As common question of law and facts are involved in the afore titled appeals, hence the same are being decided through this single judgment.
2. On 23.07.2011, Habib ul Hall and Liaqat Ali jointly filed Service Appeal No, 2674/2011 under Diary No, 2649 dated 23.07.2011 before this Tribunal but on 26.06.2012, learned counsel for the appellant made statement that the appeal be considered on behalf of Muhammad Habib-ul-Haq and thereafter, Liaqat Ali filed another Appeal No, 2869/2012 under Diary No, 2600 dated 30.06.2012 without filing an application u/S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908.
3. Through these service appeals, the appellants have challenged Condition No, 1 of Notification No, SDO(C&W)3- 70/86(Pt.III) dated 29.06.1989; final seniority list of Assistant Engineers/S.D.Os of C&W Department as on 27.05.2002; order dated 12.06.2007 of Secretary C&W Department; order dated 20.07.2009 passed by Respondent No, 2 and order dated 22.06.2011; prayed that direction be given to respondents to fix appellant's seniority (BS-17) w.e.f 17.01.1989 and above the selectness/Respondents No, 3 to 18.
4. Arguments heard. Record perused.
5. Being aggrieved from the seniority list dated 27.05.2002 whereby the appellants were shown juniors to contesting Respondents No, 3 to 18, the appellants submitted departmental representation, which was dismissed by Secretary Communication & Works Department Govt. Of the Punjab on 12.06.2007 and ultimately, departmental appeal was rejected by the Chief Secretary vide order dated 20.07.2009.
6. The appellants earlier filed Service Appeals No, 3231/2007 & 3339/2007, which were ultimately dismissed by the Honorable Chairman of this Tribunal as he then was vide order dated 03 09.2.009.
7. Against order dated 03.09.2009, Civil Appeals No, 139/2010 and 140/2010 were filed before the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan. These civil appeals were disposed off not being pressed vide order dated 17.03.2011 by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan.
8. After the dismissal of Civil Appeals No, 139 & 140 of 2010 on 17.03.2011, the appellants have again challenged seniority list notified on 27.05.2002, order of the Secretary C&W Department dated 12.06.2007, order passed by Chief Secretary dated 20.07.2009 along with Condition No, 1 of Notification No, SDO(C&W)3- 70/86(Pt.III) dated 29.06.1989 and order dated 22.06.2011 passed by Chief Secretary (Respondent No, 2) upon the representation dated 12.05.2011.
9. Appellants joined the service as Assistant Engineer on adhoc basis vide letter dated 30.09.1987 (Habib-ul-Haq) and 25.10.1987 (Liaqat Ali) respectively and later on, services stood regularized w.e.f 17.01.1989 vide Notification No, SDO(C&W)3- 70/86(Pt.III) dated 29.06.1989.
10. It is contended that Condition No, 1 in Notification No, SDO(C&W)340/86(PE-III) dated 29.06.1989 was inapplicable to the appellants as they stood regularly appointed w.e.f 17.01.1989; condition declaring the selectees of the Punjab Public Service Commission shall as a group be assigned seniority over adhoc appointee was too general unspecific, vague and did not convey any sense and disclose the exact identity of the selectees in terms of year/batch etc, impugned condition was inconsistent with Condition No, 4 of the notification dated 29.06.1989 which provided specific guarantee to appellants regarding terms & condition to be governed by Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974 and Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment of Condition Rules, 1974.
11. Admittedly, the appellants joined the service as Assistant Engineer on adhoc basis as a result of determination of their merit/fitness by the selection committee and ultimately under the Policy Directives issued by the Chief Minister, Punjab dated 22.01.1989 and 25.01.1989, the service of the appellants were regularized w.e.f 17.01.1989 vide Notification No, SDO(C&W)3- 70/86(Pt.III) dated 29.06.1989 but disgruntled from Condition No, 1, which is as follows: "The selectees of the Punjab Public Service Commission shall, as a group, be assigned seniority over the ad hoc appointees. Seniority of the ad hoc appointees, Inter se shall be determined on the basis of their continuous length of ad hoc service."
12. Being aggrieved from the seniority list dated 27.05.2002, appellants earlier filed service appeals bearing No, 3231/2007 (Habibul-Haq) and 3339/2007 (Liaqat Ali), whereby the appellants have challenged final seniority list of AEs/SDOs of C&W Department as on 27.05.2002, order dated 12.06.2007 and also prayed that appellants be declared senior to contesting respondents.
