IHSANUL HAQUE CHAUDHRY (CHAIRMAN).--This appeal is under section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. The contention of the appellant, as contained in Memorandum of Appeal, briefly is that the appellant was appointed as Senior Research Officer in the Directorate of Poultry Research Institute, in N.P.S. 18, on ad hoc basis, for a period of six months, The appellant relinquished the charge of the post of Feedstuff Inspection Officer and assumed the charge of the post of Senior Research Officer in the Directorate of Poultry Research Institute, Rawalpindi, on 20-10-1981. His appointment was regularised in N.P.S. 18 on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission vide letter, dated 3/4th August, 1982. It is submitted that after the lapse of ad hoc period of 6 months another period from 20-4-1982 to 3-8-1982, was not considered, while making regular appointment. It is contended that as such appellant is suffering on account of this unaccounted period in annual increment besides other repercussions towards pension and retirement. It is submitted that the appellant made a representation to the competent authority which was rejected. The appellant through this appeal under Section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, has prayed that the period from 20-4-1982 to 3-8-1982, be considered a part of his regular appointment.
2. The appellant neither attached the order of rejection of his representation nor mentioned any date of the same. This was done purposely and mala fidely in order to overcome the difficulty of limitation. When asked to show us the order against which the appeal has been filed learned counsel for the appellant was constrained to fall back and to refer to letter, dated 28-7-1986, attached with the Memorandum of Appeal and appearing at page 26 of the file. Para. 2 of the letter is material and reads as under:- "2-This case has been thrashed out for more than four times. Administrative Department feels no justification to reconsider this case and sticks to its previous decision, dated 12-3-1985. No further reference in this connection will be entertained in future."
It is clear from this letter that the appellant time and again submitted applications to the competent authority which were considered and rejected. But instead of filing appeal or seeking remedy elsewhere he preferred to submit applications to the authority. It is clear from this memorandum that the authority refused to reconsider the matter and confirmed the decision, dated 12-3-1985. The appellant, if aggrieved, should have filed appeal against the moment order, dated 12-3-1985 was passed but the appellant remained contended with repeating applications to the same authority and did not challenge the order before proper forum. Even the last order was conveyed to him through memo. Dated 28-7-1986, while the present appeal has been filed on 28- 10-1986. In this way even the last order which is in fact not an order, was not impugned within 30 days. The appeal was clearly time-barred but the appellant did not submit application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for extension of time.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant failed even to canvass any justification for extension of time during the course of arguments. The appellant is guilty of gross negligence and there is no justification, whatsoever, to extend time.
4. There is another aspect of the matter that where is an appeal prayer is of a declaratory nature seeking regularisation of period of service the appeal is not legally competent as according to section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974, the appellant can only challenge final order whereas in the present appeal no order has been impugned. The prayer is of declaratory nature seeking to regularize period from 20-4-1982 to 3-9-1982.
5. We have asked the learned counsel for the appellant to show how the appeal is competent. His precise reply was that since this period remained unaccounted for the department has failed to regularize it, therefore, we should pass the orders to regularize the same. We are afraid that such an appeal is legally not competent and is misconceived. The appeals have been provided in section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act and relevant portion reads as under:- "Appeals to Tribunals.--(1) Any civil Servant aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate ..."
6. We have underlined the relevant portion in order to amplify the provisions. It is clear from the bare reading of the opening portion of subsection (1) of section 4, that there must be a definite order, which is to be made subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has been established to exercise jurisdiction regarding matters relating to terms and conditions of service in respect of services of Province of Punjab and it is not a Court of general jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is very much limited and cannot be extended specially when the provision is clear. It seems that the appellant is mixing up legal grievance with the factual grievance but both are two different things. We are, therefore, very clear in our mind that until and unless adverse order is made, civil servant cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The conclusion will be same if we look at the proposition from another angle. The word appeal presupposes an order against which it is filed.
When there is no order, whatsoever, there is no question of appeal being filed under the Tribunal's Act. So, legally speaking until there is adjudication culminating in an adverse decision or order a civil servant cannot be deemed to be an aggrieved person for purposes of section 4 of the Act, 1974. The grievance by an order means an overt action and clearly excludes inaction. The remedy of a person aggrieved of inaction on behalf of his Department, does not lie with the Tribunal. The only exception to this rule is contained in proviso (a) to section 4 which reads as under:-- "4-(a).--Where an appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority is provided under the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, or any rules against an such order no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal unless the aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to a departmental authority and a period of ninety days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal, application or representation was so preferred."
It is clear from this proviso that this is only at the stage of appeal/ Line miss in book 562 reason we have underlined the same. It is not all sorts of grievances, which are appealable but only the grievance in the legal sense and that too as specified in section 4 of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. Therefore, even all legal grievances cannot furnish a cause to invoke its jurisdiction. It is in respect of specified orders only which can be impugned by way of appeal in the Tribunal. This interpretation of ours is in harmony with the other provisions of the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974. If this was not the intention of the legislature then there was no need to make provision for limitation for filing appeals.
7. We are mindful of the provision of 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan whereby Tribunal has been bestowed exclusive jurisdiction in respect of service matters and the jurisdiction of all other Courts is excluded. But in case the grievance of a civil servant is not covered fairly and squarely by the provisions of section 14 of Punjab Service Tribunals Act and not cognizable by the Tribunal then it cannot be argued by applying any logic that the jurisdiction of other Courts is barred. Up-shot of discussion is that this appeal) is incompetent and misconceived, therefore, must fail on this score too. There is no merit in the appeal either way, the same is dismissed in limine.
M.B. A. /122/Lb. /S