' This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIIth Labour Court, given on 11th June, 1981, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant claiming .1. V. Selection Grade post. The decision is grounded on the fact that whereas the claim of the appellant is that he should have been appointed to the Selection Grade post in 1970, the grievance notice was served on the employer on 20th June, 1979 and the grievance petition itself was filed on 19th September, 1979 and was thus hopelessly time-barred. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.
2. I have beard Mr. Mohammad Ali, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, who represented the respondents. It was not disputed by Mr. Mohammad Ali that the grievance of the appellant initially arose in 1970, when the appellant should have been given the Selection Grade as he possessed the requisite qualification for the same. He, however, contended that as all along until June, 1979 the appellant had been denied his right to the Selection Grade, he had a continuing cause of action, and, therefore, his grievance petition should be deemed to be in time. I find no substance in this contention. The basic requirement for filing of grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R.
0., is that the grievance notice must be served upon the employer within 3 months of the grievance having arisen As the grievance arose in 1970, the grievance notice should have been served within 3 months of the said grievance arising and merely because the appellant claims that he was denied his right from 1970, onwards, the time for the service of the requisite grievance notice cannot be extended. It was then argued by. Mr. Mohammad Ali that from time to time the appellant had been making representations to the authorities for being granted the Selection Grade and he was being assured that his case was under consideration. The learned counsel in this behalf has invited my attention to the representation/application of the appellant, dated 8th June, 191.2. As this representation/ application is made to the appointing authority, it is to be deemed to be a grievance notice. As this grievance notice was also filed much after the period of limitation prescribed in section 25-A, I. R.
0., it was time-barred. Moreover. As the grievance petition was filed several years later, it too was hopelessly time-barred. Mr. Muhammad Ali also invited my attention to the letter, dated 23rd August 1972 from the Divisional Superintendent, P. W. R., Sukkur, io t e effect that the case of the appellant was under consideration and the applications made by the appellant for the grant of Selection Grade, dated 15th May, 1973, May, 1974, June, 1975 and 12th December, 1978 but again these representations and letters do not improve the position of the appellant, as they cannot be deemed to give a fresh cause of action to him. Finally, there is a letter, dated 9th December, 1928_.From the Divisional Superintendent, P. W. R., Sukkur, to the Chief Personnel Officer, Lahore, requiring whether Selection Grade is to be given to persons who had not passed J, V. Qualifications but higher qualifications. This letter too was issued more than 6 months prior to the service of the grievance notice by the appellant and more than 9 months of the filing by him of the grievance petition. It would accordingly agree with the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the grievance petition is time-barred.
3. There is another ground on which the grievance petition of the appellant cannot be allowed. In order to consider the merits of the case, I examined Mr. Jalaluddin Abro, the Divisional Personnel Officer, Sukkur, who stated that there are one 2 is of Selection Grade in the Sukkur Division, one of which is held by Mr. Haji Muhammad, who was granted Selection Grade even before the appointment of the appellant as Teacher, while the other is held by Mr. Shaban Qureshi, who was granted Selection Grade in the place of Mr. Abdul Karim Khan, who died on 12th September, 1980.
Mr. Abro further stated that Mr. Shahan Qureshi was appointed a Teacher in 1959, and was confirmed on 21st September, 1966. The qualifications possessed by Mr. Shahan AU were B. A. And senior vernacular examination, which is higher examination than J. V. The basic qualification as per rules for the grant of Selection Grade is Matric and J. V. But Mr. Shahan was not only senior as Teacher to the appellant, but also possessed higher qualifications than the minimum qualification for the grant of Selection Grade. He bad thus preferential right over the appellant. Mr. Mohammad Ali was unable to refer me to any provision of law upon which his claim to appointment to the Selection Grade was based in preference to that either of Mr. Shahan or Mr. Haji Muhammad.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same.