' SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN). - Muhammad Ahsan Khan, Stenographer in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting has preferred this appeal to challenge the action of the Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, respondent No, 1 in failing to promote the appellant to the post of Private Secretary, to the Additional Secretary and appointing Mr. Muhammad Habib, respondent No, 2 to the said post. He also challenges the refusal of respondent No, 1 to premote the appellant as Superintendent in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
2. The appellant's case is that he was serving as Personal Assistant (Grade-14) in the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting when in 1975 respondent No, 2 was promoted as Private Secretary to the Additional Secretary by notification of 22nd December, 1975. He contends that this appointment was illegal and against the relevant rules and orders and therefore, the appellant represented to respondent No, 1 by moving formal application on 24th December, 1975. He further contends that the claim of the appellant for promotion as Superintendent had also been ignored inasmuch as the post of Superintendent which had fallen vacant, was previously occupied by Stenographer.
According to him he being the senior most Stenographer in the Ministry bad a right to be considered for the post of Superintendent. It is stated that he submitted a representation on 1st January, 1976 to the Additional Secretary (Administration) for his appointment as Superintendent or in the alternative as Private Secretary to the Additional Secretary in place of respondent No, 2 who has allegedly holding the post illegally.
3. The appellant contends that after several reminders, respondent No, 1 by letter of 6th May, 1976 informed the appellant that his representation for appointment as Private Secretary was under consideration. The appellant again represented on 11th June, 1976 in this respect. On 22nd August, 1977, it is stated the appellant reminded respondent No, 1 with regard to the case of his promotion to the post of Superintendent. This representation was replied on 22nd October, 1977 wherein it was stated that the post of Superintendent had been temporarily vacated and it was not possible to consider the appellant for promotion on that behalf. Again on 12th December, 1977 the appellant submitted another representation of his claim as Superintendent to which representation he was replied on 29th April, 1978 that his earlier representation regarding seniority as Stenographer having been rejected, his claim for promotion as Superintendent was also rejected.
4. The appellant again challenged the order by letter, dated 5th June, 1978 and then again on 6th August, 1978. When no reply was received, the appellant again approached the departmental authority by way of representation, dated 3rd December, 1978 against his supersession in the grade of Superintendent and Private Secretary. To this last representation no reply was received and therefore, the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. Under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, an appeal to the Tribunal has to be filed within 30 days of the receipt of reply, In case no reply is received the appellant can wait after filing the appeal to the departmental authority, for ninety days and can then come to the Tribunal within 30 days of the expiry of ninety days. The learned counsel for the appellant also contended that in this case, final representation having been made on 3rd December, 1978 and the appeal having been filed on 17th December, 1978, it was well within time. However, then his attention was drawn to the fact that the appellant's original representations for appointment as Private Secretary as well as for the post of Superintendent had been rejected in 1976 and 1977 and that if the time is counted from those dates the appeal for both the prayers is hopelessly time-barred, the learned counsel admitted the position that his first representation had been rejected earlier but contended that there was no bar against making successive representations to the departmental appellate authority and that the time should be counted from the final representations made in this respect.
We are not convinced by the argument inasmuch as only one appeal is provided to the departmental authority under the Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1977. The same was the position when the Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules were applicable. After receipt of negative reply to the first representations, the appellant should have come to the Tribunal within 30 days.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the department's practice was to entertain successive appeals and representations and that in this view of the matter, all the appeals and representations have to be taken into consideration. He argued that the matter regarding filing of only one appeal had been only recently clarified by the Establishment Secretary in Office Memorandum, dated 27th March, 1978, a copy of which has been placed on file. According to him before issuance of this Office Memorandum it was the practice to entertain and decide successive appeals. He referred to the case reported as Muhammad Ihsan Khan v. Province of West Pakistan where in para. 21 it was observed that a Civil Servant has at least one right of appeal. Basing his arguments on these observations, the learned counsel contended that the Court has impliedly held that there can be more appeals but at least on appeal is competent. We are unable to agree with this contention because there is no statutory provision for filing successive appeals on the same cause of action to the same authority. The learned counsel also relied on the case of Nazir Ahmad v. Pakistan as wherein it was observed that the departmental constructions of the statutory rules adopted by administrative authorities consistently for a long period of time could not be deviated from. On the basis of letter of 27th November, 1978 referred to above, the learned counsel contended that the departments had been consistently, interpreting the relevant rules in favour of a Civil Servant to file more than one appeal or representation, and that it was for the first time' that the matter was deviated from and it was specifically provided that1 2 a Civil Servant has no right under the rules to submit more than one representation or series of representations. We do not find any force in this contention. No departmental authority has ever interpreted any rule or law to the effect that a Civil Servant has a right to prefer more than one appeal to the same departmental authority. The letter of 27th November, 1978 is only an explanatory letter and makes the departmental construction clear to all the Ministries and Divisions and it is not in the nature of deviation from any previous interpretation of any rule.
7. In view of the facts stated above we are of the opinion that the appellant's representations having been rejected in 1976 and 1977 his appeal to the Tribunal is hopelessly barred by time and is, in consequence, dismissed in limine. PLD 1963 Lab, 297 PLD 1970 SC 453