' CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).--On having opted for Pakistan, the appellant assumed charge of his post as Clerk Grade-III in the then North Western Railway in August, 1947 on transfer of his services from B.B. And C.I. Railways (India) after independence.
2. His prayer in the present appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is that he may be given "the benefits of seniority from 12-10-1953 with accruing financial benefits".
3. The basis of his claim is Headquarters Office Case No, 561-E/85/O/42E, Spl. Regarding revised concordance equating the N.W.R. And ex-Indian Railways Scales of Pay applicable to Class III and IV Staff, published in the N.W.R. Gazette Extraordinary on 12-10-1953; which made the following reading: "In supersession of the concordance of scales of pay issued by this office from time to time in consultation with the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer, North Western Railway, Lahore, a copy of letter No, E52CD1/1-II, dated 8th May, 1953, from the Director General (Railways), Railway Division, Government of Pakistan, Karachi, together with a copy of the revised concordance of scales of pay referred to therein, is published for the information of the staff.
2(a) This concordance, which is now to be taken as final, will not have retrospective effect.
(b) Arrangements are being made to revise, where necessary, the fixation of pay and seniority, etc. Of the staff and their position will be adjusted accordingly as soon as possible."
4. The appellant case is that after having joined the Pakistan Railways, he continued to claim seniority amongst old clerks Grade-III of the Transportation Branch of the Divisional Office, Lahore with effect from 12-10-1953. Monetary benefits were provided to his juniors who opted for Pakistan from B.B. And C.I. Railways, through Railway Boards letter No, E.58.CD.I/6-1, dated 27-8-1964 (Annex.- A) which gave a directive for adjustment of the position of the staff concerned on the basis of the concordance given on 12-10-1953. This directive was reiterated by the Board through its letter No, E.58.CD.I/6-I, dated 26-11-1978 (Annex.-B), for compliance of policy instructions conveyed through letter dated 27-8-1964. However, in spite of various representations made on different occasions, the benefit of seniority was not given to the appellant, although his juniors were promoted. Mr. Sajid Ali was quoted as a case on point with the allegations that he had been drawing more pay than the appellant, in spite of the fact that he was junior to him.
5. The defence in the main is that the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. On merits it was pleaded that on the appellant application dated 19-3-1979 he was informed through letter dated 3-5-1979, attached with the written statement, that the post of Head Clerk was a selection post prior to 1-3- 1972 and seniority could not be allowed to .Him on the Head Clerks of Transport Branch who had been selected prior to 1-3-1972.
6. It is evident from the record that the appeal is time-barred. The appellant is claiming seniority with effect from 12-10-1953 on the basis of revised concordance equating the N.W.R. And ex-Indian Railways Scales of Pay applicable to Class III and IV staff. As we can see from his pleadings, all the monetary benefits were given to his juniors placed in similar circumstances, in accordance with the Board's letter dated 27-8-1964. This position was reiterated in the Board's subsequent letter dated 26-11-1978. Thereafter, as already noticed in an address to the respondent pleadings, he was informed through letter dated 3-5-1979 that seniority could not be allowed to him over the Head Clerks of the Transport Branch who had been recruited prior to 1-3-1972. His subsequent representation met the same fate and he was clearly informed through letter No, 561-E/95/ACME, dated 6-12-1982 that seniority could not be allowed as claimed by him and that the benefit of pay had been correctly given as conveyed by letter dated 2-1-1979.
7 The present appeal was filed as late as on 11-1-1984 where the validity of letter dated 3-5-1979 has been challenged. The departmental appeal was filed by the appellant on 4-10-1983, but this was so late as to make it difficult to find that it had any rapport with the respondent's letters dated 27-8-1964, 26-11-1978, 29-11-1978 and all other letters challenged in this appeal. It hardly requires an emphasis that he should have filed his representation or departmental appeal within 30 days of the impugned order, by which he was aggrieved. The departmental appeal filed in this case on 4- 10-1983 was only to make the limitation run from that date.
8. Under the circumstances, condemnation of delay in the present case will be nothing more than a mockery of the law of limitation. Under section 4 of the Act, the appellant should have had recourse to the Tribunal within 30 days of the communication of final order made by the departmental authority in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service. The appellant in this case has miserably failed to file it within the statutory period and we find that it is not possible to grant the requisite relief.
9. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed as being hopelessly time-barred. There will, however, be no order as to costs.