With the consent of learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is admitted to regular hearing and is being disposed of as notice case.
2. The petitioner, through this writ petition, seeks direction to the respondent for giving personal hearing to him and decide his representation after giving proper and careful consideration to the facts in accordance with law.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
4. The petitioner was appointed as Postman in Delivery Branch, G.P.O., Lahore on 27.8.1968. He was promoted as Clerk and sent to STG & A Division G.P.O., Lahore in 1980 and was retired on 13.8.2006.
Mujahid Hussain was appointed as Sorter on 10.12.1970. He was promoted as Sorter on 3.12.1974. He was confirmed on 1.6.1976 firstly. His revised date of confirmation is 10.2.1977.
5. The respondent while denying the averments stated that Mujahid Hussain was senior to the petitioner as he on promotion entered cadre of Sorter on 4.12.1974 and was confirmed on 10.2.1977 whereas the petitioner entered on 7.12.1980 was confirmed on 1.4.1982. The petitioner was thus, junior to Mujahid Hussain. He was granted Selection grade. He had received all monetary benefits without protest and questioning the seniority of Mujahid Hussain. Seniority of Mujahid Hussain was challenged through representation, at a belated stage, which remained unheeded. If decision was not being rendered on his representation, under Section 4 of the Service Tribunal Act, he had a right to approach the Tribunal within a period of 120 days Retired employees cannot seek promotion from back date. See Government of Pakistan through Establishment Division, Islamabad and 7 others v. Hameed Akhtar Niazi, Academy of Administrative Walton Training, Lahore and others (PLD 2003 SC 110).
6. In nutshell this Court cannot direct the respondent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner in view of law laid down in Lt. Cdr. (Rtd. P.N) Engineer Abdul Aziz Narejo v. Karachi Port Trust and 2 others (2006 PLC (C.S.) Karachi 88) and Muhammad Sharif Sindhu v. Habib Bank Ltd. through its President and others (2006 PSC 202), more particularly when the representation on the face of record is barred by time. Reference can be had to Inayatullah and others v. Director General and others (2006 SCM R 535).
7. For what has been discussed above, this constitutional petition merits dismissal and is, thus dismissed.