JUDGMENT ATTA MUHAMMAD RAJA, MEMBER --- The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 23.11.1998 whereby he was booked of from duty and is waiting for further posting orders in the Divisional Office Railways Karachi without any payment of salary. He preferred departmental representation dated 12.5.2003 which has not been responded, hence the appeal before this Tribunal.
2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the appellant, are that he joined Pakistan Railways as RCC (BPS-5) i.e.f. 26.9.1967 and got promotions on the basis of his service record. He was last posted as C.S.R. (BPS-11) with move-over in BPS-12 at Drigh Road, Karachi Division in the year 1998 when he received the impugned Order dated 23.11.1998 from Station Master, Drigh Road with direction to see the AC & TM-II, Karachi. He reported accordingly to AC & M-ll but received no further orders for posting. As a result he remained waiting for duty in Office but no duty was assigned to him.
Subsequently, on 9.2.1999, the Station Master, Drigh Road issued orders of his suspension.
Simultaneously, a show-cause notice was issued by the Divisional Commercial Officer on 31.7.1999 on allegation of unauthorized absence from duty i.e.f. 23.11.1999, On 5.7.2000, a charge-sheet with a statement of allegations on charge of embezzlement was issued to the appellant by the respondent department, the appellant explained the factual position in his reply on 22.7.2000 and rebutted all the charges. However, the order of suspension dated 9.2.1999 and charge-sheet dated 5.7.2000 were withdrawn by respondent department on 9.3.2002, leaving behind show- cause notice dated 31.7.1998 for the charge of absence from duty i.e.f. 23.11.1998 without any further action.
The appellant filed his departmental appeal on 12.5.2003 and after waiting for statutory .Period of 90 days, filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal on 2.9.2003. He prays that the unlawful action of respondents for keeping him waiting for duty be declared ultra vires and his salary from 23.11.1998 onward be released.
3. On the question of delay involved in submission of appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that no limitation would run in the instant case as it involves payment of monetary benefits as per rulings reported in 1986 PLC (CS) 66 and KLR 2005 L&S Cases 188. He contends that the appellant kept waiting for duty and was kept on hopes that his salary shall be paid by the Railway administration to which he is entitled. For this he relies on judgments reported in PLD 1994 SC 348 and 2000 SCMR 1237. He argues that term "book of duty" is not provided under the Rules and has no legal sanctity. As per Pakistan Railways Personnel Manual, the Railway administration was bound to initiate and finalize the departmental action against the appellant in time which has still not been done. He argues that no enquiry has been conducted and the action of the respondents is not sustainable under law. He has prayed that Railway administration be directed to pay the legitimate dues to the appellant from 23.11.1998 to date in the interest of justice.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the above contentions placing reliance on the comments filed by the respondent- department. He contends that appellant had continuously remained absent. Hence the respondents had no alternative but to issue show-cause notice dated 25.4.2002. As the absence had been proved, no enquiry was considered necessary. He further contends that all the applications of the appellant which he has filed do not carry any postal receipt or stamp of the respondents to prove that the same were actually delivered. He has raised the issue of limitation and contends that application for condonation of delay is vague as no reason has been given for each day's delay as required under the dictum laid down by the superior Courts. The learned counsel argues that appeal, being hopelessly time-barred, is liable to be dismissed.
5. We have heard the arguments for both the parties and perused the record minutely.
6. We find that the respondent department failed to assign any duty to the appellant and withheld his pay without any justification. The objection raised by the respondents with regard to limitation is not sustainable, It is a well-settled principle of law that right to get whatever was due to the appellant on account of his salary could not be stopped because of limitation as an aggrieved civil servant had a continuing cause of action. Established law is that for a continuing cause of action there is no fixed period of limitation. The appellant's claim for payment of his salary, which has not yet been released, is legitimate. Reliance is placed on K.L.R. 2005 Labour & Service Cases 188.
7. For the above-stated reasons, we hold that there was no justification to keep the civil servant without posting and without payment of salary. We accordingly direct the respondents to pay the salary to the appellant from 23.11.1998 to-date and assign him duty. No order as to costs.
8. Parties be informed accordingly.