' ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.---In this petition, petitioner Professor Nadeem Hussain Saiyid has assailed the judgment dated 1-10-2002 passed by the learned Punjab Service Tribunal,, Lahore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal') whereby Appeal No,2711 of 2001 filed by him was dismissed.
2. The background leading to the filing of the instant petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor, Biochemistry in Medical College, Rawalpindi at Lyallpur, on 6-7-1974 against an existing post of ad hoc/contract basis for six months which was being extended on its expiry for a period of another six months till 18-1-1983 and thereafter, he was appointed as Professor in BPS-20 against an existing vacancy. The case of the petitioner was that he had been constantly agitating for fixation of his pay in PBS-20 and also for grant of premature increments with effect from 18-1- 1983 which, was not acceded to by the department as intimated vide letters 'dated 4-4-1984 and 6-7-1999. As the petitioner was going to retire on superannuation from service with effect from 11- 12-1999 in BPS-20, as such he made a representation dated 14-10-1999, in BPS-20, as such he made a representation dated 14-10-1999 to respondent No,2 for counting his continuous service rendered by him from 13-7-1974 to 17-1-1983 on ad hoc/contract basis in BPS-18 and 19, preceding his regular appointment with effect from 18-1-1983 in BPS-20 towards pensionary benefits but remained unresponded.
3. The petitioner thereafter, invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of Lahore High Court. Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, through Writ of Mandamus No,707 of 2001 in which the. Respondents were directed to dispose of the petitioner's above mentioned representation. However, a copy of intimation dated 23-6-2001 was sent by respondent No,2 informing that his representation has already been disposed of. The petitioner filed Criminal Original No, 207-W-2001 in Writ Petition No,704 of 2000 before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, with the grievance that his representation dated 14-10-1999 was still pending and intimation dated 29-6-2001 from respondent No,2 was against the record. The said Criminal Original was disposed of on 21-9-2001 with the direction that the concerned department should provide the copy of the order of the disposal of the petitioner's representation. Thus the petitioner was provided copies of letters dated 4-4-1984 and 6-7-1999 vide letter dated 23-10-2001.
4. The petitioner still feeling dissatisfied, again moved another Criminal Original No,273-W/2001 which could not succeed and was disposed of vide order dated 6-12-2001 by the learned Lahore High Court. It was, thereafter, he filed the above mentioned appeal before the Tribunal which was disposed of vide the impugned judgment.
5. We have heard Mr. Muhammad Munir Peracha, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner and have gone thorough the record and the proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
6. Since the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed as being barred by time by the Tribunal, as such it, would be relevant to deal with the legal aspect of the matter in the first instance. In this view of the matter it would be advantageous to refer subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act wherein it has been provided that any civil servant aggrieved by an order, whether original or appellate, made by the departmental authority in respect of terms and conditions of his service may, within 30 days of the communication of such order to him prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. It has been stipulated in its proviso (a) that wherein an appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority has been provided to a civil servant under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 or any rule against any such order no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal unless an appeal, or application for review or representation to said departmental authority is preferred and a period of 90 days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application for review or representation was preferred.
7. From the above provisions of law, it is mandatory for an aggrieved civil servant to prefer departmental representation or appeal to the competent authority against the order whether original or appellate in respect of his terms and conditions of service and shall have to wait for a period of 90 days. But it does not provide that an aggrieved civil servant should wait till the decision of the authority concerned on his such departmental representation, appeal or review. Thus any other view would be against the spirit of-subsection (1)_of section 4 of the Act under which a civil servant can file an appeal against any final order before the Tribunal within thirty days of the communication of such order. The purpose behind the same seems to avoid the delay in finalizing the service matters by the departmental authorities. Identical view has been taken by this Court in the cases of Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Azim Khan and others (1989 SCM R 1271) and Fazal Elahi Siddiqi v. Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others (PLD 1990 SC 692), wherein also the appeals were tiled after the lapse, of about 1 1/2 year and were dismissed as barred by law of limitation.
8. As regards the petition in question, the petitioner had preferred departmental representation about his grievance to respondent No,2 on 14-10-1999 and filed appeal before the Tribunal on 12-12- 2001 i,e, after a period of two years, one month and twenty nine days. This aspect of the matter has been elaborately dealt with by the Tribunal in the impugned judgment and rightly dismissed the appeal being barred by law of limitation which does not call for interference.
9. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave to appeal refused. #TBS . #TBE