' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Petitioner, an employee of the WAPDA, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 31-12-1986 whereby his appeal was held to be time-barred and not entertained.
2. The petitioner was Electrician Grade-II, and was retired from service by order dated 13-10-1985.
He filed a departmental appeal to the General Manager who partly accepted it and modified it to the reduction in the Grade and to the minimum of that Grade. He filed another appeal before the Member (Power), WAPDA and this too was rejected on 6-4-1986. He filed thereafter an appeal before the Tribunal on 20-8-1986 which was taken to be time-barred and rejected.
3. Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as a reduction in the pay of the petitioner had taken place, he had a continuing grievance against the order reducing the pay. For that reason his appeal before the Tribunal could not be termed as barred by time.
4. The order dated 5th of February, 1986 shows that while setting aside compulsory retirement from service the substitutive order was passed in the following words:- "The order of his compulsory retirement from service notified by the Chief Engineer (COORD), vide his Office Order No,IPR/G-74/Loose/ 85-3587-89 dated 13-10-1985 is hereby substituted with the order of (G-7) to a lower stage i,e. At the minimum viz Rs,560 per month in scale Rs,560-23-1020.
' It has also been decided by General Manager (D&C) that the period of his absence from the date of compulsory retirement to the date of joining under this Office Order should be treated as leave on due basis."
It was this order which aggrieved the petitioner and which is the cause of the reduction in his emoluments. He has represented against it to the Member but thereafter was not in time in challenging it before the Service Tribunal. As this specific order had to be challenged and got set aside before remuneration could be claimed, it was necessary that the proceedings should have been initiated within time. Not having done so made the claim of the petitioner barred. The mere deprivation of pay is not sufficient to justify the extension in limitation. The Tribunal has taken a correct view on the question of limitation and no interference in the order is called for.
5. Leave to appeal is refused.