' NUR AHMAD SHAH (MEMBER-I).---This is an appeal under section 4 Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
2. The facts are: The appellant was appointed as wellman-cumHelper in Union Council Bolhari on 2-4-1988. On reaching the age of superannuation he retired from service on 16-1-1999. He claimed pensionary benefits on the plea of having put in more than 10 years service, and made several representations in this behalf but in vain. Hence this appeal. The respondent No.1 controverted the appellant's claim on the ground that he was appointed when he was already advanced in age only as a grace; that the appeal is time-barred and that the appellant did not file a departmental appeal before approaching the Tribunal. The appellant submitted an application for condonation of delay contending that a continuing cause of action cannot be hit the limitation rule.
3. Heard Ansari Abdul Latif for the appellant and A.A.-G. Mrs. Tabasum Ghanzanfar for respondent No.3. Respondents 1 and 2, though afforded an opportunity did not argue out the matter. Perused the record.
4. The Counsel for appellant has based his arguments on rules 2.2, 2.3, 4.1(1&2), 4.4, 4.5(2) and 4.6(3) (a-1 to a-3), West Pakistan Civil Servants Pensionary Rules. He states that the appellant served the respondents for more than 10 years and so earned the pensionary benefits as a matter of right. He relies on 1997 SCM R 1477 and 1999 SCM R 255. The A.A.-G. States that the appellant's appointment was temporary and so he could not claim the pensionary benefits.
5. Rule 2.3 Civil Service Pension Rules relates to temporary and officiating service and runs as under:-- "Temporary and officiating service shall count for pension as indicated below:--
(i) Government servants borne on temporary establishment who have rendered more than five years continuous temporary service shall count such service for the purpose of pension or gratuity; and
(ii) temporary and officiating service followed by confirmation shall also count for pension or gratuity."
6. In the instant case, the appellant was given a temporary service on 2-4-1988 and retired from it on 16-1-1999. He, thus, rendered more than 10 years continuous temporary service which, under the above quoted rule, shall count for pension or gratuity. In a case-law reported in 1997-SCM R-1477 and relied on by the appellant's counsel, the apex Court held an employee having put in more than 10 years temporary service, entitled to pensionary benefits. Thus, the appellant cannot be denied the pension facility on the ground of his temporary service if he, otherwise, is entitled to it.
7. The appellant was appointed in April, 1988 and retired on superannuation in January, 1999. At nearly 50 years in age, he was too old for initial appointment to any Government' service. A written statement filed by the respondent No.1 informs that the appellant held 2 National Identity Cards and they bore different dates of his birth. In one he was shown to have been born in 1927 and in the 'other in 1929. If his date of birth is taken in 1927, he had reached the superannuation before his appointment in 1988. Thus, his appointment itself was vitiated and it was an act of pure grace if not favouritism. His plea of pensionary benefits for a patently improper and irregular appointment deserves to be discouraged nay, repulsed.
8. The appellant was retired on superanuation on 16-1-1999. He claims to have submitted representations for pensionary benefits on 31-1-1999 and 12-12-1999. These according to him, were received in the office of Union Council, Bolhari. It is not clear who received these representations and when. On 31-1-2001, the Nazim, Union Council Bolhari did receive his representation. But it was more than 2 years after his retirement. Even then, the appellant did not follow it up-till 12-10-2002 when he repeated the request for release of gratuity and pensionary benefits, to the Local Government Support Officer, Dadu.
9. The appellant has sought condonation in delay on the ground that refusal of salary which includes pension gives an aggrieved civil servant a fresh cause of action every month and the law of limitation should not come in the way of his remedy. The appellant initiated the legal process by moving the authorities for pensionery benefits within 15 days of his retirement but then left it unpursued inasmuch as it took him well over 3 years in approaching the Tribunal. For such an inordinate delay he has no plausible explanation.
10. The appeal does not conform to the requirement laid down in section 4 of Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Appellant has not produced an order which may have impelled him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. He has produced a copy of order of his retirement dated 16- 1-1999 which is irrelevant for the purpose of relief sought by him. He has agitated against it after about 4 years which is obviously time-barred.
11. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.