ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Mr. Makhdoom H. Chaudhri, while serving as Director, Accounts Economic Affairs Division, was appointed to officiate as Deputy Secretary to the Federal Government in the same Division vide Notification dated 27-6-1974. In December, 1982, promotions were made to the post of Joint Secretaries and equivalent (BSP-20). Several Officers junior to the appellant were promoted to BSP-20 with effect from 25-2-1983, whereas the promotion of the appellant was deferred on the ground that he had riot put in requisite service of 12 years in B-17. He made representation that the formula of length of service adopted by the Central Selection Board, while ignoring him, was not applicable to him. He has stated in appeal that Government of Pakistan issued Gradation List in respect of All Pakistan Unified Grades - Secretariat Group some time in 1975, wherein the name of the appellant appears at serial No.144-A, but there is no mention of the names of Messrs Farid-ud-Din Ahmad, Tanveer Ahmad, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan, Muhammad Javed Masood, Syed Roshan Zamir, Nazar Abbas Siddiqui, Syed Javed Iqbal Bukhari, Dr. Zafar Altaf, Shahid Hussain, Abdu Shamim Muhammad Arif and Tasneem Ahmad Siddiqui, as these officers ha4 not been appointed/promoted as Deputy Secretaries in the Secretariat Group uptill the date of issue of seniority list in 1975. The seniority list of All Pakistan Unified Grades (Secretariat Group) was revised by the Government of Pakistan, Establishment Division and circulated under D.O. Letter No.4/1/81-A, dated 17-8-1981. The appellant. Noted discrepancies in the above seniority lists whereby the officers appointed as Deputy Secretary in Secretariat Group later than the appellant were incorrectly shown senior. He filed representation on 7-9-1991 which was forwarded to the Establishment Division.. He was given partial relief by allowing benefit of fixation of pay and increments in B-20 with effect from 25-2-1983 the date his junior was promoted to B-20 vide Establishment Division's Memorandum No.6/4/86-CP.2, dated 5-11-1990. It is stated that he was expecting that the Government after having conceded to his request of allowing the benefit of BPS-20 from the date his junior was promoted, would also revise the seniority list and allow him the right place above all those who have been appointed/promoted as Deputy Secretary after him. But it was not done and the Gradation List of Secretariat Group (BPS-19 to 20) was circulated under Establishment Division No.3/3/90-PD.1, dated 12-7-1990 wherein the officers who were appointed as Deputy Secretary/Joint Secretary later than the appellant were shown senior. The list was not only revised but on the contrary those officers junior to the appellant were promoted to BPS-21. He prayed as under:-- "that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to order that the seniority list be revised and appellant be considered for promotion in a post in BPS-21 with effect from 23-1-1991 the date from which Mr. Farid-ud-Din and others who are juniors to him, have been promoted in BPS-21. Any other relief which this Honourable Tribunal deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may also kindly be allowed."
2. The comments have been filed by the respondent (Establishment Division) through their Advocate. We have heard Mr. Makhdoom H. Choudhri, appellant at length. The contention of the appellant is that since his promotion was made from 1983, he maybe allowed same seniority for the purpose of his promotion to BPS-21.
3. Before we advert to the merits of his appeal, it is pertinent to mention that on 11-2-1991, the appellant filed Appeal No.53/R of 1991, before this Tribunal, in which he prayed that he may be allowed arrears of pay and allowances on account of unjustifiable deferment of promotion of the appellant to BPS-20 for the period from 25-2-1983 to 1-11-1983. Appeal was decided in his favour by this Tribunal vide judgment, dated 24-7-1992. In that appeal, appellant has not challenged this seniority but in this appeal he has challenged the seniority list issued in 1981, and wants declaration that on the basis of the subsequent order passed in his favour, the seniority list may be revised. It is regretted to note that in this appeal the appellant has not given any reference to his contention made in Appeal No.53/R of 1991, and the decision of the Tribunal. The position of the seniority at the time of hearing of earlier appeal was the same, whereby he claimed other benefits of arrears of pay retrospectively and promotion as Joint Secretary in BPS-20 to be reckoned from 25-2-1983, and all these benefit were allowed to him. He had not challenged the seniority list.
4. In comments, the Establishment Division has stated that officers whose names appear as Deputy Secretary in the seniority list of 1981 from Serial Nos.49 to 61, over the appellant, in between the name of the appellant and the names of respondents Nos.2 to 11 were admittedly senior to the appellant as Deputy Secretary and junior to respondents Nos.2 to 11. If the appellant is given seniority over respondents Nos.2 to 11,. It would create an 'anomalous position in such a way that the appellant will find a place over officers at Serial Nos.49 to 61, whose seniority has not been challenged by the appellant and who are admittedly senior to the appellant. The appellant will thus find a place at Serial No.36 over respondent No.2 who is at No.37, which is illogical.
5: In the seniority list issued on 17-8-1981, the name of the appellant was reflected at- Serial No.62 whereas the names of respondents Nos.2 to 11 were at Serial Nos.37 to 45 and 48. The appellant did not challenge the- seniority list of 1981 before the Federal Service Tribunal within the time provided under the rules. It is further stated that another list of Secretariat Group Officers was issued in 1987 and the appellant was promoted as Joint Secretary. He had not challenged that list and accepted the list of 1987. The appellant, in all fairness, should have challenged his seniority in his earlier appeal. In the present appeal he has failed to make any reference of earlier appeal. Therefore, once a decision has been taken on the same cause of action by giving him all other benefits, it was open to him to challenge the seniority.
6. The appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay in which he has also failed to give reference to earlier decision of the Tribunal which was in his favour, but stated that the appellant had been pursuing his remedy diligently and continually without any negligence on his part, and the limitation of time only have remedy but does not extinguish the rights which continue to exist.
7. We are not satisfied with the reasons given for condonation of delay when the appellant has not come forward with true facts of the case. The application for condonation of delay is dismissed.
The appeal is hopelessly barred by limitation. There is another legal flaw that he has not impleaded proper parties as discussed above. No order could be passed against those persons who are not party before us.
8. The appellant has retired on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 10-2-1991 and has filed this appeal after one year of his retirement and seeks his promotion to B-21 with effect from 23-1-1991 from the date Mr. Farid-ud-Din Ahmed and his juniors were promoted and such a belated claim is not sustainable `
9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.