1987 PLP 92 (SCMR)

‑‑‑Art. 212(3)‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4‑‑Limitation‑ Time‑barred appeal‑‑Remarks on merits of case disapproved‑‑While dismissing appeal as time‑barred, Service Tribunal made remarks about merits of case‑‑Held, in peculiar circumstances of case, any remarks about merits of case should not have been made and that they should not operate against petitioner if he made any fresh representation‑‑Leave to appeal refused.‑‑[Limitation]. Petitioner in person. Nemo for Respondent. Date of hearing; 5th November, 1986. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 7‑10‑1984 of the Central Service Tribunal; whereby a service appeal relating to petitioner's pensioner benefits, was dismissed as time‑barred as also without merit. The petitioner had retired as Deputy Secretary in 1953. By 1963 he had paid back the commuted portion of pension to the Government. He, therefore, sought the restoration of full pension to him from the year 1963. The Ministry of Finance, vide their letter, dated 26th December, 1981, turned down his request. The petitioner, however, addressed representations and letters to the Ministry as also to the President several times but ultimately finding no favourable response, he filed an appeal before the Service Tribunal on 19‑1‑1983. The Tribunal held that the petitioner should have filed the appeal within 30 days of the communication of a letter of Finance Ministry, dated 26‑12‑1981. As he failed to do so till 19th January, 1983, the appeal was time‑barred. The Tribunal also was of the view that the petitioner's case was weak on merits. Accordingly, his appeal was dismissed 'both on grounds of limitation and for want of merit'. Leave to appeal has, therefore, been sought from the impugned judgment. The petitioner has himself appeared and argued the case on merits. There might be some force in it, but we do not want to make any comments on it as in our view the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was time‑barred. The petitioner himself has admitted in the Petition for Leave to Appeal that after the receipt of the letter, dated 26th December, 1981, he approached 'the higher authorities concerned‑‑F. Ms. etc. and the President He had made similar statement in his grounds of appeal submitted before the Tribunal. According to him, it was necessary to seek departmental redress, and thus, he did so by writing letters and reminders to the higher authorities. Under the law the petitioner could have challenged the order, dated 26‑12‑1981 before one higher forum and after waiting for the prescribed period he could file an appeal before the Tribunal. Instead he kept on making representations and sending reminders to the higher authorities. The time thus spent, as held by this Court, cannot be excluded from period of limitation. See: Shafaat Ahmad v. Government of Punjab 1986 S C M R

30. The petitioner's appeal, therefore, was rightly held by the Tribunal to be time‑barred and was liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. We, however, feel that in dismissing the appeal as time‑barred the Tribunal in the peculiar circumstances of this case, should not have made any remarks about the merits of the case. It is, therefore, observed that they shall not operate against him if he makes any fresh representation. With these observations, this petition is dismissed. M. I. Petition dismissed.