AJMAL MIAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 5-8-1989 passed by the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, in Appeal No.443(R) of 1987 filed by the petitioner, dismissing the same on the ground of limitation.
2. The relevant facts to be noted are that the petitioner joined the Military Accounts Department as a Lower Division Clerk (Junior Auditor) on 15-3-1973. He was promoted/appointed as U.D.C./Auditor in NPS-7 with effect from 1-5-1974. After that he was appointed as U.D.C. In the Naval Headquarters, Islamabad, under offer of appointment letter, dated 10-12-1979. He joined the Naval Headquarters with effect from 1-1-1980. He was posted as a Cashier by an order dated 28-1-1980. The petitioner made a representation on 3-2-1981 for fixation of his seniority counting his previous service. While the above controversy was still pending, he was promoted as an Assistant (Cashier) under order dated 12-1-1982 with effect from 6-1-1982. This was followed by issuance of a seniority list which was circulated on 22-12-1983 and in which the petitioner was placed at S.No.84. Subsequently, the petitioner was granted presumptive seniority as an Assistant with effect from 1-1-1980 and was placed in the list of seniority at S.No.45. The petitioner was not satisfied with the above change in the seniority list. He made a representation claiming his seniority from his initial appointment, namely, from 1-5-1974 and also claimed certain monetary benefits. In response to the above representation the petitioner was placed in the seniority list at S. No.40 by an order dated 18-11- 1984. After that he was approved for promotion as Superintendent (B-16) by an order dated 21-4- 1985. However, the above order was reversed by office memorandum dated 16-8-1987 in which in r it was asserted that he was placed in the seniority list wrongly and his promotion to the post of Superintendent was not warranted by law. Consequently, he was reverted back with immediate effect. Against the above order the petitioner presented a departmental appeal to Respondent No.1, i.e. The Assistant Chief of Naval Staff (Admn.), Naval Headquarters, Islamabad. However, the petitioner also endorsed a copy of the above appeal to Respondent No.2, i.e. Military Accountant General, Rawalpindi, with the request that he may be confirmed as L.D.C. And U.D.C. In accordance with the Establishment Division O.M. Dated 20-11-1973. The petitioner received a reply from Respondent No.2 on 13-9-1987 intimating to him that he was not confirmed in any grade while serving in the P.MA.D. And as such, he had retained no lien. It was also stated that the reference quoted by the petitioner in his appeal was not attracted to his case. Thereupon, the petitioner filed the service appeal impleading the above two respondents.
3. We may observe that in the memo of the above appeal the petitioner impugned the original .Order dated 16-8-1987 and the above Respondent No.2's letter dated 13-9-1987 treating it as an appellate order. It may be advantageous to reproduce the opening part of the above memo of appeal which reads as follows:-- "The appellant above named respectfully submits this appeal against (1) the original order dated 16-8-1987 of Director Civilian Administration, Naval Headquarters (Respondent No.1) reverting him from the post of Supdt. (B-16) to Assistant (B-11) w.e.f. 16-6-1985 and (2) the appellate order of the MAG (Respondent No.2) dated 13-9-1987 refusing to treat his last pay of Rs.405 as substantive by confirming him as LDC/UDC on the facts and grounds mentioned below."
The Tribunal by the impugned judgment dismissed the petitioner's above appeal on the ground of limitation. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the above petition for leave.
4. Raja Muhammad Akram, learned A.S.C. Appearing for the petitioner, in support of the above petition has contended that the petitioner had made endorsement on his departmental appeal to Respondent No.2 by mistake, as he had ceased to be an employee of above Respondent No.2 and, therefore, Respondent No.2s above letter dated 13-9-1987 was wrongly treated by the petitioner as an appellate order and so also by the Tribunal. It has been further submitted by him that factually the petitioner's departmental appeal was not disposed of by Respondent No.1 when he filed the service appeal before the Tribunal and, therefore, the period of limitation available to the petitioner was 120 days from the date of the original order. Mr. M. Afzal Siddiqi, learned Deputy Attorney- General appearing for the respondents, has pointed out that the petitioner has attempted to set up a new case before this Court as it was not his case before the Tribunal and secondly, the petitioner's appeal before Respondent No.1 was not competent as the original impugned order was passed by him.
5. Prima facie it seems that the petitioner had ceased to be an employee of Respondent No.2 after having joined the Naval Headquarters. The above endorsement made by the petitioner to Respondent No.2 upon his departmental appeal addressed to Respondent No.1 was not in fact warranted by law and, therefore, the Respondent No.2---s above letter dated 13-9-1987 could not have been treated as an appellate order for the purpose of computing the period of limitation in the service appeal. The question, whether the petitioner's departmental appeal before Respondent No.1 was competent or not, in order to compute the period of limitation was a question which should have been decided by the Tribunal. We are inclined to grant leave to consider whether .The Tribunal was justified in dismissing the petitioner's service appeal on the ground of limitation by treating Respondent No.2's above letter dated 13-9-1987 as an appellate order. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with the direction to the parties to file additional documents, if any, for the hearing of the above appeal. However, the interim order dated 27-8-1989 is hereby recalled.