1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
NAZIR AHMAD ABBASI Versus WAPDA
| Citation | 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Federal Service Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Roshan Ali Mangi and Nasim Sabir Syed, Members |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMAD ABBASI Versus WAPDA |
| Primary Law | Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Federal Service Tribunal bench comprising: Roshan Ali Mangi and Nasim Sabir Syed, Members.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (NAZIR AHMAD ABBASI Versus WAPDA). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar Khan for Appellant.
- Date of hearing: 12th June, 1996.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 4
Civil servant who had already retired from service, had challenged order of Authority which was passed about 13 years ago, according to which co-civil servant was given pro forma promotion-- Civil servant in his application for condonation of delay had not given airy cogent reason for such a long delay in filing appeal
Held, after the prescribed period of limitation had elapsed, the door of justice would be closed and no plea of injustice, hardship or ignorance could be of any avail to appellant unless delay in filing appeal was properly explained and accounted for. 1988 SCMR 1354 ref.
Judgment & Decree
ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).
The appellant who was an Assistant Accountant and has already been retired from service with effect from 6-5-1992 on superannuation his grievance is that his colleagues M/s. Fakhar-uz-Zaman and Abdul Rehman were given pro forma promotion vide office order dated 24-8-1983, consequent upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, whereas he was ignored. He, therefore, approached the Lahore High Court by way of writ petition which was dismissed. Therefore, he made a number of representations to the respondents for redressal of his grievance but of no avail. Ultimately he was informed vide letter dated 25-4-1996 that his appeal on the matter was dismissed by the Lahore High Court in 1992, as such his application did not merit reconsideration. He has, therefore, filed the present appeal on 22-5-1996 before the Tribunal with the prayer that the respondents be directed to grant him seniority with effect from 26-4-1965 on the anology of his other colleagues cited above: promotion as Assistant Accountant from 1975 and Budget Officer from 1986 for the purpose of pay, increments, arrears and revision of pension.
2. Before we go into the merit of the case, we propose to resolve first; the question of limitation.
3. The appellant's grievance arose in 1983 when M/s. Fakhar-uz -Zaman and Abdul Rehman were given pro forma promotion vide office order dated 24-8-1983, in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court. Instead of agitating against this order he chose to sleep over the matter. The forum of the Federal Service Tribunal was available to him at that time also but he preferred to remain quiet. However, alongwith three others he filed a writ petition followed by inter Court appeal in Lahore High Court in 1992 but lost. Thereafter he continued pouring his represent4tions to the respondents who ultimately informed him vide letter dated 25-5-1996 that as the matter was already dismissed by the Lahore High Court during 1992, therefore, in the light of High Court decision his application did not merit consideration On the basis of this rejection the appellant has filed the present appeal which is hopelessly time-barred especially when he has impugned the order which was passed on 24-8-1983 i.e. about 13 years ago.
4. Although the appellant has submitted the application for condonation, nevertheless he has not given any cogent reason for such a long delay worth considering. It is a settled law that after the prescribed period of the door of justice is closed in, no pleas of injustice, hardship or ignorance can be of any avail unless the delay is properly learned and accounted for.(1988 SCMR 1354).
5. In view of inordinate delay, the appeal cannot be accepted. Accordingly it is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./82/Sr.F Appeal dismissed.