ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN). ---The relevant facts of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the appellant joined service 'as Inspector Customs on 21-6-1965. He was promoted as Deputy Superintendent on 17-1-1990. A tentative seniority list of Deputy Superintendents was circulated on 27-8-1991 wherein the name of the appellant appeared at S. No. 406. He being aggrieved with this list, made a representation on 21-10-1991, but the same was rejected by the Central Board of Revenue vide order dated 16-3-1993 and the appellant was accordingly informed/conveyed the decision vide letter dated 28-3-1993. He then preferred this appeal with the prayer that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 be directed to correct the seniority list by placing the appellant at S. -No.9; and that illegal promotions awarded to respondents 1 to 46 as Superintendents earlier than the appellant be declared illegal and void, and further the department be directed to allow the appellant the benefits of service due accordingly.
We have heard Mr. Shahzada Shahpur Jan, the learned counsel for the appellant. It is argued that the appellant was eligible for promotion in 1982 but was not considered as he was on leave and that period from 1984 to 1986 was subsequently regularized by the competent authority. Therefore, according to him, the appellant is to reckon his seniority from the date of his appointment as Inspector as he was shown at S. No.1 in the list of Inspectors. It is argued that his promotion be ante-dated as he wa4, entitled to promotion as Deputy Superintendent in 1982 with all back benefits.
3. Mr. M. Javid Aziz Sandhu, the learned Standing Counsel for the Government has argued that the appellant's case was considered by the D.P.C. On 30-8-1982 but he was not found fit for promotion as per service record. Once again in the D.P.C. Meeting held on 26-2-1984 when he was at S. No.32 in the seniority list was considered but he was not cleared for promotion as against others who had better record. Third time in the meeting held in November, 1984 the D.P.C. Considered the case of the appellant who was placed at S. No.18 of the D.P.C. List but he was not approved for promotion.
His name was also considered by the D.P.C. On 7-6-1986 but was not approved because he was absconding from duty. However, finally the D.P.C. In its meeting held on 16th and 17th December, 1989 when the appellant was at S.No.1 of the D.P.C. List, approved the appellant for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent, and accordingly he was promoted. He submitted that appeal is time-barred as cause of action accrued to the appellant in 1982, but he did not file any representation of appeal at that time.
4. The question before us whether the appellant could claim seniority as Deputy Superintendent over the private respondents who were promoted earlier than him. The simple reply is that the respondents against whom the appellant has got the grievance out of which some were promoted as Deputy Superintendents in 1982 and others upto 1989 and are working as such since then. This question of seniority could only be considered if the promotion of the appellant as Deputy Superintendent is ante-dated since 1982 and then he could only claim seniority over them. The learned Standing Counsel has taken us to the proceedings of various D.P.Cs whereby the case of the appellant was considered but he was not approved for promotion right from 1982, but he did not file any representation or appeal before the competent authority or to the Tribunal. He for the first time filed appeal on 21-10-1991 after he was promoted. The appeal is hopelessly time-barred.
The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that his appeal has been rejected on merits and therefore, question of limitation is not applicable. He filed departmental appeal when he was superseded 11 years ago in 1982 and now wants his promotion to be ante-dated from 1982 and also seniority from that date. We are sorry we cannot accept this unjustified request. Moreover, the promotion is not a vested right. In light of above facts we cannot consider his promotion retrospectively from 1982. The result was that his seniority as Deputy Superintendent could be reckoned from date of his regular promotion, which has rightly been given to him. The appeal having no merits is dismissed on point of limitation as well as on merits.