This is an appeal of Mr. Muhammad Afzal Khan Niazi, Inspector. Co-operative Department at the preliminary stage of hearing, filed under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Co-operative Department, Lahore, the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Lahore and the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Officers Colony, Multan as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the order of demotion (reversion) dated 29-10-1980 and 2-11-1980 be set aside and the appellant be restored to the post of Assistant Registrar.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant Mr. Mohammad Afzal Khan Niazi while working as Inspector, Co-operative Farming Societies, Multan was posted and transferred to officiate as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Vehari vide Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Lahore order No. RCSIEA-1/665/3059 dated 11-2-1980. This posing and transfer was made with the conditions that "In case of holding the higher post, no right of promotion, seniority etc. Will accrue to any official, all higher posts will be held by the incumbent in his own pay and scale, till further order". The appellant worked as Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies till he was posted again to his original post of Inspector vide Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Lahore order No. RCSiEA-1/665-34264-214, dated 29-10-1980 and order No. RCS/EA-III/343/8, dated 2-11-1980 as Inspector, Co-operative Societies, Jampur. In the meanwhile the appellant was also considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee. His case was deferred till the receipt of A.C.R., 1980 which was conveyed to the appellant by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Multan Division, Multan vide endorsement No. 8459-71-DM/E, dated 20-11-1980. The appellant filed a representation to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Lahore against demotion from the post of Assistant Registrar to the post of Inspector on 3-11-1980 which was disposed of vide order dated 27-11-1980 of Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Lahore. The appellant was again considered for the promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee of the Co-operative Department in its meeting held on 18-4-1981 and was superseded vide Government of the Punjab, Co-operative Department's order No. SO(E) 3-2/73 Pt-V, dated Nil April, 1981 (Annexure R-V with parawise comments submitted by respondent No. 2). However, the appellant has submitted that he remain--ed agitating against his reversion and for promotion as Assistant Registrar. He made revision petition to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Lahore on 27-7-1981, made review on 15-10-1981 to Respondent No. 1 and also innumerable telegrams to Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Lahore but without any response. Hence this appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant argued as the appellant was posted and appointed as officiating Assistant Registrar, hence he could not be reverted without notice or without proceeding against him if there were any charges against him. Thus the reversion (demotion) of the appellant is unlawful and unjustified. The appellant should have been served with a notice, given a chance to explain his position before he could be reverted to this original post. Furthermore the appellant made so mane representations and requests against his reversion and the Department has not paid any attention to these and the representations of the appellant have not been disposed of properly. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellant has been demoted without any allegation, enquiry and notice, hence, the impugned orders of reversion of the appellant are uncalled for, unjustified and are liable to be set aside. Controverting these arguments, the learned District Attorney argued that the appeal is time barred and not maintainable. The appellant had filed his appeal on 3-11-1980 against the impugned orders dated 29-10-1980 and 2-11-1980. His appeal against the demotion was considered disposed of by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Lahore as conveyed to the appellant vide his order dated 27-11-1980. Thus the appellant was required to file his appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal within 30 days of the communication of this order ; but he did not file any appeal to the Tribunal till 18-1- 1982. Thus, the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. The appellant remained agitating his grievance unnecessarily to the depart--mental authorities against these orders, which do not enlarge the time for limitation prescribed under section 4 (1) of Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. Furthermore, the appellant was posted as Assistant Registrar with the clear terms and conditions that the appellant would have no right of promotion, seniority etc. Of this post, he would hold this post on his own pay and scale only till further orders. Since the regular promotees cleared by the departmental promotion committee were made available, consequently, he was posted to his original post. Further more, the orders of the Government of Punjab, Co-operative Department No SO (E)3-2/73 Pt-V of April, 1981 clearly show that the appellant was considered for promotion and superseded. Thus the Tribunal has no jurisdic--tion under section 4 (1) (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, as no appeal lies to the Tribunal against the order or decision of departmental authority determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular post or to be promoted to a higher grade. The learned District Attorney concluded that the appeal is not maintainable, being time-barred and also is not within the Jurisdiction of the Tribunal, being a case of determining of fitness or otherwise of the appellant by a departmental authority.
5. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments put forth by the learned counsel of the parties and have also consulted the record carefully. The appellant was posted as officiating Assistant Registrar with the clear terms and conditions that "in case of holding the higher post, no right of promotion, seniority, etc. Will accrue to any official, all higher post will be held by the incumbent in his own pay and scale, till further order". Thus, on availability of regular promotees, cleared by the Departmental Pro--motion Committee ; posting one out of these against the post of Assistant Registrar temporarily held by the appellant in his own pay and scale, without right of promotion and seniority ; posting the appellant to his original post of Inspector, no injustice has been done to the appellant by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Lahore who issued all these orders.
Further--more, it is clear from the record that the appellant was duly considered for the promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee: in its meeting held on 18-4-1981 and superseded. Thus, the appellant's case being a case of determination of fitness or otherwise of the appellant, I agree with the arguments vehemently put forth by the learned District Attorney, that this case falls under section 4 (1) (b) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, and I hold that this appeal does not lie within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Furthermore, the appellant had filed an appeal on 3-11-1980, against the impugned orders of his demotion (reversion) dated 29-10-1980 and 2-11-1980 to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, Lahore which was considered and disposed of by the said authority as conveyed to the appellant ride his order dated 27-11-1980. As laid down under section 4 (1) of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 the appellant was required to file his appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days (i. e. Up to 26-12-1980) of communication of this order dated 27-11- 1980, by respondent No. 2. The appellant filed this appeal to the Tribunal on 18-1-1982 and in the meanwhile he remained unnecessarily agitating this issue with the departmental authorities. It was incumbent upon the appellant to seek redress of grievance before this forum and not to indulge in the exercise of filing various representations from time to time to the departmental authorities and to save time limit in his favour. Thus his appeal is time barred by more than one year. The appellant has not explained and justified this inordinate delay in his application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act to convince this Tribunal to condone the delay. The contents of his request are of general nature, lack justification and do not persuade me to condone the delay which is mere: than a year. Thus, I agree with the arguments of the learned District Attorney that the appeal is hope--lessly, time barred;
6. Keeing the above analysis in view, this appeal is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal, is time-barred, fails on merits as well and is dismissed in limine.
There will beno order as to costs.