' Muhammad Yar, Ex-Peshi Qanungo, Bahawainagar has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act 1974, wherein he has impleaded the Deputy Commissioner, Bahawalnagar and the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 5th April, 1983 passed by respondent No, 1 be set aside and the appellant be declared to have been continuing as a Qanungo with back benefits. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was appointed as a Patwari in the year 1957. On 16th August, 1974, the appellant was selected and appointed as Qanungo candidate. The appellant was promoted and appointed as Qanungo Consolidation Tehsil Minchanabad, District Bahawalnagar by respondent No,
1. The continued as such as Qanungo Consolidation. The appellant received the impugned order, dated 5th April, 1983, issued by respondent No, 1, whereby the appellant was reverted from Girdawar Qanungo to Patwari and his services were placed at the disposal of the Assistant Commissioner, Bahawalnagar for his further posting in Bahawalnagar Sub-Division. The appellant is aggrieved of this order. The appellant made an appeal before the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division against the impugned order, dated 5th April, 1983, which has not been decided so far. Hence this appeal.
3. 1 have heard the parties i. e., Sh. Abdul Qayyum, Advocate for the appellant and the learned District Attorney assisted by the representative of the Department on behalf of the respondents.
4. A legal objection has been raised by the learned District Attorney that the appellant has filed this appeal against the impugned order, dated 5th April, 1983 of respondent No, 1, and it has also been mentioned that the appellant had made an appeal to the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur on 13th April, 1983 which is still pending and no decision has been taken against the same. The law is well-settled on this issue that the appellant was required to submit an appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days on the expiry of 90 days of filing of the departmental appeal dated 13th April, 1983. As the appellant has failed to do so, now he has to wait for the final order of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. After the decision of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur if the appellant is not satisfied with that decision, he can file an appeal to this Tribunal, Thus, the appeal is premature and is not maintainable before this Tribunal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. He has also relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as in case of Haji Qadir Bakhsh .
5. The learned counsel for the appellant was asked to meet the above objection of the learned District Attorney but the appellant's counsel could not give any satisfactory reply for the same. The appellant's counsel referred to the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay with the appeal and submitted that despite many visits to the Commissioner's Office the departmental appeal of the appellant has not so far been decided for which he is not at fault. After awaiting a tiresome long period the appellant has now, filed this appeal before this honourable Tribunal.
6. The law on this point is well-settled as explained by the learned District Attorney and I am in full agreement with him. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan as referred to in para. 5 above is fully applicable in this case. The appellant has failed to submit his appeal to this Tribunal within 30 days on the expiry of statutory period of 90 days from the date of his departmental appeal submitted to the Commissioner,' Bahawalpur Division Bahawalpur dated 13th April, 1983.
Hence, he will have to wait, now, till he gets the fine order of the Commissioner. He can however, approach this Tribunal in case he is not satisfied with the decision of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, Bahawalpur. I have no hesitation to maintain that under the circumstances, the appeal is premature and is not maintainable this Tribunal.
8. The upshot to of the above analysis of the case is that the appeal is premature and is disposed off as per observations made in para. 7 above. 1983 S CMR 591