2003 PLP (C (PLC(CS))

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18th January, 2002 passed by Sindh Service Tribunal, Karachi whereby appeal tiled by him was not found legally maintainable.

2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that petitioner's service was terminated on 23rd August, 1995. He challenged the order of termination of his service by filing departmental appeal which was not decided within 90 days, as per provisions of section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973. Therefore, he invoked the jurisdiction of Service Tribunal by filing appeal which was dismissed in default vide order dated 29th December, 1996. He submitted an application for restoration/readmission of appeal but without any success as it was dismissed on 15th June, 1998. As such petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing C.P.S.L.A. No.559-K of 1998, which too was dismissed on 27th January, 1999 and leave to appeal was declined. Petitioner even then was not satisfied as such he submitted Civil Review Petition No.3-K of 1999 before this Court, which was dismissed on 2nd April, 1999.

3. It so happened that after getting two adverse orders from this Court, petitioner continued his efforts by pursuing the departmental appeal which was filed by him against the order of termination of his services on 23rd August, 1995, knowing well that without getting its decision strictly in accordance with the provisions of section 4 of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973, he has also availed remedy up to this Court. However, in the 2nd round of litigation, the departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 4th January, 2001, on the basis whereof he again invoked the jurisdiction of Sindh Service Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 1 of 2001, which has been dismissed vide impugned order. As such instant petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner contended that petitioner's departmental appeal has been decided on 4th January, 2001, against him, therefore, fresh cause of action has accrued to him, as such petition against this order was competent. ?

5. We ace not inclined to agree with his contention because in respect of the same cause of action i.e. termination of service vide order dated 23rd August, 1995, petitioner had already availed remedy before the Service Tribunal as well as up to this Court by invoking its Appellate as well as Review Jurisdiction but without any success, as such the cause of action to seek his reinstatement in the service had come to an end. It may be rioted that this Court in the case of Qadir Bukhsh v. Province of Sindh and another (1982 SCMR 582) has clarified that either the aggrieved person should invoke the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal on the expiry of 90 days after filing departmental appeal within next 30 days, if appeal filed by him has been decided or he should keep on awaiting for the decision of the departmental appeal and whenever the departmental appeal is decided and order is, passed against the employee, then within 30 days from the passing of that order he can file appeal. Therefore, for such reason, we are of the opinion that learned Tribunal has rightly non-suited the petitioner, because cause of action available to petitioner seeking his reinstatement in service has come to an end and second appeal before Tribunal was barred by the principle of doctrine of res judicata. Thus for the foregoing reasons, we see no force in this petition, as such the same is dismissed and leave declined. M.H./M-674/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.