JUDGMENT: SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.--- Petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) dated 10-8-2002, passed in Appeal No,2075(R) of 1999.
2. Brief facts leading to the present petition are that respondent was appointed as a Scientific Officer (BPS-17) w,e,f, 30-4-1983. He was selected for Degree Training Programme under BARD Project 1988-99 in Canada under CIDA sponsorship vide sanction letter, dated 13-4-1989 and one of the terms and conditions of the said training was that he would be treated on leave subject to title during training as well as in transit period. He was promoted to BPS-18 on 23-12-1993. In continuation of the said promotion order another office order, dated 29-12-1993 was issued authorizing the drawal of salary in BPS-18 by the officers who were promoted, including the respondent, as Senior Scientific Officers. Another corrigendum dated 30-12-1993 was issued, whereby respondent's name was ordered to be deleted from the list of the promotees because of his being on training. This order was allegedly not conveyed to the respondent. In spite of this corrigendum, the seniority list of Senior Scientific Officers in BPS-18 was issued on 1-1-1995, wherein the respondent's name was placed at serial No,217, and in subsequent seniority list circulated on 6- 11-1996 his name was shown at serial No,98. Respondent returned from Canada on 30-10-1994 after obtaining Degree of Master of Science and Ph.D in Crop Sciences. Despite repeated representations, the competent authority denied the respondent to be restored to BPS-18, which was inadvertently allowed, vide order dated 23-12-1993. However, after repeated representatives, the respondent's appeal dated 20-7-1999 was responded on 27-10-1999 whereby his representation for allowing him any relief was rejected.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed appeal, which was allowed by the learned Tribunal directing the appellants to promote the respondent in BPS-18 with effect from the date of his return i,e, 30-10-1994 with full consequential benefits. Hence, this petition.
4. Sheikh Riaz-ul-Haq, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners, inter alia, contended that under the law appeal before the Tribunal .Was not maintainable, because it was hit by Limitation Act as repeated requests did not extend the period of limitation; that the promotion is not the terms and conditions of service and was excluded from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal; that the promotion order, dated 23-12-1993 was rightly withdrawn as the same was illegal and against the rules; that the impugned judgment is against the facts and law and the same is not sustainable.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and supported the impugned judgment.
6. We have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and very carefully gone through the material available on the file. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not tenable. It would be advantageous to refer here the relevant paragraph of the impugned judgment, which reads as under:--- "7. Coming to the respondents objection on the issue of limitation, it would be relevant to recapitulate the main events chronologically:--- Event Date
(i) Promotion Order 23-12-1993
(ii) Withdrawal of Promotion Order (not communicated to the Appellant)30-12-1993 (iii)Return of the Appellant to PARC on completion of his studies. 30-10- 1994 (iv)Representation 27-7-1999 (v)So called rejection of representation dated 27-10-1999 (impugned order)27-10-1999 (vi)Appeal filed before Federal Service Tribunal 24-11-1999 The reading of the above events clearly indicates that the appellant has not been apparently vigilant as he should have filed Departmental Appeal within thirty days from 30-12-1993 when his promotion to BPS-18 was cancelled. Since the appellant was neither conveyed h s promotion nor the cancellation of his promotion he was unaware of these two events. He should have, however, availed the departmental remedy at least within thirty days from 30-10-1994 when he returned. The appellant also referred to his various representations made by him on the dates mentioned below:--- "(i) 1-2-1995, (ii) 19-7-1995, (iii) 12-9-1996, (iv) 16-7-1997 (v) 30-3-1998.
Even the first representation was made three months after he reported for duty on 30-10-1994.
Further, there is only one Departmental Appeal and not a chain of such appeals which are not valid. Since the cancellation of promotion of the Appellant was not conveyed to the appellant, as such, it cannot be stated to be in the field. And secondly, for the reasons stated above in para-6 ante the cancellation order is void and no limitation runs against a void order. In this regard, we rely on the Supreme Court's decisions reported in 2001 SCM R 1822, 2001 SCMR 1827 and PLD 2002 SC 101.Further, since the appellant has been illegally deprived of his rightful promotion he is suffering continuous financial loss in pay and, as such, no limitation ground will be operative against him and there are chain of Supreme Court's decisions in this regard."
The impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal does not suffer for any illegality or from any misreading of the facts. Even before us, the learned counsel for the petitioners miserably failed to point out any illegality in the impugned judgment, which is entirely in consonance with the law laid down by this Court.
7. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed, and leave refused.