2002 SCMR 142 (PLP)

A.G. Mangi, Advocate Supreme Court with Akhlaq A. Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 25th January, 1999. AJMAL MIAN, C.J.‑‑‑This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 26‑8‑1998 passed by a learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh in Constitutional Petition No. 45 of 1997 filed by the petitioner seeking direction against the respondents to decide his representation for determination of the seniority, dismissing the same in limine. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

2. In support of the above petition Mr. A.G. Mangi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the learned Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in declining the petitioner's above Constitutional petition as in spite of the best efforts of the petitioner during the last several years, the respondents had not decided the petitioner's representation for fixation of the seniority, which would have entitled him to promotion as a matter of right.

3. The above contention seems to be devoid of any force. The High Court declined to invoke in aid its Constitutional jurisdiction for the following reasons:‑‑ "We feel that the petition being service matter, it is only the Federal Service Tribunal which has jurisdiction in the matter and the prayer as contained in the petition cannot be granted. It may be observed that under section 4 of the Federal Service Tribunals Act in case of appeal or representation by public servant is not decided, the public servant has remedy available to him by approaching to Service Tribunal. In the instant case also the representation filed by the petitioner against .the respondents in respect of fixation of his seniority has not been decided by the respondents in spite of lapse of 90 days. The petitioner is, therefore, to approach the Federal Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievances. This petition is, therefore, not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed in limime."

4. Mr. Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, learned counsel has not been able to point out any infirmity in the reasoning adopted in the above-quoted portion of the impugned order. The petitioner had every right to approach the Service Tribunal if his representation was not decided within the statutory time allowed under the Service Tribunals Act.

5. Then it was submitted by Mr. Mangi that if the petitioner would approach the Service Tribunal now his appeal might be treated as barred by time. He requested that this Court may make observation as to the condonation of the delay. It will suffice to observe that the petitioner may apply for the condonation of the delay and the Service Tribunal will take into consideration all the relevant facts for deciding such an application sympathetically.

6. With the above observation, leave is refused and the petition stands dismissed. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./T‑20/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.