13. Issuance of Notification No, SDO(C&W)3-70/86(Pt.III) dated 29.06.1989 and the final seniority list dated 27.05.2002 were in the knowledge of the present appellants but they kept on taking the advantage of the said notification dated 29.06.1989 and did not agitate Condition No, 1 referred above. The earlier service appeals mentioned above, seniority list dated 27.05.2002, order dated 12.06.2007 and final order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the Chief Secretary, Punjab were assailed by the appellants. These service appeals were decided (dismissed) alongwith other service appeals vide consolidated judgment of this Tribunal on 03.09.2009. The Honorable Chairman of this Tribunal in Para No, 19 of the judgment dated 03.09.2009 observed as follows: "As against the above, I feel that the contesting respondents were appointed on regular, basis after proper recommendation by the Punjab Public Service Commission and their placement in the seniority as senior to the appellants was comprehensible by a person of ordinary prudence and further Strictly in line with Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as later on elaborated and interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as PLD 1997 (SC)
835 laying down the principle that appointment in various posts by Federal Government, Provincial Government, statutory bodies, Public authorities, either initial or ad hoc or regular basis without inviting applications and merits were in violation of Articles 18 and 2(a) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, The above noted judgment of the Apex Court though later in time, yet spelt out the true spirit of Article 18 of the constitution which was the part of the same on its inception in 1973 The contesting respondents were therefore rightly preferred in the matter of seniority qua the appellants."
14. Judgment dated 03.09.2009 of this Tribunal was challenged by the appellants before the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan by filing Civil Appeals No, 139-L and 140-L of 2010 and these Civil Appeals were disposed off being not pressed vide order dated 17.03.2011. This means that order passed by the Honorable Chairman of this Tribunal dated 03:09.2009 has attained the finality to the extent of seniority list dated 27.05.2002, order dated 12.06.2007 and final order dated 2007.2009 passed-by-the Chief Secretary, Punjab.
15. For the first time after the dismissal of Civil Appeals No, 139-L and, 140-L of 2010, the appellants preferred representation to the Chief Secretary, Govt of the Punjab on 12.05.2011 by invoking the provisions of Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974 as reflected from Para No, 3 of the instant appeals.
16. The Chief Secretary Govt. Of the Punjab, filed the said representation of the appellants vide Notification No, SEO-II/SDO (C&W) 3-44/99 (P) dated 22nd June 2011. As mentioned above, issuance of notification dated 29.06.1989 flaunting Condition No, 1, was in the knowledge of the present appellants. They did not earlier challenge the same in the light of Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974 within the prescribed period of limitation i.e 60 days and after more than 21 years, the Condition No, 1 of the notification dated 29.06.1989 was challenged by filing representation before the Chief Secretary of the Punjab, which was dismissed by him.
17. Section 21 of the Punjab Civil Servant Act, 1974 is reproduced as under:- "(1) Where a right to prefer an appeal or apply for review in respect of any order relating to the terms and conditions of his service is allowed to a civil servant by any rules applicable to him, such appeal or application shall, except as may otherwise be prescribed, be made within sixty days of the communication to him of such order.
(2) Where no provision for appeal or review exists in the rules in respect of any order, a civil servant aggrieved by any such order is made by the Governor, within sixty days of the communication to him of such order, make a representation against it to the authority next above the authority which made the order.
' Provided that no representation shall 'lie on matters relating to the determination of fitness of a person to hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher post."
18. Facts mentioned above, verily bring it on the surface that notification, dated 29.06.1989 was in the knowledge of the appellants who used to take benefit of the same and kept mum for more than two decades and now, under the doctrine of "Acceptance by science and Acquiescence ", appellants can not be allowed to challenge Condition No, 1 of Notification No, SDO(C&W)3-70/86 (Pt. 111) dated 29.06.1989. I am fortified in my above view from the dictum laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in case of IPC vs. Arbab Altaf Hussain etc. Reported in 2014 SCMR 1573.
19. The contention of the appellants that as the Condition No, 1 of the Notification No, SDO(C&W)3- 70/86(Pt.III) dated 29:06.1989 was void, hence question of limitation would not come in their way. In this Regard, it is to illuminate that Honorable Supreme Court of !Pakistan has held that a party could not sleep over to challenge a void order and it was bound to challenge the same within the stipulated/prescribed time period of limitation from the date of knowledge before the proper forum in appropriate proceedings. Reliance is placed on dictum of the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan, reported in 2014 SCMR 1594 titled as Ghulam Hussain Ramzan Ali vs. Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi, etc.
120. Needless to add that law of limitation in service matters is strictly applied as law helps the diligent and would not support the indolent. Reliance is placed on 2000 PLC (C.S) 1109 titled Syed Nasim Haider vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. Of the Sindh New Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and others.
21. In the light of above mentioned materiality, order dated 22.06.2011 was rightly passed by Respondent No, 2, therefore, the same is upheld.
22. For the reason discussed above, I see no merit in the above titled appeals, hence, the same are dismissed. Be consigned. '