' BRIG. ABDUR RASHID (MEMBER).-The appellant, Dr. Fiaz Akhtar Khan, joined the then West Pakistan Railways Medical Service on 20th December, 1966 as a Divisional Medical Officer (DMO) through the then West Pakistan Public Service Commission. Respondent No, 4, Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan was selected by the then West Pakistan Public Service Commission and appointed in the West Pakistan Railways Medical Service as a Medical Specialist w. e. f. 17th November, 1964.
2. Both the appellant and respondent No, 4 were promoted Medical Superintendents in grade 19 vide Pakistan Railways Headquarter Office Notice No, 940-E/1168-IX (E. I/C), dated 15th November, 1976.
3. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Minister for Railways on 15th November, 1976 wherein, among other things, he stated that he and respondent No, 4 had been promoted as Medical Superintendents in grade 19 on 15th November, 1976 and that by bringing in respondent No, 4 into the "Administrative Cadre" from "Specialists Cadre", the said respondent would become a competitor to the appellant for further promotion (to CMO). The appellant prayed that respondent No, 4 be given a grade 19 post in "Specialists Cadre" but if he is to be brought into the "Administrative Cadre", then his appointment should be treated as ad hoc.
4. The appellant preferred another appeal dated 2nd June, 1977 to the Minister for Railways wherein he expressed apprehension that respondent No, 4 had been brought in to the "Administrative Cadre", which the appellant claimed to be his channel of promotion, and that this was done only to supersede him. He prayed that his seniority be fixed below Dr. K. M. M. Ansari and that respondent No, 4 should remain as Medical Specialist.
5. On 19th June, 1978 the appellant preferred a representation to the CMLA, more or less, on the lines of his appeal dated 2nd June, 1977. This representation was forwarded to the Secretary, Railways for consideration by Private Secretary to the CMLA vide his note dated 1st July.
1978. Appellant's representation dated 19th June, 1978 was, in turn, sent by the Ministry of Railways to the Secretary, Railways Board vide their letter dated 1st August, 1978 for a suitable reply to the representations.
6. The appellant made another representation to the Chairman Railway Board with copy to CMLA in August, 1978 (date not given) which is reproduced : "Subject :-Seniority of Dr. Fair Akhtar Khan, Medical Superintendent. Sir, ' Please connect my previous representations of 1977 and 1978 and before that also regarding the above-mentioned subject. My seniority has not yet been circulated in Grade 19 which comes next to Dr. K. M. M. Ansari. In this connection, my representation dated 19th June, 1978 to the Chief Martial Law Administrator may also please be connected. I stand senior to Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan as Medical Superintendent and next to Dr. K. M. M. Ansari as has already been circulated in the seniority lists circulated. This may kindly be clarified justly and honestly to avoid any future complications. Dated : 8/1978. (Sd.)
(Dr. Faiz Akhtar Khan), Medical Superintendent P. R. Hospital, Rawalpindi."
7. Yet another application was made by the appellant to the Secretary, Railway Board on 23rd September, 1978 with copy to CMLA which is reproduced : Subject :-Seniority of Dr. Faiz Akhtar Khan, Medical Superintendent. Sir.
Your letter No, 7/10/78-A. II, dated 23rd August, 1978 has been received in reference to my representation dated 19th June, 1978 to the Chief Martial Law Administrator. I stand senior to Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan in Grade 19 and next to Dr. K. M. M. Ansari, the present C. M.
0. In accordance with the seniority list circulated. Not only this I assumed the charge in Grade 19 earlier than Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan. Your letter does not clarify at all regarding my seniority vis-a- vis with Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan from whom I stand senior.
' This may please be clarified to avoid future complications."
8. Reply to the above appeal was furnished to the appellant on 19th October, 1978 which is reproduced : "Subject :-Representation against fixation of seniority. Ref :-Your representation dated 23rd September, 1978.
Both you and Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan were selected for promotion to grade-19 in one batch and in accordance with proviso to section 8 (4) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan has been placed senior to you in grade 19, irrespective of the date of your assuming charge in the said grade. Incidentally, it is seen that you have endorsed your aforesaid I epresentation to the Chief Martial Law Administrator in contravention of the instructions on the subject. A Civil Servant aggrieved by a departmental order should submit his appeal to the appellate authority through proper channel. He can endorse a copy of his reminder to the higher authority only when he does not receive any final reply to his appeal for representation within six months of its submission.
