Sh. Amar Maftoon, Subject Specialist, Government Elementary Training College, Sargodha has made this appeal under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, wherein he has impleaded the District Accounts Officer, Sargodha, the Accountant-General, Punjab, Lahore and the Government of the Punjab through Secretary (Finance), Lahore as respondents.
2. By virtue of this appeal the appellant has prayed that he be granted one premature increment at the time of his promotion from Grade 14 to 16 on 15th April, 1975 and the respondent be directed to fix his pay after allowing him one premature increment and the pay fixed by respondent No, 1, on 1st May, 1977 at Rs, 1,075 be declared as valid and correct with increment falling on 1st December, 1977.
3. The case is still at the stage of preliminary hearing.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is aggrieved of the order of the Accountant-General of Punjab, Lahore contained in letter No, NPS-II/CD/464, dated 12th January, 1978 addressed to the respondent No, 1, who decreased his pay and fixed his pay at Rs, 1,025 per month on 1st May, 1977 next increment falling on 1st December, 1977. An amount of Rs, 100 was also recovered from him as overpayment for the period 1st October, 1977 to 30th November, 1978. This fixation was done on 26th December, 1978 (Annexures `D' and 'E', respectively with the appeal). Aggrieved of this decision of the respondents the appellant filed a civil suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Sargodha on 3rd June, 1978 who held vide his judgment, dated 30th June, 1979 that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the matter lies within the sphere of Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, as per section 4, proviso B. Thus, the plaint was returned for presentation to a Court of complete jurisdiction. The appellant kept quiet and sleeping over after getting this decision from the Civil Judge, Sargodha and then made another representation at a very belated stage to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department on 20th February, 1984. After lapse of a period of 90 days, the appellant has made this appeal to this Tribunal. Hence this appeal.
5. I have heard the appellant who had advanced his arguments in detail. He was asked to justify the delay in filing this appeal to this Tribunal at a very belated stage. The appellant has taken a stand that according to rule 254 Audit Code refixation or reaudit can only be made under orders of Government. Hence the action of respondent No, 2 is void. Decrease of pay to the tune of one increment is a penalty under Efficiency and Discipline Rules. Such penalty can only be awarded by giving show-cause notice. As no show-cause notice was given by the respondents, hence action taken without providing show-cause notice is illegal and void. The matter of pay is a continuous cause of action and is covered under section 23 of Limitation Act. He had filed a civil suit on the advice of his Lawyer and this time spent before the Civil Court for the Civil Suit is also covered under the law. The appellant has concluded that thus his appeal is within time. He has relied on the reported judgments ; PLD 1984 Lab. 491, PLC 1984 (C. S.) 386, PLD 1983 Lab, 246 and 1984 PLC (C.
S.) 261 to substantiate his above arguments.
6. I have given my anxious thought to the arguments of the appellant and have also perused the grounds given in his application filed under section 5 of Limitation Act, for condonation of delay which are reproduced as follows :- ``(4) That as the matter was between the other department i,e, Accounts Officer, Sargodha and the appellant, the appellant alongwith others filed a civil suit. The suit was returned with a remarks that the civil Court had no jurisdiction.
(5) That the appellant encouraged by a news item, made a representation to the Secretary Finance.
(6) That as the matter relates to pay and the appellant has been getting his pay less than what he actually descried, the matter is a continuing wrong and is covered under section 23 of the Limitation Act.
(7) That the case is also covered under Article 120 of Limitation Act, First Schedule."
