' CH. HASAN NAWAZ (MEMBER).---These are the material facts of this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, filed on 1-8-1985 by the appellant who is serving as Assistant Superintendent, General Post Office, M&SO, Central Circle, Lahore.
2. The appellant was appointed as an Inspector Railway Mail Service on 1-7-1970 after he had qualified in the required competitive examination held in the year 1969. While serving as Inspector Railway Mail in the Postal Training Centre, Lahore, leave ex Pakistan on full pay for a period of four months was granted to him by the Principal of the Centre with effect from 6-6-1979. It appears that leave ex Pakistan was subsequently extended till 20-5-1981. It was during his absence on leave that he was approved for promotion as Assistant Superintendent, Railway Mail Service by the Departmental Promotion Committee on 16-10-1980.
3. By order dated 24-5-1981 (Annexure-A), the Post Master-General Central Circle, Lahore cancelled the unexpired portion of his ex-Pakistan leave on his own request with effect from 21-5-1981 and posted him as Assistant Superintendent, Railway Mail Service (Grade-11) Bag Control Office with effect from 21-5-1981, on promotion against the vacancy caused on account of Muhammad Yaqub, Assistant Superintendent Railway Mail Service incumbent of this post having been gone on leave.
This order further said that "on joining of Muhammad Yaqub after expiry of his leave as Assistant Superintendent Railway Mail Service BCO Mughalpura, Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman (appellant) is posted as Inspector Railway Mail Service BCO Mughalpura (vacant post)".
4. After having joined as Assistant Superintendent, RMS in the aforementioned leave vacancy, the appellant worked from 21-5-1981 to 29-5-1981 and then again went on ex-Pakistan leave for a period of 120 days from 30-5-1981 to 26-9-1981. This leave ex-Pakistan was subsequently extended by the Assistant Director Bag Control Office, Mughalpura Lahore for a period of 365 days with effect from 27-9-1981 as leave extraordinary through memo. No, BCO/FR/8182, dated 15-12-1981. It was further extended from 27-9-1982 to 31-3-1984 through memo. No, BCO/FR/82-83, dated 1-2-1983 issued by the Assistant Director.
5. On expiry of leave extraordinary ex-Pakistan, the appellant was allowed to resume duty by order dated 4-4-1984 which is to the following effect: "PAKISTAN POST OFFICE OFFICE OF THE DIVL. SUPERINTENDENT, STG & AIR DN. LHR No, B2-Fazal-ur- Rehman Dated at Lahore 4-4-1984 ' In continuation of this office memo. No, B2-64, dated 23-7-1983, and on the expiry of his ex- Pakistan leave, Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman, ASRM Lahore M&SO TD/3, is allowed to resume his duty on 4- 4-1984.
' Mr. Abdul Hamid-IX, who was officiating as ASRM Lahore M&SO TD/3, is hereby reverted to his substantive post as sorter Lahore M&SO, against the existing vacant post.
' Usual charge reports should be prepared and submitted to all concerned.
(Sd.)* DIVL. SUPERINTENDENT"
6. During his absence on leave abroad, the posts of Inspector RMS/PLI were upgraded from NPS-9 to NPS-11 with effect from 2-12-1981 as borne out by letter 30-11-1981 issued by the Director-General (respondent No, 2). After the upgradation of these posts, respondent No,1 issued a seniority list of Assistant Superintendents of Post Offices, Assistant Superintendents Railway Mail Sen .Ce and Inspectors of Post Offices/RMS by covering letter dated 16-5-1983 (Annexure-C). This list was in two parts. The first contains the names of Assistant Superintendents Post Offices/RMS separately who were selected and approved for promotion on regular basis and actually took over the charge of the posts on or before 1-12-1981. The second is made up of the names of the Inspectors of Post Offices/RMS who were working in that capacity on 1-12-1981 and were upgraded alongwith the posts with effect from 2-12-1981 and designated as Assistant Superintendents of Post Offices/Railway Mail Service. The appellant's name was shown against Serial No,2 of Part-II of this list.
7. In the background of these facts, this in brief is the appellant's case. After having joined as Assistant Superintendent on 4-4-1984, he came to know about the publication of aforementioned seniority list on or about 2nd of May 1984. On verbal inquiry as to why his name had not been shown in Part-I of the seniority list he was told that he was reverted to the substantive post of Inspector RMS by order dated 17-6-1981 issued by Sh. Munir Ahmad Assistant Director BCO Lahore.
He was, however, under the impression that he had joined and then worked as Assistant Superintendent on basis of his promotion from 21-5-1981 and not as a result of upgradation of the post of Inspector to NPS-11 and its subsequent redesignation as that of Assistant Superintendent.