Contravention of this procedure constitutes misconduct on the part of the Civil Servant.
Reply to your representation dated 19th June, 1978 received in this office under Ministry of Railways letter dated 1st August, 1978 was given to you on 23rd August, 1978. As such there was no justification on your part to endorse your representation dated 23rd September, 1978 to the Chief Martial Law Administrator.
In your own interest you are advised to strictly abide by the procedure outlined by the Government, in future."
9. Taking the above letter to be a final rejection of his various appeals/ representations, he came up before the Service Tribunal on 25th November, 1978 on the grounds that the placing of respondent No, 4 of "Specialists Cadre" senior to the appellant in grade 19 in "Administrative Cadre" is illegal ; and that there are neither rules nor practice extant to permit transfers from "Specialists Cadre" to "Administrative Cadre".
10. It would be pertinent, at this stage, to touch, briefly, on the history of this long-outstanding case of 1978 which is, incidentally, the only case of 1978 awaiting adjudication by us. The case, which was admitted on 7th January, 1979, was heard on various dates between 29th March, 1980 and 4th January 1981 but was adjourned for one reason or another. It was fixed for hearing on 30th December, 1981 but adjournment was allowed on 12th December, 1981 due to the serious illness of appellant's wife. It was fixed after ten months but was not heard and adjourned. It was fixed for hearing on 1st February, 1982 but was adjourned to 8th February, 1983. Before the date of hearing, however, the appellant on 2nd February, 1983 applied for adjournment which was allowed him by more than a month he had asked for and the case was fixed for 19th July, 1983 with orders that no further adjournment would be allowed. On 19th July, 1983 the learned counsel for the appellant moved a miscellaneous petition dated 19th July, 1983 requesting hearing of appeal by another Bench. His plea was rejected and the appeal fixed for 28th August, 1983 giving him more than a month's adjournment in which to study the record which had been procured by the Tribunal in view of his earlier request. This was a final date with the clear orders that no more adjournment would be allowed on any grounds whatsoever. This adjournment was allowed despite protests by respondent No, 4 whose rights were being seriously affected due to pendency of the appeal. On 28th August, 1983 the learned counsel for the appellant moved a miscellaneous petition dated 25th August, 1983 (a copy of which had not been previously made available either to the Tribunal or to other respondents), and pleaded for conditional withdrawal of his appeal as an aggrieved party.
Doubtlessly, this was a subterfuge which the appellant's counsel wished to apply to gain an adjournment and further time if not to his advantage, at least, to the detriment of respondent No, 4.
We rejected the plea of conditional withdrawal of appeal and were prepared to allow an unconditional withdrawal to which the appellant's counsel was not amenable. We heard the learned counsel for respondent No, 4 who was vehemently opposed to any further adjournment as according to him, the rights of his client were in serious jeopardy due to delaying tactics of the appellant. Consequently, we thought that it would be in the interest of justice if the appeal was heard on merits. We directed the learned counsel for the appellant to proceed with his arguments on merits. He did not do so and left the Tribunal along-with the appellant.
11. We heard the learned State counsel who claimed that he was representing respondent No, 5 only viz. Secretary, Ministry of Railways whose written statement was already on record. The replies of respondents No, 1 to 3 were also on the file even though they were not represented by any counsel. Respondent No, 4 (Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan) was represented by his learned counsel. We had the benefit of exhaustive arguments of the learned counsel for state as well as the respondent No,
