S. ABDUL JABBAR KHAN (CHAIRMAN).- Pervaiz Akhtar has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974, in which he has impleaded Inspector-General of Prisons, Punjab, Lahore and Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Home Depantment, Lahore, as Respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal he has prayed that the impugned orders dated 12th June, 1980 and 28th June, 1980, be set aside and be declared that there was no break in service of the appellant as Assistant Superinten--dent of Jail. He has also filed application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant joined service as Assistant Superintendent Jail in March, 1968. Due to family circumstances he tendered his resignation and requested that the same may be accepted were. f., 1.3.1970 (FN). This request of the appellant was duly recom--mended and the same was accepted on 1.3,1970 (FN). However, he again applied for service on the strength that he had withdrawn his resignation. He was re-appointed as Assistant Superintendent Jail on 16th March, 1970. The appellant made several representations claiming seniority over others on the strength that he should be considered to have continued in service despite the acceptance of his resignation. These representations were finally turned down on 14th February, 1972, vide Home Department's letter dated 14th February, 1972. The review petition also stood rejected on 22nd March, 1975, by the order of the Governor of the Punjab. Hence this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department and have perused the record of this case carefully with their assistance.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly relied on the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Nooruz Zaman v. Province of Punjab and others, Appeal No. 150/1302 of 1974, decided on 15th February, 1980. It has beet submitted that as the appellant had withdrawn his resignation therefore, he continued to be in service on the strength of the observation made by this Tribunal in the said Nooruz Zaman case.
6. On the other hand learned District Attorney has opposed this appeal with two arguments, firstly that the appeal is hopelessly time--barred and deserves dismissal on this score alone and secondly it has been stated that the facts in the case of Nooruz Zaman were absolutely different than the case of the present appellant.
7. We have seen the record of this case and find that the representa--tion of the appellant was finally rejected on 1st July, 1972 and his review petition also stood rejected in 1975, therefore, the appellant had to file an appeal before a proper forum within 30 days of rejection of his representation, It may also be pointed out at this stage that there was no provision for review in this case, therefore, the attempt made by the appellant in this behalf was an exercise in futility.
However; even if we give him this latitude and allow him the benefit of the review application, still the appeal would be barred by 5 years. In this way we are fully in agreement with the learned District Attorney that the appeal itself being hopelessly time-barred cannot survive.
8. With regard to the merits of the case, we have taken into consideration the judgment announced in the case of Nooruz Zaman v. Province of the Punjab as quoted above, and find that the facts are absolutely different. In the present case the appellant himself applied for re-employment and was so re-employed. He accepted his new assignment thus by all measures, would be considered as fresh entrant into service, therefore, there is no identity of facts with the facts of the case of Noor- uz-Zaman which has been relied upon by the appellant.
9. The result is, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as time- barred as well as on merits, we there--fore, proceed to dismiss the same. However, parties swill bear their own costs.