1984 PLP (C (PLC)

ABDUL HAMID CHAUDHARY (MEMBER). ‑ Niaz A. Shamim, Assistant of the Directorate of Health Services, Punjab, Lahore has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded respondents Nos. 1 to 8 as detailed above.

2. By virtue of this appeal, the appellant has prayed that he has a rightful and legal claim to rank senior to respondents Nos. 2 to 8 amongst Assistants and respondent No. 1 be directed to exhibit his name above the names of other respondents in the seniority list of the members of the ministerial establishment of the Directorate, Health Services Punjab, Lahore.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows. The service particulars of the appellant vis‑a‑vis the contesting respondents are as under :‑ Junior Senior Assistant clerk, clerk (from) (from) (from)

1. Ghulam Sabir Chuthtai 23‑2‑1950 6‑LO‑1956 7‑5‑1962

2. M. Khushi Muhammad 18-1‑1951 6‑10‑1956 7‑5‑1962

3. Mr. Mushtaq Ahmad Chuhan. 12‑2‑1951 6‑10‑1956 7‑5.1962

4. Kh. Abdul Majid 20‑1‑1950 8‑8‑1956 22‑21960

5. Mr. Muhammad Hafizullah Khan. 20-4‑1949 8‑8‑1956 1612‑1960

6. Mr. Muhammad Ismail 1‑12‑1948 8‑8‑1956 24‑3‑1960

7. Sh. Masood Ahmad 5‑2‑1948 8‑8‑1956 16‑3‑1960

8. Niaz A. Shamim 1‑8‑1953 6‑7‑1956 22.3‑1965 According to the above service particulars of the contesting respondents, they were appointed as junior clerks during the years 1948 to 1951; but the appellant was appointed in the year 1953, however, the appellant was promoted as senior clerk on 6th July, 1956 while the contesting respon dents were also promoted as senior clerks in the year 1956 but on the later dates than the appellant. However, the contesting respondents were promoted as Assistants prior to the appellant during the years 1960 to 1962, which the appellant was promoted in the year 1965, thus, the respondents were shown senior to the appellant in the seniority lists issued by the Department during the years 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1979. The contention of the appellant is that as he ranked senior to the contesting respondents as a senior clerk since 1956, hence, he should have been shown senior to the contesting respondents. The date of promotion as Assistant i.e., 22nd March, 1965 has been given to him unlawfully with disregard to his continuous appointment as a senior clerk w.e.f. 6th July, 1956. He should have been shown senior in the seniority list of the year 1979, at serial No. 7, above to the Contesting Respondents. The appellant made a representation to the Directorate of Health Services, Punjab on 28th August, 1982 which was rejected by respondent No. 1, vide his order, dated 5th March, 1983. Hence this appeal.

4. We have heard the parties. It has been submitted by the appellant who was present in person that he was promoted as senior clerk earlier to the contesting respondents i.e., w.e.f. 6th July, 1956 hence ha should have been placed senior in the seniority lists published by the Department during the years 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1979. The date of promotion as Assistant given to him from 22nd March, 1965 is unlawful and is in disregard to his continuous appointment as senior clerk w.e.f. 6th July, 1956. Thus, he is entitled to be placed at Sr. No. 7 of the seniority list above the Contesting Respondents. The appellant has prayed that the respondent No. 1 be directed to correct the seniority list of the year 1979, accordingly.

5. On the other band the learned District Attorney assisted with the help of the representative of the Department has vehemently contested that this appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and is not competent before this Tribunal. He has submitted that the appellant was shown as Junior vis‑a‑vis to the contesting respondents in the seniority lists as stood on 1st January, 1958, 30th January, 1971, 1st March, 1971, 1st May, 1974, 1st January, 1975, 1st February, 1976 and 1st March, 1979. The appellant had accepted the above seniority lists where he had been shown junior to the contesting respondents. The appellant never agitated against these seniority lists issued from time to time. The appellant however, submitted a representation at a belated stage i.e., on 19th August, 1981 which was rejected by respondent No. 1 vide his order, dated 31st July, 1982 on this, the appellant again submitted a representation on 28th August, 1982 which was not relevant because no review was admissible under the rules. This was rejected vide order, dated 5th March, 1983 with the remarks that there were no sufficient grounds to review the earlier orders dated 31st July, 1982. Concluding his arguments, it has been submitted by the learned District Attorney that the whole history of the case would reveal that the appellant has completely failed to come before this Tribunal well in time, has been sleeping over on this matter for years together and thus, his appeal is hopelessly time‑barred and be dismissed on this score alone.

6. At the time of hearing of this case, the appellant has himself admitted before us that in the seniority lists issued in the years of 1971, 1974, 1975, 1976 and 1979, he was shown junior to the Contesting Respon dents. He also pointed out that he had been making representations against these seniority lists but these had not been decided favourably by the Department. When he was asked to substantiate the details and dates of submission of these representations to the Departmental Authorities from the record or produce the document in support of these, he has failed to do so. Thus, we are not convinced with the arguments of the appellant that he has taken such a long period of 12 years from the years 1971 to 1983 in exhausting the remedies with the Departmental Authorities. Hence, we are in agreement with the learned District Attorney that the appellant has been sleeping over in the matter, has been dealing his case at his whim and fancy and has not followed the proper procedure and time limit for his representation/appeal as laid down to the law. Even, there was no justification for his application/representation, dated 28th August, 1982, as there was no review admissible under the rules and his earlier representation stood rejected finally vide order dated 31st July, 1982 of respondent No. 1 and no further appeal/representation was competent before him (refer Annexure `A'). The appellant should have approached the Tribunal within 30 days of order, dated 31st July, i982 but the appellant has filed this appeal to the Tribunal on 29th March, 1983.

7. The upshot of the above discussion is that the appeal of the appellant is hopelessly time barred and is dismissed on this score alone. There will be no order as to costs. A. B. Appeal dismissed.