RAJA BASHIR AHMAD KHAN (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Raja Muhammad Azam Khan has challenged the Order No. (A-8)-142/3583-87/87, dated 4-6-1987 of Secretary, Revenue whereby service appeal of Rang Baz Khan Girdawar was accepted and the order of Revenue Commissioner, dated 11-2-1987 was set aside.
2. Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant and respondents Nos.1 to 3 entered into the service in the Department of Revenue as Patwari on 26-1-1968, 5-12-1971, 7-1-1970 and 17-11-1975 respectively. Respondents were promoted as Girdawars by Settlement Officer, Poonch on 23-6- 1982 without considering the case of promotion of appellant. Appellant filed an appeal before the Revenue Commissioner who decided the same in favour of appellant vide his order dated 11-2-1987 and directed Settlement Officer, Poonch to determine the seniority of the parties afresh in light of facts of the matter.
3. This Tribunal vide its judgment, dated 21-2-1990 accepted the appeal and set aside the order of Revenue, Secretary. Respondents filed an appeal before the Supreme Court and in Civil Appeal No.40 of 1990 Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the judgment of Service Tribunal and remanded the case to the Service Tribunal with the direction that the appeal be reheard and decided according to the law. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
5. The perusal of the impugned order shows that the Revenue, Secretary has accepted the service appeal of Rang Baz Khan only on the point of limitation. The subordinate Appellate Authority while passing the judgment has observed as under:--
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that Revenue Commissioner not only discussed the entitlement of the parties for promotion as Girdawars but has also condoned the delay in filing appeal on the grounds that the appellant was performing his duty in far-flung areas and the orders of the promotion of respondents were passed in absence and without notice to the appellant. The Secretary, Revenue while setting aside the orders of the Revenue Commissioner based judgment on surmises and conjectures. There appears a lot of force in the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant. The Revenue Secretary has based his decision on the facts that both appellants and respondent No.1 Rang Baz Khan were performing their duties in the same circle and there was every possibility that appellant had full knowledge of promotion of respondent No.1 There: is no solid foundation for this conclusion of the Revenue Secretary. There is no evidence worth the name, on the record to suggest that appellant had the notice of the promotion of respondents as Girdawars. The law of limitation is aimed to curtail the right of person to seek relief under the law. In order to deprive a person of his legal right it is essential to prove that person slept over his right and consciously allowed to run the time against him. There is no such evidence on record that appellant had notice of the orders affecting his service rights and he did not bother to challenge the same within the time allowed under law. The appellant has supported his case by filing an affidavit wherein he solemnly affirmed that the orders of promotions of respondents Nos.1 to 3 were never communicated to him. This affidavit has not been refuted by respondents. It is, therefore, declared that the facts stated in the memorandum of the appeal supported by an affidavit are correct. The impugned order in the circumstances is not sustainable.
7. In light of above discussion, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order. The order dated 11-2-1987 of Revenue Commissioner is hereby restored. The parties are left to bear their respective costs.