4. We also perused the departmental record which had been made available.
12. We are quite clear in our mind that the contest between the appellant and respondent No, 4 is NOT one of seniority. Admittedly, respondent No, 4, who joined the Railways Medical Service on 17th November, 1964 in class I is senior to the appellant who joined the same service on 20th December, 1966. In other words, respondent No, 4 has a seniority edge of more than two years over the appellant. The contest really is whether respondent No, 4 could, at all, be promoted by Medical Superintendent and placed senior to the appellant as such in what the appellant terms as "Administrative Cadre in contra-distinction to respondent No, 4's "Specialists Cadre". The two said cadres if, at all, there were any such cadres, were to move parallel in the ladder or promotion and were never to merge. These separate cadres were to get respective promotions in their own fields as viewed by the appellant and as conceived by his imagination. We have found no such concept of the so-called "Administrative Cadre" and the "Specialists Cadre". There is only one Pakistan Railways Medical Service wherein the inductees are appointed to various posts like Divisional Medical Officers, Medical or other specialists. This inference is borne out by the fact that for the appellant as well as respondent No, 4, the channel of promotion was exactly the same viz. M.S. And C, M. O. There is, therefore, no substance in appellant's contention that D.M.O.S. Alone, to the exclusion of specialists, had a vested right for promotion to M.S. And C.M.O. The specialists and D.M.Os. Were interchangeable at M. S. Levet and as revealed by their channel of promotion there can be no doubt about it. No rules exist, as admitted by the departmental representative, and none was produced before us to the contrary. The settled position therefore, is that there was only one Pakistan Railways Medical Service which recruited D.M.Os. And other specialists and appointed them as such. There were NO separate Administrative and Specialists Cadres as conceived and pleaded by the appellant. The channel of promotion of the appellant as also respondent No, 4, as borne out by record is : M.S. And C.M.O. To get to the position of the C.M,O., the merger had to take place at the level of M. S.
13. We would take this opportunity of referring to para. 3 of written reply of respondent No, 5 which says : "3. Admitted that the Specialists holding appointment against ex-cadre posts were not eligible for promotion against general cadre administrative posts."
' The above quotation betrays lack of knowledge of respondent 5 as to what an ex-cadre post means within the context of the Civil Servants Act, 1973.
14. At para. 7 of written statement ibid it is said : "7. Admitted to the extent that in August 1967, one of the two posts of medical and surgical specialists was merged with regular cadre posts and was made interchangeable and thus making them eligible to promotion in regular cadre posts."
' We find yet another definition "regular cadre" as if the specialists were irregular or ex-cadre .We presume the "regular cadre" as used above, loosely, was synonymous with "Administrative Cadre" which existed in the minds of some who wanted to believe in its existence. Also, the above quotation is incorrect as far as the number of posts for merger was concerned for which the following para. Refers.
15. With reference to para. 7 quoted above, we have gone through the 16th August, 1967 Railway Board meeting minutes which read : - the Board decided that, in addition to the Divisional Medical Officers, the Medical and Surgical Specialists only from amongst the Specialists in the Medical Department, would be eligible for promotion to higher posts in the Administrative Grades subject to the condition that they should all be qualified in the D. P. H .
"It was further decided that the posts of Medical and Surgical Specialists would be interchangeable with those of Divisional Medical Officers and postings between these categories on administrative grounds would be considered as normal arrangement."
16. Since the above decisions, or rules, have been in the field for the past over 16 years, there was just no reason for either the appellant or the Ministry to come up against it at this late hour. The learned counsel for respondent No, 5 raised the issue that the Railway Board, which was under the Provincial Government, should have obtained Government sanction as to the above decision because they changed the terms and conditions of service of the appellant. We found this argument to be baseless insofar as the change of terms and conditions of the appellant was concerned. The appellant was recruited as D.M.O. And his line of promotion was M.S. And C.M.O.
Same was the case with respondent No,
4. No change of service conditions of either the one or the other took place as a result of the Railway Board decisions dated 16th August, 1967. We invited the attention of the learned counsel to para. 3 (8) of Organization Order No, 1, dated 20th September, 1963 as to the decision making authority of the Railway Board and repelled his objection. Para. 3 (8) ibid reads : "(8) In West Pakistan the functions of the secretariat of the Provincial Government pertaining to the Railway shall be performed by the Railway Board and in East Pakistan by the Communications Department of the Provincial Government."
