1. Arif Hussain, ex-Conductor, has moved this application under S. O. 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, against the District Manager, Islamabad Omnibus Service, and P.R.T.C., for re-instatement against the order of his dismissal dated 30-4-1970, passed by the District Manager, Islamabad Omnibus Service, Rawalpindi. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of his dismissal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed on 10-4-1971. Then he filed revision petition which was also dismissed oat 74-10- X971. On 4-11-1971 Chairman, District Manager concerned, but to no avail and after that he filed the instant petition on 21-12-1971.
2. The respondents have resisted the petition and the following preliminary objections have been raised by them:-
(1) That the appl cation is barred by the.
(2) That no grievance notice was given to the respondents within 15 days from the cause of grievance, therefore the application is not maintainable.
3. On 15-6-1972 the learned representative of the petitioner moved an application under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act with the prayer that the delay in filing the petition, if any, may be condoned. This petition and the preliminary objections detailed above shall be disposed of through this order. The learned representative of the respondents has contended that the order of dismissal of the petitioner was passed on 30-4-1970 and no grievance notice was served on the respondents within 15 days of the order of dismissal as required under S. O 18 therefore, the petition is not maintainable. He states that the grievance notice served on the respondent after the dismissal of the revision petition is not a valid notice and the requirements of S. O. 18 have not been complied with. The petitioner has stated that his petition for revision was dismissed on 26-10-1971 and his statement goes unchallenged on the record. In para. 5 of the main petition, it i3 alleged that the grievance notice was sent to the respondent on 4-11-71 and this fact has not been denied by the respondent in the reply statement. I therefore hold that the petition was dismissed on 26-10-71, and the petitioner sent the notices of grievance on 4-11-1971, i.e., within 15 days of the order of the dis-- missal of the revision petition. The petition was filed on 21-12-1971, i.e , within 60 days of the service of the notices on the respondents. The rules of service applicable to the petitioner give him aright of appeal against the order of his dismissal and also a right to file a revision against the order of the dismissal of appeal within a specified the. In the instant case it is not denied by the respondents that the appeal and the revision were filed within the. Since the rules of service applicable to the petitioner provide him a remedy to go in appeal and revision, it would be against al) the cannons of justice to throw away his application merely for the reason that he had chosen to avail the remedy provided by the rules of service. Such an action would tantamount to taking away the rights of an employee given to him by the Service Rules. An employee, who has filed an appeal or revision, can rightly expect that the higher authorities will redress his grievance and I am of the view that the cause of grievance accrues to such an employee only when he fails in his last remedy. In the instant case, the grievance notice was A given within 15 days of the dismissal of the revision petition and this petition was filed within 60 days of the service of grievance notice on the respondents. The petition is, therefore, within the, For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary objections are overruled and petition No. 231/1972 stands disposed of.