1984 PLP (C (PLC)

Appellant in person. Haroonur‑ur‑Rashid Cheema, District Attorney for Respondent. Syed Izhar Ahmad has filed this petition which was converted into Appeal No. 644 of 1981, in which he has impleaded Commissioner Multan Division as respondent.

2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that order of Commissioner be set aside and he may be directed to pay the appellant his arrears of pay and also fix his seniority in the cadre of Junior Clerks.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was a permanent Patwari of Multan District. He was accepted as a Wasil Baqi Nawis candidate and was first posted as Taccavi Clerk in the Multan Tehsil on 15th December, 1955. Appellant was seriously injured in the Gamber Railway accident on 29th/30th September, 1957, and remained confined to bed for about 5 years. He reported for duty on 3rd September, 1962, and on a reference made to the Medical Superintendent and he was declared fit for resumption of duty on 12th March, 1963, after which he was posted as Patwari Ahlamad to the Settlement Officer Multan on 1st August, 1964. The appellant represented that since he was an accepted Wasil Baqi Nawis candidate, he may be posted in that cadre because he was working in that grade before his falling victim to the accident. The D. C. sought sanction from the Commissioner to re‑employ the appellant as a Wasil Baqi Nawis because the latter being a non‑Matriculate and having been out of service for more than 5 years could not in his opinion be appointed as a Wasil Baqi Nawis. The Office of the Commissioner approved the candidature of the appellant from the year 1955 and directed the D. C. that he be posted as Wasil Baqi Nawis because most of the incumbents working on these posts of the District were junior to him. The learned Commissioner vide his judgment, dated 2nd May, 1968, accepted his appeal and directed that the appellant seniority as Wasil Baqi Nawis candidate be reckoned from the date of original acceptance as candidate for the said post in the year 1955 and he be appointed as such by reverting junior most official.

4. I have heard the appellant at length and find that appeal is neither maintainable and is as well hopelessly time‑barred.

5. The implementation of the judgment which was passed in 1968 is now being sought from this Tribunal. Section 4 (1) (c) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act clearly bars the jurisdiction of this Tribunal with regard to the decision taken before the year 1969. Moreover the appeal has been filed after a lapse of about 14 years.

6. In view of the law laid down and the time factor involved, I have no alternative but to dismiss the appeal in limine. A. E. Appeal dismissed.