1996 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

Qazi Muhammad Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Zahoor Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. . Date of hearing: 13th March, 1995. ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA, J.‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 12‑7‑1994 dismissing the petitioner's appeal "being hopelessly time‑barred".

2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this petition, briefly stated, are that the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer in P.O.F. Board on 12‑10‑1978. His initial appointment was on contract basis for six months but the contract was extendable which it appears was extended and later his appointment was made on regular basis with effect from 5‑7‑1982. In 1983, the petitioner made an application requesting, inter alia, that his compulsory army service be counted towards his seniority and other benefits and that his contract service from 20‑11‑1978 to 4‑7‑1982 be also treated as regular service. He was informed vide letter dated 17‑1‑1984 that "the benefit of Army Service towards seniority will be accorded to him when he becomes due for promotion on completion of proscribed length of 5 years' service with effect from 5‑7‑1982 in (B‑17)". As regards his other request, it was said that "the period of his contractual service from 20‑11‑1978 to 4‑7‑1982 has been counted for purposes of drawal of pay, grant of subsequent increments and carrying forward of leave". Petitioner continued his efforts for counting of his Army Service towards pension and he was finally informed through letter dated 13‑4‑1988 that since he had resigned his commission, he was not entitled to counting of his service in the Army. He again filed an appeal addressed to the Military Secretary in July, 1990 but with no better result.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal contending that in view of the provisions of Ordinance IV of 1978, he was entitled to the benefit of his compulsory service rendered in the Armed Forces. The Tribunal observed that the petitioner's request in this behalf was turned down and he was accordingly informed on 17‑1‑1984 but despite this, he continued making representations to the departmental authorities and did not care to approach the Service Tribunal. "The matter is of 1982 and he has filed this appeal on the basis of communication of letter dated 29‑5‑199.1 wherein it has been mentioned that his Military Service was not covered under the rules and as such no action was required in this regard. This letter cannot obviously be final order as the appellant was also informed in 1984 that his case was not covered under the rules. It was incumbent upon him to have come before this Tribunal within 120 days of filing of first appeal or when he received reply for the first time from the respondent Department that his case was not covered under the rules. But in spite of that he continued making representations from time to time which cannot enhance the period of limitation. Therefore, the appeal is hopelessly time‑barred".

4. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He has not denied that the petitioner's request for counting his compulsory Army Service towards seniority and other benefits was not acceded to by the, departmental authority in the year 1984 and that he was again informed vide letter dated 13‑4‑1988 that as he has resigned his commission, he was not entitled to have his Army Service counted towards seniority and other benefits. In the circumstances, petitioner should have filed the appeal before the Service Tribunal within thirty days of the communication of rejection of his claim as provided in section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act. It is not denied that the petitioner filed no appeal before the Service Tribunal against the decision of the departmental authority declining his request in the year 1984 and/or 1983 and instead continued making representations from time to time. It has been rightly held by the Service Tribunal that the representations would not enhance the period of limitation. The appeal filed by the petitioner before the Service Tribunal in 1994 was clearly time‑barred and it has rightly been dismissed as such. Impugned order of the Service Tribunal does not warrant any interference. This petition is accordingly dismissed and leave sought is refused. AA./R‑3059/S Leave refused.