2005 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

M. Ilyas Sr. Advocate Supreme Court with Muhammad Aslam Chatta, Advocate‑on‑Record for petitioners. Mehr Khan Malik, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent (in C.P No. 469 of 200.4). Date of hearing: 4th August, 2004. MUHAMMAD NAWAZ ABBASI, J.‑‑‑These petitions under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan involving common questions of law and facts, have been directed against a consolidated judgment dated 6‑12‑2003 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal in separate service appeals filed by the petitioners.

2. These petitions are barred by 9 days and condonation of delay has been sought on the ground that initially, the petitions were filed at Lahore on 14‑2‑2004 on the last day of limitation but the same were returned on the same day by the Deputy Registrar of this Court, at Lahore, for the reason that copies of the grounds of appeals before the Tribunal were not annexed with the petitions and after doing the needful, the petitions were re‑filed on 23‑2‑2004.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the intervening period from 14‑2‑2004 to 22‑2‑2004, was consumed in obtaining the copies of grounds of appeals for removal of objection, therefore, this period was to be excluded for the purpose of limitation and. the petitions would be deemed to have been filed within time.

4. The perusal of record would show that certified copy of judgment dated 6‑12‑2003 was received by the petitioners on 16‑12‑2003 and the petitions were filed on 14‑2‑2004 in the Branch Registry of this Court at Lahore which were returned to the Advocate‑on‑Record of the petitioners, on the same day with the remarks that copies of ground of appeals before the Service Tribunal, were not annexed with the petitions. The Advocate‑on‑Record, after taking the petitions back, again filed the same on 23‑2‑2004 after 9 days of the expire of limitation and consequently, after return of the petitions to the Advocate‑on‑Record in original, the same would not be deemed pending in the office of this Court, therefore, the time spent by the petitioners in arranging the copies of ground of appeal for want of which the petitions were returned, would not be excluded for the mere reasons that the petitions, for the first time, were filed within time. The petitioners at the first instance filed these petitions on the last day of‑limitation and on return, without asking for time or taking an immediate step for removal of defect, filed these petitions with a delay of 9 days. The petitioners thus were required to explain delay of each day from the date of return of petitions to the date of re‑filing but they have failed to give any explanation that under what circumstances, the petitions could not be re‑filed on the same day and for what reason further period of 9 days was taken in re‑filing the petitions. We find the petitioners were neither vigilant in filing the petitions within time nor have been able to give satisfactory explanation for delay and show us sufficient cause for the condonation of delay.

5. The Tribunal has disposed of the appeals with the direction to the department to consider the cases of respondents on the basis of same criteria, which was followed in case of other candidates who could not clear threshold of 50% marks in one paper. We having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner fined that no substantial question of law of public importance is involved in these petitions for interference of this Court. These petitions, are, therefore, dismissed as barred by time and also on merits. Leave is refused. M.H./R‑21/S Petition dismissed