17. It is an admitted fact that the appellant and respondent No, 4 were promoted as M.S. On the same date viz. 15th November, 1976. To determine their relative seniority in grade 19, we advert to section 8 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, sub section (4) whereof is relevant and which says : "8. Seniority-
(4) Seniority in the grade to which a civil servant is promoted shall take effect from the date of regular appointment to a post in that grade : Provided that civil servants who are selected for promotion to a higher grade in one batch shall, on their promotion to the higher grade, retain their inter se seniority as in the lower grade."
Since respondent No, 4 happened to be senior to the appellant in the Lowe grade, he would, obviously, rank senior to the appellant as M.S. In grade 19. Whether the charge of the post was assumed by one earlier than the other would be immaterial in fixation of seniority which would remain 15th November, 1976 for both the appellant and respondent No,
4. It would, however, be material in drawal of emoluments.
18. As stated by us already, the appellant in his numerous appeals/ representations including the present appeal, has been agitating one and only one issue and that is that respondent No, 4's promotion and appointment as M.S. Would prevent the appellant to get to the covered appointment of the C.M.O. It is interesting to observe that the first such appeal was made by the appellant on 15th November, 1976 the date on which he and respondent No, 4 were promoted. He kept up his spate of such representations even though he had absolutely no cause of grievance.
On the face of it, the appellant thinks that he alone has tights and no one else. We are clear in our mind that the present appeal is not competent in view of section 4 (1) (b), Service Tribunals Act, 1973 which reads : "(b) no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a 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."
19. We do not wish to go as far back as 15th November, 1976 which was the date of his first appeal for purposes of limitation and work from there onwards, except to record that the appeal dated 2nd June, 1977 was also rejected vide Secretary, Railway Board 0. M., dated 28th June, 1977 addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways. The relevant portions of 0. M. Ibid are reproduced : ..(I)
Dr. Faiz Akhtar Khan, Medical Superintendent, Pakistan Railways Hospital, Rawalpindi, has claimed seniority over Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan, Medical Superintendent, Cairns Hospital, Pakistan Railways, Lahore, on the ground that the representations belongs to the Administrative cadre whereas Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan belongs to the Specialists cadre. The incumbents of which posts, according to him, are not eligible to hold posts in the Administrative cadre.
(2)
(3) To provide a channel of Advancement to Specialists working in the Medical Department of the Pakistan Railways, it was decided by the Railway Board on 16th August, 1967 that in addition to the Divisional Medical Officers, the Medical and Surgical Specialists only from amongst the Specialists in the Medical Department would be eligible for promotion to higher posts in the Medical Department of the Railway, subject to the condition that they should qualify in the D. P. H. Course. It was further decided by the Board that the posts of Medical and Surgical Specialists would be interchangeable with those of Divisional Medical Officers and posting between these two categories on administrative grounds would be considered as normal arrangements.
(4) it is correct that while working as Medical Specialist, Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan applied for recruitment to the post of Divisional Medical Officer, Pakistan Railways, advertised by the West Pakistan Public Service Commission in the year 1966 and was selected. An offer of appointment was given to him by the Railway Board on 26th November, 1966 which he accepted subject to certain conditions which, inter alia, included retention of his lien on the post of Medical Specialist against which he was working on regular basis. This question remained under correspondence but apparently in view of Railway Board's decision referred to above, he decided not to accept the offer and conveyed his refusal on 8th April, 1968 while he was working on deputation with the Government of Saudi Arabia. It may be mentioned that Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan already possessed the qualifications of D. P. H. And was, therefore, eligible for promotion to the post of Medical Superintendent. Because of his earlier date of appointment to a Grade 18 post and his eligibility for appointment to higher administrative cadre posts in the Medical Department, Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan remained senior to Dr. Faiz Akhtar Khan. On occurrence of a leave vacancy or Medical Superintendent in Grade 19, he was selected by the Selection Committee for promotion to that post on 9th September, 1974. On the basis of that selection, he held current charge of the routine duties of the post of Dy. Chief Medical Officer in February/March, 1976 against a short term leave vacancy. Afterwards on occurrence of a regular Grade 19 vacancy he was promoted on 15th November, 1976 on the basis of his earlier selection. On the other hand, Dr. Faiz Akhtar Khan was selected by the Selection Committee for promotion to the post of Medical Superintendent in Grade 19 on 13th November, 1976 which date is later than the date of selection of Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan.
