ABDUL RAZZAK A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN): --The facts of the case are that the P.O.F. Board issued an advertisement for recruitment of Medical Officers. In pursuance of the advertisement, the appellant applied and was called for interview on 26-9-1978 and was selected and appointment letter was issued to him on 12-10-1978. He accordingly joined as Medical Officer. His initial appointment was made on contract basis for six months in the first instance lying down that the contract was extendable and the appointment was likely to be made regular. However, in view of the terms and conditions mentioned in the order, his services were liable to termination on seven days notice, or payment of salary in lieu thereof. He accepted these terms and conditions. Subsequently by a letter dated 16-9-1979, when he was asked to give his willingness whether he desired to be appointed on regular basis in the P.O.F. On the existing terms and conditions of service or otherwise.
He communicated the willingness by letter, dated 6-10-1979. Resultantly his appointment was made on regular basis with effect from 5-7-1982 in the same grade and on the same pay and allowances which he was drawing on the day he was taken on the regular strength of P.O.F. Board as Medical Officer. He was, however, placed on probation for a period of one year.
2. The appellant, for the first time, has made an application during 1983 praying to waive the condition of placing him on probation, counting of compulsory Army Service towards seniority and other benefits and counting of contractual service with effect from 20-11-1978 to 4-7-1982 as regular service. He was replied by the Respondent-Department and the content of letter, dated 17- 1-1984 is reproduced as under:--- "Subject: FORWARDING OF APPLICATION FOR GRANT OF INTERVIEW OF THE CHAIRMAN, POF BOARD.
Reference: MD/POF Havelian Note No. Admin/5322/64/Hvn, dated 5-1-1984 forwarding application, dated 31-12-1983 of Dr. Muhammad Humayun, GDMO (B-17)/POF Havelian.
By and large the points raised by Dr. Muhammad Humayun, in his application quoted under reference were previously replied under this office Note No.i146/873/A/OF-?/C, dated 30-7-1983.
Nevertheless, the latest position of those points is, again indicated below:---
(a) To waive the condition of placing him on probation Placing on probation of an employee at the time of regular appointment is the requirement of the rules fie was placed on 1 year probation w.e.f. 5-7-1982, which has already been cleared by him satisfactorily.
(b) Counting of Compulsory Army Service Towards Seniority and other connected benefits.
Grant of 2 advance increments to the affected doctors including the applicant for the service rendered in the Army has already been approved by POF Board. A formal POF Board letter is under issue. The benefit of Army Service towards seniority will be accorded to him when he becomes due for promotion on completion of prescribed length of 5 years service w.e.f. 5-7-1982 in (B-17).
(c) Counting of contractual service from 20-I1 1978 to 4-7-1982 towards regular service.
This benefit has also been extended to him under the provisions ofPOF Board letter No.4102/139/OF- 1/C149/Secy., dated 28-9-75 as per para. 1 of Daily Order notifying his appointment on regular basis whereby the period of his contractual service from 20-11-1978 to 4-7-1982 has been counted for purposes of drawal of pay, grant of subsequent increments and carrying forward of leave.
2. The officer may please be informed accordingly.
(Sd.)
(A.M. Chowdhury)
Chief Administrative Officer 17-1-1984"
3.The appellant was also informed by a letter, dated 18-9-1984 that the period of his contractual service could not be treated as regular appointment. The context of the said letter is given below:-- - "Subject:- APPLICATION FORWARDING OF OFFICER Reference:- Your Note No. Admin/5 22/64 Hvn: dated 23-4-1984.
Dr. Muhammad Humayun DMO(B-17)/POF Havelian has put forth numerous points in his application dated 14-2-1984 received under your note quoted above which were previously replied under this office communications No.1146/878/A/OF-1/C, dated 30-7-1983 and 17-1-1984. As regards his contention that he should have been made regular once he exercised necessary option on 3- 10-1979 it is stated that just after expiry of his first contractual period, the case for his regular appointment was taken up with the DPD., but our proposal did not attract the favour of DPD for lack of a vacancy against N.-W.P.P. Quota. The officer, therefore, could not be appointed on regular basis, before 5-7-1982 Government orders placing the conditions of 5 years service in B-17 for promotion, are contained in Estt Div: O.M. No.1/9/80-R-2, dated 2-6-1983 which are to be adhered to in the case of Dr: Humayun, too.
2. The officer may please be informed accordingly.
4. The appellant was making efforts for counting his Army Service towards pension etc. And finally he was informed by letter dated 13-4-1988 that his case regarding counting of service towards seniority was referred to the M.S. Branch, Rawalpindi, who intimated that PTC-111807 St/Capt.
Muhammad Humayun had resigned his commission and as such he was not entitled to counting of his service rendered in the Army. He again filed an appeal to the Military Secretary in the month of July, 1990 but he did not succeed.
5. The main contention ion of the appellant is that he is entitled to the benefit of his compulsory service rendered in the Armed Force in view of the Ordinance IV of 1978. The cause of action arose to the appellant when he joined POF in 1978 and at that time he was aware about the Ordinance IV of 1978. He continued serving for four years from 1978 to 1982 and he did not seek any redress from this Tribunal. His services were regularized from 1982 and he started agitating in 1984 by claiming that the benefit of his previous service should be given. His request was turned down and he was informed for the first time on 17-1-1984. Thereafter he made so many representations to the departmental authorities but he did not care to come before this Tribunal. The matter is of 1982 and he has filed this appeal on the basis of communication of letter, dated 29-5-1994, wherein it has been mentioned that his military service was not covered under the rules and as such no action was required in this regard. This letter cannot obviously be final order as the appellant was also informed in 1984 that his case was not covered under the rules. It was incumbent upon the appellant to have come before this Tribunal within 120 days of filing of first appeal or when he received reply for the first time from the respondent department that his case was not covered under the rules. But in spite of that he continued making representations from time to time, which cannot enhance the period of limitation. Therefore, the appeal is hopelessly time-barred. In identical circumstances we have heard Appeal No.10(P)/94 (Zain Yar Khan v. Chief Engineer
(Admn) WAPDA, Lahore) and rejected the same on similar point. The aggrieved person filed a Civil Petition No.164 of 1994 in the Supreme Court and their Lordships while deciding the said petition has maintained the order of this Tribunal observing as below:--- "3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the Ordinance only Medical Practitioners were entitled to the benefit of Military service, but the concession was extended to other essential persons by means of Ordinance XLV of 1984 (Compulsory Service in the Armed Forces (Amendment) Ordinance, 1984). Even after the grant of this concession to the petitioner on 7th October, 1984, when section 9-A was amended, the petitioner did not make any attempt to seek his remedy in the appropriate forum. As such, the finding of the Tribunal, that the appeal of the petitioners was barred by time, is not opened to exception.
4. This petition has no force. The same is dismissed and the leave prayed for is refused."
6. For the above reasons the appeal being hopelessly time-barred is dismissed in limine.