' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).--- Appellant Muhammad Anwar Tippu was recruited as a Boy Fireman in the Pakistan Railways on 4-6-1962. He was promoted as a Driver in BS-14 in the year 1970. In the periodical seniority lists published by the respondents the date of birth of the appellant was stated to be 15-11-1945. His grievance is that in the years 1998-1999 his date of birth was changed without any reason and he was retired on the ground that he had attained the age of superannuation. It appears that the appellant agitated the matter relating to his date of birth by filing a writ petition in the High Court and thereafter a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal in the apex Court. The writ petition filed on 11-4-2000 was dismissed on 24-9-2000. The Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal was withdrawn by the appellant on 24-2-2003. The present appeal in this Tribunal was filed by him on 13-3-2004. It is prayed by him that the respondents be directed to correct his date of birth in his service record and treat him to be in service with all benefits. He has also prayed that since he has not attained the age of 60 years as per his service record. Therefore, he be reinstated into service with back-benefits. It is stated by the appellant that he has been allotted House No,255-B, HOPE Road, Railways Colony, Lahore. He has requested that the respondents be restrained from dispossessing him from that house.
2. We have heard the appellant in person and have also perused the record.
3. The appellant was retired vide order dated 12-2-1998. Since he was aggrieved by that order, therefore, he should have filed a departmental appeal within the statutory period. From the record it appears that he did not file any such appeal. Instead Writ Petition No,6179 of 2000 was filed by him in the Lahore High Court. The writ petition came up for hearing before Honourable Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Judge, Lahore High Court on 24-9-2001. On that date the appellant and his counsel declined to argue the case. The writ petition was dismissed. The relevant period of the judgment of the Honourable High Court is as under:- "In the light of above, as this petition is fixed for hearing today but neither the petitioner nor his counsel is prepared to argue the same, therefore, the same is dismissed as such."
4. Against this judgment of the Lahore High Court the appellant filed a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,48-L of 2000 in the apex Court. It was dismissed as withdrawn on 24-2-2003 by a Bench of the apex Court comprising Mr. Justice Tanvir Ahmad Khan and Mr. Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Ramday. We are of the view that as a Civil Servant the appellant should have filed an appeal in this Tribunal after exhausting his remedy of departmental appeal. He had not selected a correct judicial forum for the redressal of his grievance. Even otherwise his writ petition had been filed after a considerable delay. As stated above he was retired w,e,f, 12-2-1998 but the writ petition was filed by him somewhere in the year 2000. The delay in initiating judicial proceedings was a sufficient proof of the fact that the appellant was not interested in getting back into the service of Pakistan Railways. His failure to present arguments in the A Honourable High Court is a further proof of his that conduct. The matter was taken by him to the apex Court. He had withdrawn his Civil Petition on 24-2-2003 but had filed the present appeal after more than one year. This delay of about one year in filing the present appeal has not been explained by the appellant. He has submitted an application for condonation of delay but it does not contain any good ground on which it may be accepted. The conduct of the appellant after his retirement disentitles hint from getting any relief. It is because of his that conduct that we are not inclined to condone the delay in filing the present appeal. The selection of a wrong judicial forum is also not a good excuse for getting the delay condoned. The appellant was in BPS.14 in Pakistan Railways. As a Civil Servant having vast experience he should have filed appeal in this 'Tribunal instead of going to the High Court with writ petition and then to the apex Court with a Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal. The time spent by him in wrong judicial forums cannot be excluded for computing the period of limitation for filing the present appeal.
5. For the above reasons we find that the present appeal is not competent since departmental appeal had not been filed. A departmental appeal is a sine qua non for an appeal in this Tribunal.
The appeal is hopelessly time-barred and the delay in filing it cannot be condoned. The result is that the appeal is dismissed in limine.
6. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.