8. Since this position was not acceptable to him, he filed representation dated 22-5-1984 (Annexure-E) before respondent No,1 with the request that his name may be shown in Part-I of the seniority list of Assistant Superintendents Railway Mail Service. The representation was rejected but the letter of rejection dated 4-11-1984 was not communicated to him. On coming to know from other sources that the representation had been rejected, he applied for a copy of the order of rejection which was supplied to him by the Divisional Superintendent through letter dated 2-3-1985.
He then addressed departmental appeal (Annexure `G') dated 30-3-1985 to respondent No,2 who received it on 4-4-1985.
9. The departmental appeal having gone without response, he filed the present appeal on 1-8-1985 with the prayer "that the order of reversion of the appellant dated 17-6-1981 may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to show the name of the appellant in Part-I of the seniority list at a proper place, thereby restoring his seniority position in the promotee Assistant Superintendents from 21-5-1981."
10. From the facts and the prayer made in the appeal it is clear that the order impugned by the appellant in this appeal is..The one passed by the Assistant Director Bag Control Office on 17-6-1981, which makes the following reading: "PAKISTAN POST OFFICE Office of the Assistant Director Bag Control Office, Moghalpura, Lhr.
NO. BCO. 4-2/80-81. Dated at Lahore, the 17-6-1981 ' Consequent upon joining of Mr. Muhammad Yaqub ASRM BCO ' Lahore from K.L. On 17-6-1981, the following posting and transfer is as under with immediate effect till further order:
1. Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman posted as ASRM BCO Lahore vide memo. No, even dated 27-5-1981 is hereby ordered to be posted to substantive post of IRM and further posted vide Mr. Muhammad Jamshed who is at PTC, Karachi for training of Junior Accountant
2. Mr. Muhammad Afzal-II already working as officiating IRM is hereby ordered to be posted vide Mr. Fazal-ur-Rehman who has proceeded on ex-Pakistan leave.
' Usual charge report should be submitted to all concerned.
(Sd.) Assistant Director Bag Control Office Moghalpura, Lahore."
11. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that since the order of his promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent had been made by the Post Master General, the impugned order of reversion dated 17-6-1981 passed by the Assistant Director Bag Control Office was illegal and without authority. The appellant's pleadings on this point tend to cause an impression as if his reversion was made by order dated 17-6-1981 as punitive measure and that the Assistant Director was not competent to order his reversion. But this in fact has not been the case. As we have already noticed before, the order of this promotion dated 24-5-1981 bears out that he was promoted by Post Master General, Central Circle, Lahore as Assistant Superintendent Railway Mail Service Cadre, after cancellation of his ex-Pakistan leave with effect from 21-5-1981 on his own request, against a vacancy caused on account of Mr. Muhammad Yaqub having gone on leave.
The order of promotion said that "on joining of Muhammad Yaqub after expiry of his leave as Assistant Superintendent, BCO Mr. Fazal-urRehman (appellant) is posted as Inspector Railway Mail Service Baggage Control Office, Moghalpura. "It is clear that the expression "is posted" was used in the sense of "stands posted" or "will stand posted". There is no doubt about the fact that in either case, the appellant stood posted as Inspector Railway Mail Service by the same order passed by the Post Master General, which promoted him as Assistant Superintendent. In this view of the matter, there is no force in the contention that reversion was made as punishment or that it was ordered by the Assistant Director. We feel no hesitation in saying that order dated 17-6-1981 passed by the Assistant Director was not an order of reversion stricto senso and that it was only a passive narration of what had already been directed by the Post Master General in his order dated 24-5- 1981 regarding the appellant's posting as Inspector Railway Mail Service on joining of Muhammad Yaqub after expiry of his leave.must have been despatched to him in the ordinary course of concerned official's business. Even if it be assumed that it was not so despatched, it has not been mentioned by the appellant either in his appeal or in the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay as to when he "unofficially" came to know about this order.
This date was very material to determine whether the departmental appeal addressed to the Director-General on 30-3-1985, even if competent under the rules, was within time. This date has not been mentioned and the appellant's failure to do so would warrant a finding that the departmental appeal, if all required by the rules, was not within time. He should have come to the Tribunal at least within 30 days from the date on which he came to know of the fact that his representation had been rejected. The application under section 5 of the Limitation Act does not make out any case for condonation of delay and we hold that the appeal is time-barred.
19. For these reasons the appeal is dismissed. There will however be no order as to costs. Parties to be informed.