1. ' DORAB PA ra.,, J.-The petitioner, who was a Divisional Forest Officer, was retired on 26-9-1973, on the ground that he had completed twenty-five years of service and had qualified for pension and other retirement benefits. The notification is dated 26th September 1973, and it states that the petitioner "shall retire from service on 26th September 1973 (forenoon), or, on the expiry of leave preparatory to retirement, if applied for the (same) within ten days of the receipt of this notification and sanctioned by Government". In view of the words quoted, the petitioner applied for leave preparatory to retirement, but he was informed by an order dated 7-12-1973 that the Government "have dccided not t) grant Leave Preparatory to Retirement". He, therefore, filed a review against this order to the Provincial Chief Secretary, but, according b him, in the events that happened, his application was dismissed by the Chief Minister on 26-5-1976, therefore, he filed an appeal on 24- 6-1976 before the Sind Service Tribunal. But, as the appeal was dismissed, on the ground that it was time-barred, the petitioner has filed this petition for leave.
2. ' In dismissing the petitioner's appeal, the Tribunal observed "the cause of action arose on 7-12-1973 when his request for the grant of Leave Preparatory to Retirement was rejected. By this time, the Service Tribunal was established under Notification1..Aitcle 24-11-1973 Under section 4 ibid, "a Civil Servant aggrieved by any final order made by a Departmental authority may within 12 months of the establishment of a Tribunal whichever is later, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal." The petitioner, who has argued his case in person, submitted that the Tribunal had erred in holding that his cause of action had arisen on 7-12-1973, because, according to the petitioner, he was entitled to challenge the order of 7-12-1973 in an appeal under section 23 of the Sind Civil Servants Act, 1973.
3. Even on the assumption that this Act was applicable to the petitioner's case had reference to appeals and reviews, where such appeals and reviews have been provided, therefore, we invited the petitioner to refer us to the rules under which he could have filed his appeal, or review as he described, it. He was not able to refer us to any tules. However, for the purpose of this petition, we will assume that he was entitled to challenge the order of 7-12-1973 in a review before the Chief Minister. Now, this review was filed on 3-1-1974 and although, it was not disposed of within the period of ninety days prescribed in section of the Sind Service Tribunal Act, 1973, the petitioner did not file his appeal before the Tribunal A until June 1976. Therefore, on the plain language of clause
(a) to the proviso of section 4 of the Sind Service Tribunals Act, the appeal of the petitioner was time-barred. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine the other submissions of the petitioner and the petition is dismissed.