' JAVED IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 21-12-2009 whereby the appeal preferred on behalf of petitioner has been dismissed.
2. Heard Munir Ahmad, (petitioner) in person who mainly argued that promoted Assistant Research Officers have been deprived of their legitimate rights after promotion in BPS-17 as compared to those Assistant Research Officers who are directly inducted. It is contended that there should be no discrimination in view of the provisions as enumerated in Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The main grievance of the petitioner is against the additional note added to serial No,1 of appendix 'A' which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:--.
"Senior Research Assistants possessing M.A./M.Sc. Degree shall be placed in BS-17 on the completion of five years service under the Authority as Senior Research Assistant with due regard to merit on the recommendation of the Selection Board. Such Senior Research Assistants placed in BPS-17 shall not be considered senior to those Senior Research Assistants who are not M.A./M.Sc. For the purpose of regular promotion as Junior Research Officer in BPS-17. Their inter se seniority shall remain as before."
' It is worth mentioning that the above mentioned note was added to the Pakistan WAPDA (Water Wing) Subordinate Scientific Staff Service Rules, 1982 and made an integral part of the said rules in 1983 which was challenged by the petitioner in 2006 after lapse of about two decades as he had joined service in 1977. The petitioner remained in deep slumber for more than 20 years. It is too late in the day to question the legality of additional note as mentioned hereinabove. No plausible justification whatsoever could be furnished by the petitioner during the course of arguments except that the question of limitation is nothing more but a technicality which is not a correct approach. The question of limitation cannot be taken lightly. It is well settled by now that in service matters the question of limitation should be considered seriously and applied strictly. In this regard, we are fortified by the dictum laid down in Chairman, District Screening Committee, Lahore and another v. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi (PLD 1976 SC 258), S. Sharif Ahmad Hashmi v. Chairman, Screening Committee Lahore and another (1978 SCMR 367), Yousaf Ali v. Muhammad Aslam Zia and 2 others (PLD 1958 SC (Pak 104, Punjab Province v. The Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1956 FC 72), Muhammad Swaleh and another v. Messrs United Grain and Fodder Agencies (PLD 1964 SC 97), Chief Kwame Asante v. Chief Kwame Tawia (PLD 1949 PC 45), Hussain Bakhsh and others v. Settlement Commissioner and another (PLD 1969 Lah. 1039), Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236), Chief Settlement Commissioner, Lahore v.
Raja Muhammad Fazil Khan and other (PLD 1975 SC 331), WAPDA v. Abdul Rashid Bhatti, (1989 SCMR 467), Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Azim Khan (1949 SCMR 1271), Inspector- General of Police, Balochistan v. Jawad Haider and another (1987 SCMR 1606), WAPDA v. Aurangzeb (1988 SCMR 1354), Muhammad Naseem Sipra v. Secretary, Government of Punjab (1989 SCMR 1149), Muhammad Ismail Memon v. Government of Sindh and another (1981 SCMR 244), Qazi Sardar Bahadar v. Secretary, Ministry of Health, Islamabad and others (1984 SCMR 177), Smith v. East Elloe Rural District Council and others (1956 AC 736), Province of East Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Abdu Miah (PLD 1959 SC (Pak), 276), Mehr Muhammad Nawaz and others v. Government of the Punjab and others (1977 PLC (C.S.T.) 165) and Fazal Elahi Siddiqi v. Pakistan (PLD 1990 SC 692).
3. The question of discrimination has been examined by the learned Federal Service Tribunal in the judgment impugned, relevant portion whereof is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-- "9. Before proceeding to examine this appeal on merit, it is necessary to address the question of limitation raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. It is a matter of record that the appellants who entered service in 1977, are aggrieved on account of note added to the service Rules in the year 1983. Secondly, it is not denied that the matter has been agitated by the appellants for the first time in 2006 i,e, after the lapse of almost 21 years. There is no cavil with the general principle that the issue of discrimination can be agitated at any time. But the Tribunal has not been vested with powers which are available to the superior judiciary. The appeals filed before the Tribunal have to comply with the mandatory requirements of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, and it is a settled principle of law that the provisions of the Limitation Act are to be strictly applied to service appeal as held in the case reported in PLD 1990 SC 692. This was further reiterated in the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CP No,700 of 2008 dated 24-6-2008.
10. Even otherwise, the question of discrimination can be pressed into service while comparing equals i,e, while comparing appeals with appeals and not appeals with pears. Perusal of the record reveals that there are two channels for appointment to the post of Assistant Research Officers i,e, through promotion on the basis of 75 % quota and through direct recruitment on the basis of 25% quota. The appellants admittedly have not challenged the recruitment rules nor have they agitated this fact in their oral arguments. Their grievance is directed against the grant of premium to Assistant Research Officers who possess Post-graduate qualification, which they claim is discriminatory. Plain reading of the 1983 amendment clearly shows that the respondents have only given premium to higher educational qualification. They have not disturbed the reserved quota for promotion, nor have they created any hindrance in the career path of the promotee officials because their seniority has been protected over directly appointed ARO's having higher qualification. The change that was brought about 30 years ago, relates only to the grant of premium to higher educational qualifications. But even in this case there is a proviso in the amendment which says that with due regards to merit on the recommendation of the Selection Board". The premium under dispute in 1983 made no distinction between the directly recruited and promoted officials. It was uniformly applicable to all employees in the said cadre who possessed higher education qualification. Therefore the question of discrimination does not arise. The rules provide for recruitment on the basis of graduation degree at one stage and the post-graduation degree at another stage. The appellant has not been able to point out any violation of policy/instructions/rules by the respondents. Moreover, we find that weightage has been given to both sides. If one side has been given premium for possessing higher education qualification, the other side has received weightage in promotion quota and retention of seniority in the higher grade. Therefore, in the final analysis the weightage is counter-balanced in the term of long-term career prospects. It is a matter of record that the cause of grievance accrued to the appellant almost 30 years ago. And according to him it was aggravated in 2001 with the introduction of new pay scales. In our opinion, the appellant should have agitated the grievance within time."
4. No illegality or irregularity could be pointed out in the judgment impugned and besides that no question of law of public importance is involved which is sine qua non for invocation of the provisions as enumerated in Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The petition being devoid of merit is dismissed and leave refused.