazi Khan. On 8‑10‑1963, the West Pakistan Local Councils and the Municipal Committees Service Rules were published. In accordance with the rules the West Pakistan Local Council Service was constituted. On 6‑4‑1964, the petitioner was inducted into the service in the junior grade of class II.

2. Ghulam Farid and Pir Muhammad Shah who were serving as Chief Officers in the Municipal Committees of Leiah and Pakpattan, respectively, were similarly inducted into the service in the junior grade of class

11. They made representations to the Government for being placed in the senior grade on account of the status of the Committees in which they were working, their lengths of service and the salaries they were drawing at the time of induction. By an order dated 22‑7‑1981 the Government accepted their representations and placed them in the senior grade. After the acceptance of their representations, the petitioner also made a similar representation which was rejected by the Government whereupon he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal. The learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal mainly on the ground that it was barred by time. The petitioner seeks leave to appeal from this Court.

3. This petition is barred by four days. The learned counsel is not in a position to give any satisfactory explanation for condonation of the delay. Even on merits, he does not appear to have any case. The order by which the petitioner was placed in the junior grade was made on as far back as 6‑4‑1964. 1t does not A appear that he made any representation seeking the senior grade for almost two decades. The learned Tribunal was therefore right in holding that his appeal was barred by time. The petition is accordingly dismissed. AA./A‑399/S Leave to appeal refused.