Ch. Muhammad Ibrahim Zia, C.J.- The captioned appeal by leave of the Court has arisen out of the judgment passed by the Service Tribunal of Azad Jammu and Kashmir dated 27.12.2017 in Service Appeal No.270/2009.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents, herein, were promoted vide orders book No.1252 dated 16.12.2008, No.1242 dated 16.12.2008, No.42 dated 12.01.2009 and No.186 dated 28.01.2009. It is claimed by the appellants, herein, that the respondents, being junior to them, have illegally been promoted. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants, herein, and others filed departmental appeals which were dismissed being time barred vide orders book No.35 dated 05.03.2009 and No.47 dated 16.04.2009. The appellants, herein, and others challenged all the aforesaid orders by filing appeal No.270 before the Service Tribunal on 27.04.2009. In the appeal they also challenged the standing order No.07/2008 dated 29.03.2008. The learned Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal through impugned judgment being time barred, hence, this appeal by leave of the Court.
3. Mr. Muhammad Maqsood Ahmed Sulehria, Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Service Tribunal has fell in error of law while dismissing the appeal on the sole ground of limitation, whereas, according to the stated facts the appeal was filed within time from the date of communication of the order. The learned Service Tribunal has not properly perused the record. He further submitted that according to the celebrated principle of law and statutory provisions the limitation will be computed from the date of final order passed by the departmental appellate authority. In this case, from the date of order passed by the departmental appellate authority the appeal was filed within limitation. He referred to the cases reported as IG Police & others vs. Muhammad Shehbaz [2016 SCR 1119], Javaid Ejaz vs. Authority under Government & others [2015 SCR 744] and Syed Rasheed Hussain Shah vs. Azad Govt. & others [2014 SCR 883].
4. Conversely, Sardar Karam Dad Khan, Advocate-General and Sardar M. R. Khan, Advocate, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal on the ground that the law on the point is settled since Shabbir Ahmed's case [1996 SCR 382] in which this Court has authoritatively held that the limitation will be computed from the date of departmental order aggrieved from, whether original or appellate. The appellants in their appeal filed on 27.04.2009 challenged the proprietary of the departmental orders dated 16.12.200 8, 28.01.2008 and 12.01.2009, thus, the Service Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation. He further submitted that out of 23 appellants before the Service Tribuna l only few has challenged the impugned judgment, whereas, all others have accepted the same. Most of the respondents in furtherance of the judgment of the Service Tribunal have been further promoted, therefore, this appeal has no substance. Even the departmental appeals/ representations filed by the appellants were time barred which have been rightly dismissed.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record made available. The appellants in their appeal have challenged the various departmental orders including the original and appellate i.e. 16.12.2008, 12.01.2009, 28.01.2009, 05.03.2009 and 16.04.2009. Except the departmental order book No.186 dated 28.01.2009 through which respondents No.116 to 126 were promoted, to the extent of all other orders the appeal of the appellants is time barred. We have also carefully examined the memo of appeal filed by the appellants before the Service Tribunal and the other record. Neither the appellants have specifically averred the date of communication of the impugned orders nor any other documentary proof has been brought on record.
According to the celebrated principle of law enunciated by this Court in a number of cases, some of which have been rightly referred to by the learned Service Tribunal in the impugned judgment, it is almost settled that the limitation for filing an appeal before the Service Tribunal shall be computed from the date of order aggrieved from, whether original or appellate, irrespective of pendency of any departmental appeal/representation. In this case, against the original orders the departmen tal appeal/ representation filed by the appellants has also been dismissed on the ground of limitation. Moreover, the appeal before the Service Tribunal from the date of orders they are aggrieved from is time barred which has been rightly dismissed to this extent by the Service Tribunal
6. However , it is very astonishing that neither the counsel for the parties nor the Service Tribunal has bothered to apply judicial mind to scrutinize the record. In the appeal before the Service Tribunal the order book No.186 dated 28.01.2009 was also challenged through which the respondents No.116 to 126 have been promoted. To the extent of order dated 28.01.2009 the appeal has been filed within time, therefore, dismissal of the appeal to this extent is un-warranted, against law and facts. In this state of affairs, while partially accepting this appeal the appeal is remanded back to the Service Tribunal to hear the parties to the extent of order dated 28.01.2009 and decide the same afresh according to law .
This appeal stands partially accepted in the above terms with no order as to costs.