Justice (R) Tanvir Bashir Ansari, Chairman.--Briefly the facts are that the appellant who was working as Sectional Pay Master (SPM) was detailed to work as Divisional Pay Master (DPM) on 24.12.1985 in terms of the letter dated 24.12.1985 issued by the Chief Cashier & Treasurer, Pakistan Railways, Lahore. According to the said order the posting was made till further orders purely as stop gap arrangement'. While so posted, the appellant drew pay and allowances of BS No, 15 alongwith Rs, 60/- per month as special pay.
2. The claim of the appellant in the appeal is that he was entitled to pay in BS-16 during the period that he worked on the higher post of Divisional Pay Master (BS-16) from 24.12.1985 up till 14.03.1991 when he retired from service on the grounds of superannuation.
3. The claim was resisted by the respondents both on merits as well as on the ground of limitation.
It is contended that soon after his posting as Divisional Pay Master, the appellant engaged in a series of litigation in various fora. The appellant in the first place filed a grievance petition before the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan which was returned to the appellant vide order dated 21.05.1990 for presenting the same before the proper forum as the appellant was held to be a civil servant. He thereafter filed a civil suit wherein he claimed the benefits of BS-16 which was also dismissed on 30.05.1996. Thereafter he preferred an appeal which was dismissed on 27.01.1998. He further filed a Civil Revision in the High Court which was dismissed on 30.06.1998. The appellant also filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal against the order of Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan. The appeal was dismissed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 13.02.1991 finding the appeal to Le barred by time. It was held that the appellant could not derive any benefit from the provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908. He had approached wrong fora despite having explicit knowledge that he was a civil servant.
4. It is also pointed out that the appellant filed Case No, 4- A(1156)/90-24(1076/90-L) before the National Industrial Relation Commission, Lahore from where a temporary injunction was obtained on 26.09.1990. This case was also later on disposed of.
5. On merits, it is contended that admittedly the appellant was never regularly promoted to the post of Divisional Pay Master (BS-16) and was only posted as a stop gap arrangement.
6. It is further urged that the appellant did not pass the Departmental Examination SRAS nor was he senior most in the cadre of Sectional Pay Master (SPM). According to the respondents the appellant was not qualified to be promoted to the post of DPM (BS-16) on regular basis.
7. We have heard the parties and perused the record.
8. It is not denied that after the order of posting dated 24.12.1985 the appellant was in receipt of pay and allowances of BS-15 which was his substantive scale of pay. In addition he was paid Rs, 60/- per month as special pay during this period. It is not denied by the appellant that he preferred a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan which was returned to him vide order dated 21.05.1990 to be presented before the proper forum being a civil servant. Instead of approaching the proper forum i,e, Federal Service Tribunal, the appellant resorted to file a civil suit in the Civil Court which was dismissed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. Even thereafter the appellant chose to file a Labour Appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore which was dismissed as barred by time vide judgment dated 13.02.1991. The record further shows that almost simultaneously he filed an application under Section 22-A(8)(g) IRO before the National Industrial Relation Commission, Lahore. It was finally on 06.12.2004 that the appeal before this Tribunal was preferred.
9. At the very outset we find that the appeal is hopelessly barred by time. If any cause of grievance had arisen to the appellant at all he repeatedly approached wrong fora despite being specifically apprised of the fact that he was a civil servant. As hereinbefore noticed, the appellant filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court which was returned to him on 21.05.1990. Thereafter he filed a civil suit wherein he claimed the benefits of BS-16 while holding the post of DPM. This suit was dismissed vide judgment dated 30.05.1996. The appeal filed against the said judgment and decree was dismissed on 27.01.1998. The record reveals that the appellant filed CR No, 296-D/1998 against the said judgment in appeal. The Hon'ble High Court dismissed the same vide judgment dated 30.06.1998 where again it was reiterated that being a civil servant his remedy if at all lay before the Service Tribunal. Despite the above the present appeal was filed with an inordinate delay on 04.12.2004.
10.We are not impressed by the submission made by the appellant that as the matter pertained to pay this was a continuing cause of action and that no limitation would run against it. This is for obvious reason that law always favours the vigilant and not the indolent. There is no reason forthcoming from the record which prevented the appellant from approaching the Tribunal immediately when the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan had returned his grievance petition to be presented before the proper forum vide judgment dated 21.05.1990 wherein the appellant was described as a civil servant. The deliberate act of approaching wrong fora thereafter cannot bring the case of the appellant within the ambit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
11.We have also perused the order dated 24.12.1985 which only speaks of the posting of the appellant as DPM purely as a stop gap arrangement. It is not disputed by the appellant that he continued to hold the said post not upon the strength of a departmental order but on the basis of various stay orders issued by different fora without jurisdiction.
12.In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed.