Syed Rafique Hussain Shah, Member.--This review petition has arisen in the following circumstances.
2. The review petitioner, Nisar Ahmed Shad was appointed on the post of Demonstrator (BPS-14) on 14.04.1980 in Federal Government Degree College Quetta. At the time of appointment, the petitioner was possessing the qualification of B.Sc. He was appointed Demonstrator in Physics. During the service, the petitioner improved his qualification and passed M.Sc. In Geology' in 1982. Having got the degree of M.Sc. Geology, the petitioner filed representation to Director FGEI, GHQ, Rawalpindi for selection grade to BPS-16. In his that application dated 20.05.1986 it was specifically mentioned by the petitioner that although the subject was not relevant to his field yet in the light of his qualification, experience and good result he may be granted the selection grade BPS-16. He repeated the said representation on 21.03.1988. On the basis of improvement in qualification the petitioner/appellant was granted 02 advance increments vide letter dated 21.08.1991. The petitioner kept the ball rolling and made another representation for grant of next higher scale on 18.05.1998.
He was allowed move over to BPS-16 w,e,f, 01.12.1997 vide office order dated 12.01.1999. In the year 2007, the petitioner filed another representation, for his promotion/up-gradation and similarly on 27.03.2013 through his, yet, another representation he requested for higher grade. Still not satisfied with his previous representations/ applications the petitioner filed the final representation to the Secretary Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan on 29.12.2014. This representation was declined and linked with the previous letters of the Directorate dated 17.10.1984, 08.10.1986 and 02.05.2013. In the official letter dated 02.05.2013 it was conveyed to the petitioner that his request was regretted because he did not possess the M.Sc. Degree in Physics, Chemistry and Biology whereas his degree in Geology was not prescribed in the recruitment Rules.
3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed Appeal No, 643(R)CS/ 2015 to assail the impugned appellate order dated 02.05.2013, which according to him was conveyed on 13.02.2015.
4. This appeal was disposed of by us vide our judgment dated 16.05.2016. We, in our judgment placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan dated 11.01.2016 in Civil Appeal No, 992/2014 and held that the matter related to up-gradation and, as such, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction. Consequently the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
5. Against our judgment dated 16.05.2016, the petitioner filed the instant review petitioner with the plea that sufficient cause existed to review the judgment dated 16.05.2016. According to the petitioner the judgment was the result of misconstruction of law, misreading/non reading of evidence on record and non consideration of pleas raised before the Tribunal amounting to an error floating on the surface of the record.
6. Review petition was apposed by the other side.
7. We heard both the sides pro and contra.
8. The learned counsel for the review petitioner contended that no prayer for up-gradation of the post has been made by the petitioner/appellant whereas on the other hand he has sought for promotion on already up-graded post. According to him if in the memo of appeal any word up- gradation has been used it does not mean that the appeal is relating to up-gradation whereas in fact it is for promotion pure and simple.
9. The learned counsel for the review petitioner argued that the petitioner has rendered 35 years of service during which he has not been promoted to another higher scale. The learned counsel for the petitioner alleged discrimination against the petitioner as according to him petitioner's other colleagues have been granted promotion in similar circumstances. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that Recruitment and Promotion Rules of 1993 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioner because these Rules are framed after the recruitment of the petitioner.
10. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents made reliance on Section 4-A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973 and submitted that the instant review petition does not fall within the parameters laid down by Section 4-A of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973.
11. As regards review, as per various pronouncements of the Hon'ble apex Court, main aim of review is correction of errors not involving process of reasoning of appreciation of law and facts and not for correcting wrong decisions while exercising power of review, as Court cannot hear the matter as an appeal against its own judgment. As per wisdom of the superior Courts review to re-open a finally decided matter, re-hearing on merits involving question of law and facts is misconceived. It has been held by the Hon'ble apex Court that review cannot be granted for merely re-examination of the same arguments and that re-arguing the case on merits as well as additional grounds is beyond the scope of review petition (PLD 2010 SC 949). It has also been observed by the Hon'ble apex Court that the points already raised and considered by the Court cannot be re-agitated in review jurisdiction which is confined to the extent of patent error or mistake floating on the face of record.
12. After analysis of the present review petition we are of the view that it is to reopen a finally decided matter and re-hearing on merits involving question of law and facts. In our opinion this review petition is beyond the scope of Section 4-A of the Act.
13. Besides the merits of the case, we would like to touch and discuss the point of limitation which is always very important and vital in service matters. The record would show that the petitioner started his efforts since, 1984 and kept on filing departmental representations up to 2014. There is a letter dated 08.10.1986 on the record to show that the representation of the petitioner for promotion/selection grade was declined by the authority considering him not eligible for grant of BPS-16 as he did not possess master degree in the relevant subject. After rejection of his representation in the year, 1986 the petitioner was required to take legal recourse and to approach the competent forum i,e, FST for redressal of his grievance, but he did not do so. Subsequently he kept on filing different representations without taking them to logical end. The present service appeal came to this Tribunal in the year 2015, which is apparently after long delay. In such like circumstances, the Hon'ble apex Court has taken strict view holding that an aggrieved civil servant would not have unfettered discretion to make application/appeal at any time and period of limitation would not depend upon sweet choice of civil servant who might awake at his own sweet whims. Any omission, slackness and negligence would not be easily ignored or overlooked because law would help vigilant, diligent and not indolent (2001 PLC (CS) 212). Similar views have been expressed by the apex Court in 2010 SCMR 1982 and 2008 SCMR 663. Question of limitation cannot be taken lightly as in service matters such question should be considered seriously and applied strictly.
' The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has imposed certain conditions even to challenge a void order. It has been held in 2013 SCMR 587 that rule that no limitation runs against a void order is not an inflexible rule. A party cannot sleep over to challenge a void order and it is 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.
The Hon'ble apex Court in its judgment recorded as 2013 SCMR 700, has held that after lapse of 90 days from filing of departmental appeal, the civil servant had 30 days to file service appeal before the Service Tribunal whether or not his departmental appeal was rejected.
The apex Court in its judgment reported as 2007 SCMR 621 has made all the sub-ordinate Courts bound to notice question of limitation whether it was agitated or not.
14. Judging the appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant on the touchstone of limitation, we found it much beyond the prescribed limitation. In our view, the petitioner/appellant falls under the definition of indolent who remained in deep slumber for a very long time and approached this forum too late in the day.
15. For the aforesaid reasons, we are constrained to decline this review petition.