Dr. Faiz Akhtar Khan has also been promoted as Medical Superintendent with effect from 15th November, 1976.
(5) In view of the position explained above, Dr. Faiz Akhtar Khan has no case to claim seniority over Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan. His representation received with the Secretary Railways' D.
0. Letter referred to above is sent herewith."
20. We would examine this appeal for limitation from 1978 only. The appellant has come before us impugning the letter, dated 19th October, 1978 as the final reply. This letter is reproduced "Sub :-Representation against fixation of seniority.
Ref : Your representation dated 23rd September, 1978.
' Both you and Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan were selected for promotion to grade 19 in one batch and in accordance with proviso to section 8 (4) of the Civil Servants Act, 1973. Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan has been placed senior to you in grade 19, irrespective of the date of your assuming charge in the said grade.
' Incidentally, it is seen that you have endorsed your aforesaid representation to the Chief Martial.
Law Administrator in contravention of the instructions on the subject. A Civil Servant aggrieved by a departmental order should submit his appeal to the appellate authority, through proper channel.
He can endorse a copy of his reminder to the higher authority only when he does not receive any final reply to his appeal or representation within six months of its submission. Contravention of this procedure constitutes misconduct on the part of the Civil Servant.
' Reply to your representation dated 19th June, 1978 received in this office under Ministry of Railways letter dated 1st August, 1978 was given to you on 23rd August, 1978. As such there was no justification on your part to endorse your representation dated 23rd September, 1978 to the Chief Martial Law Administrator.
' In your own interest you are advised to strictly abide by the procedure outlined by the Government in future."
21. In fact, we have on record Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) letter No, 7/10/78-A. II, dated 23rd August, 1978 addressed to the appellant by name and referred to in the above quotation and it reads : "Representation dated 19th June, 1978 to the Chief Martial Law Administrator has been examined.
' Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan was promoted to grade 19 in accordance with the decision of the Railway Board who were competent to do so and your seniority vis-a-vis Dr. Nasir Mahmood Khan has been fixed correctly and in accordance with the rules."
22. The above was the final rejection. He should have come to us within 30 days from the receipt of the above letter which fell due on or about 30th September. 1978 (giving him a margin of six days for receipt of rejection letter dated 23rd August, 1978). Instead, he did so on 27th November, 1978.
The present appeal is, therefore, time-barred by as much as seven weeks. There is no application for condonation of delay either as is required by section 7 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973.
23. In view of the foregoing analysis we have come to the conclusion that the appeal before us deserves dismissal and we order so accordingly on three counts : first, it is totally devoid of merit, second, it is not competent in view of section 4 (1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and third, it is hit by limitation.
24. No order as to costs.
25. Parties be informed.
' A.
0. RAZIUR RAHMAN (MEMBER)-Agreeing with my learned colleague that the appeal deserves to be dismissed, I would like to add a few remarks which, in my opinion, are relevant.
27. While I endorse the view that the appeal is both time-barred and without any merit whatsover, it is not one which should be taken as coming within the mischief of section 4 (1) (b) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The Appellant's case is that Respondent No, 4, being a Medical Specialist, was not in the line of promotion as Medical Superintendent but, by his being so promoted, the service interests and rights accruing to the Appellant from the terms and conditions of his service were adversely affected by two said promotions. In my humble opinion, agitation of this point before the Tribunal is not barred by the provisions of section 4 (1) (b), which excludes, from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, appeals against orders or decisions of a 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. As a plain reading of the said section shows, what is excluded from the purview of the Tribunal is an order or decision determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be promoted. In the instant case, the Appellant has not contested the fitness of Respondent No, 4, but his eligibility under the rules, irrespective of the question whether he was fit or otherwise. If a person is not eligible for promotion, the question of determining his fitness just does not arise. Since the Appellant has raised the point that Respondent No, 4 belongs to a different category altogether and is not, under the rules, to be considered for promotion as Medical Superintendent, his objection is not to the decision of the departmental authority determining Respondent No, 4 to be fit for promotion but against the very consideratio of the said Respondent for promotion. As elaborately explained by my learned colleague, there is no merit in the Appellant's contention that Respondent No, 4 could not be considered for promotion as Medical Superintendent. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal on the ground that there is no basis for the appellant's contention that Respondent No, 4 was not eligible for promotion 1. But I would not dismiss the appeal on the ground that it challenges the decision of the departmental authority finding Respondent No, 4 as fit for promotion to the post of Medical Superintendent. In this connection, I would also like to add a word to what has already been observed by my learned colleague on the question of merit. In my opinion, there is no basis at all for the appeal preferred by the Appellant. From the perusal of the documents, it is seen that Respondent No, 4 was offered the post of Medical Specialist, under Memo. No, F.