' The grievance of the appellant is that the appellant was placed in N. P. S. 16 from N. P. S. 14 on 15th April, 1975. His pay was fixed by respondent No, 1, in N. P. S. 16 and allowed the appellant a premature increment was withdrawn on the advice of respondent No,
2. This advice was issued by the respondent No, 2 vide order, dated 12th January, 1978 and the refixation was done on 26th December, 1978 by respondent No,
1. Thus, the appellant is aggrieved of the above action of the respondents Nos, 1 and 2. I have gone through the order of the Accountant-General, Punjab, Lahore No, NPS-II/464, dated 21st January, 1978 (Annexure 'D') addressed to the District Accounts Officer, Sargodha and copy to the Headmaster, Government High School No, 2, Sargodle for information of the appellant, 1 find that this is a well-considered and competent order issued in accordance with the rules. This matter was of fixation of pay. On receipt of the order dated 12th January, 1978 of respondent No, 2 (Annexure `D') by the appellant, in the year 1978, the appellant should have made a representation to the concerned departmental authority and then should have filed this appeal to this Tribunal within the fixed time limit, but instead the appellant filed a civil suit before the Civil Judge, Sargodha on 3rd June, 1978 and the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha through his judgment, dated 30th June, 1979 decided that he has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the plaint was returned for presentation to a Court of competent jurisdiction as according to the defendants the matter was within the jurisdiction of Punjab Service Tribunal keeping in view section 4 proviso B of the Punjab Service Tribunal Act, 1974. After this judgment dated 30th June, 1979 the appellant remained sleeping over and it was on 20th February, 1984 at a very belated stage, the appellant represented to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Finance Department and then after awaiting for 90 days has filed this appeal to the Tribunal. The above facts of this case repel all the arguments of the appellant that the order was a void order, he was required to be issued a show- cause notice before decrease of his pay of one increment and also the matter of pay is a continuous cause of action and can be agitated at any time. A clear cut verdict was given by the Civil Judge, Sargodha vide his judgment, dated 30th June, 1979 that he had no jurisdiction and the plaint was returned for presentation to a Court of competent jurisdiction i,e,, Punjab Service Tribunal. But, on 20th February, 1984 the appellant made another representation to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, Lahore, after a lapse of about 4 years and eight months. Perusal of this representation which is at Annexure 'I' reveals that the appellant had also made a representation to the same authority i,e, the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department on 25th January, 1978 and no reply was received by the appellant for the same. Thus, the appellant was required to file an appeal in the year 1978, after the expiry of 90 days ; but the appellant chose to go to a Civil Court i,e,, before the Civil Judge, Sargodha and after getting a clear cut decision from that Court on 30th June, 1979 there was no reason for him not to file an appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal, after that in the year 1979. In this representation (Annexure 'I') to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab. Finance Department, Lahore, the appellant has only challenged the order of the respondent No, 2, dated 12th January, 1978 referred to above in earlier part of this para. Regarding his fixation of pay. Thus, he cannot take a stand now that this order is void, serving of a show-cause notice was necessary for matter of reduction of his pay and also there is no limitation for a matter relating to the pay. The matter involved was fixation of the appellant's pay as S. E. T. In Grade-16 which was to be fixed according to the rules. The decision of the Accountant-General, Punjab, Lahore as conveyed vide his order, dated 12th January, 1978 was a decision of the competent authority and the appellant had made a representation on 25th January, 1978 against this order to the Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Finance Department. Also he was given a decision by the Civil Judge, Sargodha vide his judgment, dated 30th June, 1979 directing him to place his plaint before the Court of competent jurisdiction under the circumstances, the appellant was duly bound to immediately file this appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal in the year 1979. Hence, the appeal is hopelessly time-barred for about five years. I do not find any justification to entertain this appeal at a belated stage, which has been filed at the whim and fancy of the appellant, who kept sleeping over for a long period of about 4 years and 8 months after getting the decision of the Civil Judge, Sargodha in the year 1979 and woke up one fine morning on 20th February, 1984 to file another representation again to the Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Finance Department, the second representation to the same authority under the rules, and then he came up to this Tribunal on 17th June, 1984 on the plea of this representation which plea cannot be considered and accepted keeping in view the delay of about five years, even on the principles of justice, fairplay and equity.
7. Keeping in view the above analysis of the case the appeal is hopelessly time-barred for about five years and is dismissed as such, in