Ch. Ejaz Yousaf, J.--All these four petitions are directed against a common order/judgment dated 6.7.2007 passed by the NWFP Service Tribunal, Peshawar, whereby Appeals No, 729/2006, 731/2006, 732/2006 and 733/2006 filed by the petitioners were dismissed. Since same question of law is involved, therefore, we propose to decide all the four petitions through this common judgment.
2. Facts of each case, in brief, are as under: CPLA No, 480-P/2007 Petitioner in this case was appointed as untrained PTC teacher on 31.7.1999. Her services were terminated from the date of her appointment vide order dated 26.11.1999, on the ground of long absence from her duty. The petitioner filed departmental appeal on 19.5.2006 which was rejected vide order dated 22.7.2006. Being aggrieved she preferred an appeal before the NWFP Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that representation before the department was barred by limitation.
CPLA No, 481-P/2007 Petitioner in this case was appointed as untrained PTC teacher on 31.7.1999. Her services were terminated from the date of her ,appointment vide order dated 26.11.1999, on the ground of long absence from duty. The petitioner filed departmental appeal on 19.5.2006 which was rejected vide order dated 22.7.2006. Being aggrieved she preferred an appeal before the NWFP Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that representation before the department was barred by limitation.
CPLA No, 482-P/2007 Petitioner in this case was appointed as untrained PTC teacher on 31.7.1999. Her services were terminated with immediate effect, vide order dated 26.11.1999, on the ground of long absence from duty. The petitioner filed departmental appeal on 19.5.2006 which was rejected vide order dated 22.7.2006. Being aggrieved she preferred an appeal before the NWFP Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that representation before the department was barred by limitation.
CPLA No, 483-P/2007 Petitioner in this case was appointed as untrained PTC teacher on 31.7.1999. Her services were terminated with immediate effect, vide order dated 26.11.1999, on the ground of long absence from duty. The petitioner filed departmental appeal on 19.5.2006 which was rejected vide order dated 22.7.2006. Being aggrieved she preferred an appeal before the NWFP Service Tribunal, Peshawar, which was dismissed as not maintainable on the ground that representation before the department was barred by limitation.
3. It has been mainly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal has gravely erred in dismissing appeal of the petitioners on the ground that their representations before the departmental authority were time barred.
4. We have given our anxious consideration to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the record of the case, with his assistance, minutely.
5. It may be pertinent to mention here that in two of the petitions i,e, Bearing No, 480-P and 481-P of 2007, the services of the petitioners were terminated on account of non-assumption of charge, whereas in other two petitions i,e, Bearing No, 482-P & 483-P of 2007 services of the petitioners were terminated for willful absence from duty. Although the termination orders were passed on 26.11.1999 yet, the petitioners slept over the matter and did not bother to file appeals before the departmental authority for about six years uptill 19.5.2006, which were dismissed mainly on the ground of limitation. The petitioners then approached the Service Tribunal on 11.8.2006 and the learned Service Tribunal having found that the departmental appeals being barred by time, the appeals before the Service Tribunal too, were not competent.
6. By now it is well settled that if appeal before the departmental authority is barred by time, then appeal before the Service Tribunal would also be incompetent because under the relevant law utilization of the departmental remedy is the condition precedent towards maintainability of appeal before the Service Tribunal. In this view we are fortified by the following reported judgments:--
1. Muhammad Aslam v. WAPDA & others (2007 SCM R. 513).
2. Muhammad Ramzan v. Inspector General of Police (2007 SCM R 346).
3. Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board & other u. Khawaja Shahid Nazir (2006 SCM R 1862).
4. N.E.D. University of Engineering and Technology v. Syed Ashfaq Hussain Shah (2006 SCM R 453)
5. S.M. Afzal-ur-Rehman v. Federation of Pakistan & others (2005 SCM R 1322)
6. The Chairman, PIAC & others v. Nasim Malik (PLD 1990 SC 951).
It would be pertinent to mention here that law helps the diligent and not the delinquent/remiss. If a person has been negligent in prosecuting his remedy before the proper forum, he is not entitled to indulgence of the Court.
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that these petitions being misconceived are hereby dismissed and leave declined. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.