62. R C. 7/34III (Admn. I), dated 17th November, 1964 in which it was stated that the post was in West Pakistan Railway Service Class I Medical Department. In a similar manner, the post of Divisional Medical Officer was offered to the appellant and another candidate Mirza Masud Baig, under Memo. No, Admn. (E) 66-RC-7/4-I, dated 18th November, 1966 in which also it was stated that the post of Divisional Medical Officer, which was being offered to them was in the Medical Department of West Pakistan Railway Service Class I (Gazetted). There was thus no difference in the category of the post offered to the Appellant and Respondent No, 4, Obviously, both of them were appointed to the same service and in the same cradre. There was no separate cadre of generalists or administrators and specialists. In fact, the requisition for the recuitment to the post, subsequently offered to Respondent No, 4, clearly stated that the promotion of the Medical Specialists was in the line of Medical Superintendent and Chief Medical Officer. Similarly, in the requisition for the post of Divisional Medical Officers, it was clearly stated, in the requisition form submitted to the West Pakistan Public Service Commission, that the promotion of the Divisional Medical Officers was to be made in the line of Medical Superintendent and Chief Medical and Health Officer. In the face of these incontrovertible facts, it is not understood how the Appellant could claim, as he has been doing, that he, a Divisional Medical Officer, being in the administrative line, was eligible for promotion to the post of Medica1 Superintendent and, thereafter, to that of Chief Medical Officer, while respondent No, 4, who was recruited as Medical Specialist, could not be considered for promotion as Medical Superintendent and Chief Medical Officer, since, according to the Appellant, he belonged to a different cadre. What is even less understandable is the stand of Respondent No, 5, Secretary, Ministry of Railways that the Appellant's prayer should be accepted and Respondent No, 4 reverted back to the post of Medical Specialist, to await further promotion in the Specialists cadre. There being no such thing as an administrative cadre and specialist cadre, the averment made in the written statement, filed on behalf of Respondent No, 5, to the effect that one of the two posts of Specialists was merged with the regular cadre posts in 1967, and that the merger of the Medical Specialist and the regular cadre generalists made at the same time was incorrect, makes incoherent reading. This fact, considered in the light of the position that Respondents 1 to 3, namely, the Chairman, Railway Board, the Chief Officer/A & B (Personnel) and the Secretary, Railway Board, who were the real respondents concerned in the matter, besides Respondent No, 4, and who had put in a stout defence of the impugned order in their written objections, have been elbowed out of the field by the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, who was not a respondent, to begin with, but got himself impleaded by a special prayer, made before the Tribunal about two years after the filing of the appeal, clearly indicates that the official stand of the Ministry has not been determined on the basis of the departmental record, and in consonance with the departmental thinking on the subject. This surely does not reflect a satisfactorily state of things and is hardly likely to inspiring the departmental employees' confidence in the impartiality of the higher administration and its objective approach to their problems and grievances. In fact, the manner in which the Ministry of Railways has tried to silence the Railway Board and its top executive, with the result that all the original Departmental Respondents have withdrawn from the proceedings before us, gives a very unattractive impression of the Ministry and shows it in a not very complimentary light.
28. In the light of the above, I am of the view that, while I do notice consider that the appeal is hit by section 4 (1) (b) of the Service Tribunals' Act, 1973, I endorse the view of my learned colleague that the appeal deserves to be dismissed, not only because it is time barred-but also because ' it is baseless and without any merit whatsoever.