S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).-Khan Zulfiqar Khan, retired Director, Government Transport Board, has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has pleaded that his services were placed at the disposal of Civil Secretariat, Lahore, and Managing Director, Punjab Road Transport Board. By virtue of this appeal, he has prayed that the appeal be accepted and respondent may be directed to pay deputation allowance and other back benefits to the appellant for which he was entitled for the period during which he served in the statutory body.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Governor of the Punjab sanc--tioned officiating appointment of the appellant as General Manager of the Transport Service with effect from 14th April, 1947. Later on, the said Governor in exercise of the powers under section 43 (a) (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 enacted the Punjab Road Transport Rules, 1952 on 26th May, 1952. By virtue of the said rules the service of the appellant was placed at the disposal of the Punjab Road Transport Board in the year 1952 as a General Manager. The appellant took charge of the office of the General Manager of the Board on the 1st December, 1954. Later on, the appellant was confirmed against the post of Chief Traffic Manager with effect from 18th November, 1961. Similarly vide another order dated 18th July, 1962, the appellant was confirmed as Chief Traffic Manager with effect from 18th November, 1981.
3. A dispute arose about the duties of the appellant whether he was a civil servant or an employee of the said Board. A writ petition was filed in this behalf before the Lahore High Court and it was ulti- -mately decided on 22nd January, 1971 by the Division Bench of the said Court. The learned Advocate-General placed before the Tribunal an order of Government wherein Government had accepted the status of the appellant as a Government servant. The learned Advocate---General further .Conceded the status of the. Appellant in the following terms :- "The Government is further prepared to decide the petitioner's case according to law and rules applicable to Government servants, provided the writ petition is withdrawn."
On the aforesaid undertaking the appellant withdrew his writ petition. On 22nd January, 1971 the appellant wrote a letter to Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Transport Department, through proper channel, in which he expressed .His wish to retire which was accepted by a notification of 12th September, 1974 and thus the appellant proceeded on L. P. R. Hence this appeal. .
4. We have hoard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by counsel, Mr. Muhammad Salim Khan, Barrister-at-Law, from the Road Transport Board i.e. Respondent No. 2 and perused the record carefully with their assistance.
5. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant through his counsel that although the appellant received his pension benefits along--with the L. P. R. Which he availed yet be was not given deputation allowance to which he was entitled as a Government servant working with the Road Transport Board on deputation. He has further argued that delay caused in filing this appeal before this Tribunal be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act. As the appellant has been pursuing his remedies diligently but the respondent No. 2 has declined, to accept his claim. 00 the other hand, the learned District Attorney as well as the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 have submitted that the claim of the appellant, if any was hopelessly time-barred as well as the case of the appellant suffered from the doctrine of estoppel.
6. We have given our anxious thoughts to the above proposition and find that the application filed by the appellant under section 5 of the said Act does not give any cogent reasons for this delay except that his representations remained unanswered. To examine this point further we find that neither in the writ petition nor in the following letter as mentioned above from the appellant to the respondent No. 2 any claim was ever made on behalf of the appellant for grant of deputation allowance both in the writ petition as well as in the letter. The only issue taken by the appellant was that he was a Government servant and his age of superannuation as well as his other benefits may be given to him treating him as such. It is also nowhere on the record that the appellant made any representation to the respondent No. .2 with regard to the claim which is being sought before through this appeal.
7. It is a matter of common knowledge that whenever a person is sent on deputation from the lending department to tire borrowing de--partment his terms of deputation allowance etc. Are settled and it is then that his services are lent to the borrowing department. The perusal of the record of this case also reveals that at no time the lending department settled any such terms with the borrowing depart--ment, therefore, it cannot be said that the borrowing department treated the appellant on deputation with it.
8. In view of above, we do not find any force in the appeal--- which has been filed before us after a lapse of about 10 years without giving any substantive reasons to pursuade us to condone this period. Moreover, the conduct of the appellant by accepting what he got for full 10 years would positively stop him to resurrect his claim which is bit by the principles of laches as well as of estoppel.
9. The result is that we dismiss the appeal, as being time-barred as well as without merits.
10. However, there are no orders as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.