RANA RIFAT SAEED (MEMBER): --The appellant, Noor Nawaz Zafar had filed his 1st Appeal No. 498(P)/84 on 24-12-1984 and it was heard/dismissed being time-barred vide judgment dated 19- 2-1986.
2. He had submitted his 2nd Appeal No. 54(P) of 1988 on 25-2-1988 for same reliefs/benefits and it was also dismissed on the same grounds on 14-12-1989.
3. The appellant had again filed 3rd Appeal No. 24(P) of 1989 on 2-2-1989 and it was accordingly dismissed on 23-6-1990.
4. The appellant had submitted 4th Appeal No. 18(P) of 1992 on 29-1-1992 and it was withdrawn by him on 26-11-1992.
The appellant had filed Misc. Petition No. 41/93 for implementation of judgment dated 26-11-1992 passed in Appeal No. 18(P)/1992.
The appellant's Misc. Petition No. 41/93 had been heard on 20-4-1993 and 6-5-1993 and disposed of with some directions to-the respondent Department.
Again the Miscellaneous Petition No. 41/93 was heard on 18-7-1993, 24-8-1993 and 26-9-1993 and finally it was disposed of by the honourable Chairman vide order dated 4-11-1993 as under:- `Appeal No. 18(P)/92 was finally disposed of by order dated 26-11-1992 by a Bench consisting of Mr. Misbahullah Khan and Mr. Muhammad Ismail, Members with the direction that the case of the appellant for pro forma promotion to the post of SSO-1 be considered in the light of the letter dated 2-10-1991 and on the statement of the appellant the appeal was disposed of as withdrawn. The appellant filed this miscellaneous application and is not satisfied with the decision of the respondent Wapda, and this matter was placed before the Bench comprising Mr. Rana Rifat Saeed and Mr. M. Ilyas Lodhi, Members, on 26-9-1993, and there is difference of opinion between the two Members on this application. It was in this context, that this application has been placed before me under subsection (2) of section 3-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The legal position is that on this application, no action can be taken and if the appellant is aggrieved by the decision of Wapda, he should file a departmental representation or appeal as provided by law, and then can come to the Tribunal against the new situation, if so desired. The application is disposed of accordingly.'
5.The appellant had submitted instant and 5th Appeal No. 16(P) of 1994 on 21-1-1994 for almost same reliefs/benefits. This had been fixed, heard and judgment reserved on 6-2-1994.
6. In the instant appeal, the appellant had stated that his juniors/ private respondents 8-12 had been promoted as SSO Grade-I during the period from April 1976 to January, 1977, whereas he had been promoted as SSO Grade-I vide order dated 3-5-1983. He had been representing/agitating his supersession from 1976 to 1983 to higher authorities, but he could not succeed. He had mentioned that during this period of 6-7 years a reorganization in Wapda had taken place, whereby the private respondents had been assigned to other zones/regions and he was kept at Islamabad office.
7. In this appeal he had impugned an order of 21-8-1993 which was a reply from Wapda to the FST (Annexure `G' page 14) and reads as under:- "Enclosed please find herewith reply in response to appeal filed by Mr. Noor Nawaz Zafar SSO-I for further necessary action in the Honourable Federal Service Tribunal."
However, in the enclosed documents and with reference to his Appeal No. 18(P) of 1992, the respondent Department had submitted his comments (Annexure `G', Page 15), wherein it was recorded as under:- "In this connection, it is submitted that no comparison can be made while promoting the officials mentioned by the petitioner to be junior to him and promoted as SSO-I before him as they were not borne on the Seniority List of GSO Circle, Peshawar where the petitioner was borne. '
In this regard copy of M.D. (Power) Office Order No. 26405--ll/MDP/E-11/73/606 dated 11-7-1980 is enclosed clarifying the channel/procedure of promotion as SSO-I in vogue at that time, was seniority being maintained at Circle level.
Further copy of written statement of respondents Nos. 5, 7 and 9 of original appeal No. 18(P) of 1992 is also enclosed which supplement the position highlighted above.
Hence, it is prayed that the request of Mr: Noor Nawaz Zafar, SSO-I for pro forma promotion as SSO- 1 with effect from 20-4-1976 cannot be acceded to."
From the above it could not be ascertained that, if the letter dated 21-8-1993 which are comments by the respondent Department Writ Appeal No. 18(P) of 1992 and Misc. Petition No. 41/93 could be treated as impugned orders from the Department. The appellant had not been able to explain his case and produce the required documents. However, he had prayed as under:- "It is humbly prayed that to set the order dated 21-8-1993 passed by Chief Engineer GSO Region Lahore in light of West Pakistan Wapda Employees (Power Wing) Delegation of Power Rules, 1971 as amended vide Secretary, WAPDA Lahore Office Order dated 10-1-1975, Chief Engineer Admn.
(Power) WAPDA, Lahore and Chief Engineer GSO Islamabad decision dated 26-3-1979. And Managing Director Power WAPDA Lahore clarification order regarding procedure of maintaining the seniority and promotion of technical staff dated 11-5-1991 and to issue pro forma promotion order of the appellant as SSO-I with effect from 20-4-1976 in light of order dated 2-10-1991 passed by the Chief Engineer GSO, Region WAPDA, Lahore with all consequential benefits as the respondents 8 to 12 became junior than the appellant as SSO-II and the appellant became senior than respondents 8 to 12 as SSO-II due to modification of the promotion order of the appellant as SSO-II from 17-3- 1975 instead of 1-4-1975 passed by the Chief Engineer GSO. Region WAPDA, Lahore on 2-10-1991 and thanks."
8. From the record supplied by the appellant and from his own averments at bar, we find that his first junior private respondent No.8 had been promoted as SSO-I with effect from 20-4-1976 and during this period from 1976 to 1983 he had made no departmental efforts in time and it is quite apparent that the matter of 1976-77 cannot be reopened in 1994. Obviously the' appeal is awfully time-barred. Further, the appellant is at present serving in Peshawar Region and he has impleaded private respondents 8 to 12 who have been serving in Lahore Region which is a different cadre Region from Peshawar cadre Region. As such the appeal despite being badly time-barred is also totally misconceived and incompetent. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal in limine.