' MOAZZAM HAYAT (MEMBER).--- This appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 has been filed by Muhammad Arshad Qureshi, a retired Sub-Engineer in the service of the WAPDA. It has been filed against non-disposal of his departmental appeal dated 8-10-2001 which had been made by the appellant to the Ministry of Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad. The subject of this appeal was "Representation to the President of Pakistan under Article 32 of PO-I of 1983 in Complaint No,L/6429 and L/3894/97".
2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties we have perused the record. It appears that the appellant had filed a complaint with the Federal Ombudsman and the subject was "Request for condonation of one year and three days service gap for pensionary benefits." The Federal Ombudsman Mr. Justice (R) Abdul Shakurul Salam decided the complaint on 21-6-1998. It was recommended by him that "Break Interruption in service of the complainant (appellant) should be condoned for the purpose of pensionary benefits subject to the terms and condition narrated above." A direction was issued to the respondents to report compliance of the direction within two months. The respondents made a representation under Article 32 of PO-I of 1983 to the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against the decision of the Federal Ombudsman. He also made a representation to the President of Pakistan for condo nation of the period from 11-12- 1964 to 13-12-1965 for determination of his pensionary benefits. He also made representations to the Ministry of Law praying for expeditious disposal of his case. The President of Pakistan was pleased to accept the representation of the respondents against the decision of the Federal Ombudsman against which the appellant filed a representation on 6-10-2001. It is for the disposal of his representation that the present appeal has been filed in this Tribunals.
3. The complaint of the appellant was decided by the Federal Ombudsman in his favour. The respondents made a representation against that to the President of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
This representation of the respondents was accepted. The appellant was not satisfied and he made a fresh representation to the President of Pakistan for review. We are of the view that we cannot issue any direction to the President of Pakistan to decide the Review Petition filed by the appellant. If in opinion of the appellant the decision of the Federal Ombudsman was correct and the decision made by the President of Pakistan on the representation of the respondents was not correct then the only remedy available to him is to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Constitutional Courts of Pakistan. This Court has limited jurisdiction. It cannot issue any instruction to the President of Pakistan for disposal of the Review Petition of the appellant. At the same time it has no authority to hold that the decision of the President was against law.
4. There is no cavil with this proposition that for the redressal of grievances with regard to his terms and conditions of service a Civil Servant has every right to file his appeal in this Tribunal but for coming to this Tribunal a departmental appeal has to be filed by him within 60 days by an employee of WAPDA from the date the final decision is passed against him. He is to wait for 90 days for the decision of the appellate authority and if that decision is not passed within 90-days only then he can file appeal in this Tribunal within the next 30-days. If the decision is given by the appellate authority then the appeal is to be filed within 30-days from that decision. In the present case no departmental appeal was filed. As such this appeal is not competent.
4-A. The claim of the appellant relates to the period from 11-12-1964 to 13-12-1965. This appeal was filed on 16-1-2002. It is hopelessly time-barred. There is no good ground for condonation of delay.
The prayer for condonation of delay is not allowed in the circumstances. The appeal is held to be time-barred and also not competent.
5. For the above reasons we hold that the appeal is not competent and is also time-barred. It is accordingly dismissed in limine.
6. Parties shall be informed.