S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN). -Abdul Qayyum Chaudhri has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, against the seniority list published on 25-7-1981, in which he has impleaded Province of Punjab through Secretary, Livestock and Dairy Development Department, Civil Secretariat Lahore, Mohammad Hussain Qureshl, Deputy Director (P & E)
Directorate-General (Ext.) Livestock and Dairy Development, 16-Cooper Road, Lahore, Mr. S. W.
Hamid, Information and Publicity Officer, Livestock and Dairy Development, 16-Cooper Road, Lahore and Mr. S. W. Hamid; Information and Publicity Officer, Livestock and Mr. Saeed Asghar, Deputy Director Para---Veterinary Training Scheme ABAD, Rawalpindi, as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that he may be declared senior to the respondents and he be regularised retrospectively were. f. 7-12-1959, with all back benefits and consequential relief.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service in the respondent Department in August, 1945. It was in the year 1955 the appellant proceeded on U. K. For higher education and was later on promoted to Senior Class I on 7-12-1959, as a atop-gap arrangement vide a Notification dated 19-10-1959 and 14-1-1960, respondents 3 was shown at Serial No. 4 and appellant at No. 8 in the said seniority list. Al this had happened when the appellant remained on leave from 1955-57, and the said respondent was promoted to Class II on 5-10-1956. The appellant made a representation on his return from England but the same remained undisposed of. Similarly, he was again ignored in the seniority as he had proceeded to Sudan where he remained for 8 years up to September, 1970. The appellant submitted a number of representations including one to the Martial Law authorities and ultimately he succeeded when he was informed by a letter dated 25-9-1977, that his promotion to Grade-18 post had been regularised but the appellant's claim that he should have been regularised from 7-12-1959 or from 20-10-1967 remained unfulfilled. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length as well as learned counsel for the respondents and learned District Attorney for Government Department. A preliminary objection has been taken by the learned D. A. As well as by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal of the appellant is liable to be rejected as hopelessly time-barred: The appellant has stoutly contested this claim of the respondents and has submitted that there are on record large number of representations, which were dealt with from time to time by the department and it was only when the ultimate rejection was made that he has impugned the seniority list of 1981.
5. Before adverting to the merits of the case we have given our anxious thought to the point of limitation so raised before us by the learned D. A. As well as learned counsel for the respondents, and the stand taken by the appellant to justify his claim. There is no application on record under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay therefore, we have to see whether the appeal of the appellant, as it is, can be declared within time. In this respect we will advert to Annexure ' R-2/2' which is a letter from the Government of West Pakistan, Agriculture Department, dated 9-9-1966, to the Director, Animal Husbandry, Lahore Region, Lahore, and the subject another mentioned therein is "Application of Mr. Abdul Qayyum Chaudhri, WPAHS (I), regarding his seniority in the Animal Husbandry Department". In this letter the appellant was informed that the Public Service Commission had agreed to extend the ad hoc promotion of Class II Officers to Class I only upto 30-6-1964 and thereafter regular proposal for promotion/initial recruitment had to be sent to them for appropriate action, on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Consequently, Mr. A. Q; Chaudhri, the appellant's case was not recommended for extension of ad hoc appointment and he was told that he stood automatically reverted to WPAHS (II) were. f. 1-7-1964. We find that the appellant did not agitate before the proper forum against this order which reduced his status from Class I to Class II. While further going through the record we find that on 28-9-1977 on the application of the appellant for regulariza--tion in N.P.S-18, the Government of the Punjab Livestock and Dairy Development Department informed the Director (Ext.) Livestock, Fisheries and Dairy Development Punjab, Lahore, that the appellant be informed that he should refrain from setting deadline for replies and from holding out threats of going to Court of law. This information was in the context of his representation against his regularization of ad hoc promotion in Grade-18 were, f. 9-9-1977. We further find Annexure ~A-2/7' placed on record, this is a letter on record dated 16-10-1977 with regard' to the request of the appellant for placement of his name at the top of the seniority list in Grade-18 officers, circulated vide Director (Ext.) I & D D Punjab office No. 16408-13, dated 8-9-1977. In this letter it was made clear to the appellant that he has been regularised in his appointment were. f. 9-9-1977 while Mr. Saeed Asghar and M/s. G. H. Sumra and M. H. Qureshi Aminuddin Ahmad and S..W. Hamid were regularised on 28-4-1958 and 25-3-1969, respectively. It was made clear to him that he had no claim to the seniority as claimed by him from 7-12-1959 over the officers belonging to extension cadre in N.P.S-18. With all these letters on record, one thing is crystal clear that the Government had informed the appellant that he had no case as far as Government was concerned. In this manner the appellant should have sought remedy before the proper forum within the stipulated period laid down under the rules to the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, .1974. We have the benefit of going through the file regarding this representation and also find that at one stage the Department was so fed up with his numerous representations filed by him and observed that repetition of representations would not solve the problem of the appellant and he should have the recourse to the Punjab Service Tribunal for his seniority and other claim which was a proper forum for this purpose so set up by the Government under an enactment.
6. The only argument advanced before us from the side of the appellant, is that he made number of representations and continued making so as the same were always received by the Department and were processed, therefore, it cannot be said that the time limit would start running against him on the strength of information so conveyed to him in the year 1977. We are afraid we cannot accept this argument as it has been held in case of Haji Qadir Bakhsh v. Province of Sind and others C.P.S.L.A. No. K-58/79, decided on 3-2-1982 by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that there are two options left to a civil servant with regard to his representation viz. Either to wait for the final result of the representation or to come before the Tribunal within 30 days after the expiry of 90 days. In the present case appellant's representation was finally rejected in 1977 as mentioned in the earlier part of our judgment but the appeal has been filed on 5-11-1981, on the strength and plea that he kept on repeating representations and the same were entertained by the Department. Law or, this point is settled that no civil servant can be allowed to keep on repeating representations at his own whim and fancy in order to keep the limitation alive.
7. In view of the above we hold that the representation filed by the appellant after he was finally informed of the rejection of his claim of seniority as well as the retrospective regularization of his service since 1959,1 were a useless exercise not permitted under the rules and would in no manner enlarge or extend the period of limitation which had started running against him in the year 1977.
The result is we dismiss the appeal as hopelessly time-barred. However, parties shall bear their own costs.