' MUHAMMAD ILYAS LODHI (MEMBER).---The appellant Agha Firasat Ali has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 against the order dated 5-3-1994 whereby six Police Officers of the Punjab Police namely Mr. Munir Ahmad Dar, Mr. Zakauddin, Mr. Abdul Wassay, Mr. Khalilur Rehman, Mr. Allah Bux and Mr. Raza Ahmed Khan had been given encadrement in the Police Service of Pakistan with effect from 21-9-1976. When these officers were inducted in the PSP Cadre, the appellant was also inducted in the Police Group vide Establishment Division's Notification No, 10/4/87-E (Police), dated 7-10-1987 and was given effect from 1-12-1984. The appellant was shown junior to the above respondents. He challenged the order and made representation to the Establishment Division and also approached this Tribunal in Appeal No, 32(L)/1990 and 222(L)/1990 to give him seniority over the said respondents.
2. When the said appeals of the appellant were pending before the Tribunal, the Establishment Division accepted his representation and placed him senior to the above respondents as per para. 12 of his memo. Of appeal which reads as under: ' That in response to his representation dated 30-10-1989 against Mr. G. Moinuddin and Baqar Ali Shah the Establishment Division while acceeding to the request of the appellant issued Memo. No, 4/18/89- CP2, dated 20-10-1990. This letter contained a vague order inasmuch as the exact date of encadrement of the appellant was not mentioned. However, the appellant was allowed seniority at Serial No, 13-A that is immediately below Mr. Laeeq Ahmed Khan (Serial No, 13) and above Mr. G.
Moinud Din (Serial No, 14) in the gradation list of PSP Officers in BPS-18, as corrected up to 1-4-1990.
The appellant was thus placed senior to Mr. G. Moinud Din at S.No, 14 as also M/s. Munir Ahmed Dar, Zakauddin, Abdul Wassay, Khalilur Rehman, Allah Bakhsh and Raza Ahmed Khan who were placed at S.No, 15 to 20 respectively in the said gradation list published in the year 1990. Interestingly, at that time the name of Mr. Muhammad Shafi Choudhry did not figure anywhere."
' The appellant accordingly withdrew both the appeals. The orders passed by the Tribunal in both the appeals read as under:- ' 32(L)/90 "The counsel for the appellant has stated at the Bar that the Establishment Division has revised the seniority list and the requisite relief has been granted to the appellant. He has further stated that he does not wish to pursue the appeal. An application in writing has also been made to that effect.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of as having borne fruit."
' 222(L) /90 "The counsel for the appellant has stated at the Bar that the Establishment Division has revised the seniority list and the requisite relief has been granted to the appellant. He has further stated that he does not wish to pursue the appeal. It is accordingly disposed of as having borne fruit."
3. The above six respondents have now been given ante-date seniority with effect from 21-9-1976 under the order dated 5/1994. The appellant has come to this Tribunal that though he was given seniority over the respondents in the year 1992 yet he made a representation to the Establishment Division to seek clarification that from which date he was encadred in the PSP but no reply was given to him. In the meanwhile he reached the age of superannuation and retired from service on 29-9-1991.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in detail and reached the conclusion that since the appellant was already given his due seniority over the respondents vide Notification dated 7-10-1987 and as a result of that he withdrew the above appeals, therefore, now he cannot again agitate for the same cause of action specially when he withdrew the appeal unconditionally.
According to his own statement his representation to the Establishment Division was made before his retirement i.e, 29-9-1991 and that too was to get clarification for the exact date of his induction in the PSP cadre. If for the sake of argument, we consider the said application as a representation against the seniority of these six respondents then on.The expiry of 90 days, he should have come to the Tribunal within next thirty days but he failed and filed the present appeal after a lapse of three years and three months. With the prayer that he may be encadred in Police Service of Pakistan from 21-1-1975 i.e, from the date he was regularly promoted as Superintendent of Police or from the date on which his juniors, namely, respondents Nos.2 to 8 have been encadred by the Establishment Division vide Notification dated 5-3-1994 and that he be allotted presumptive seniority in accordance with the date of his such encadrement. Consequently his prayer at this belated stage is not maintainable as the present, appeal is hit by limitation and is badly time- barred. Application for condonation of delay has also not been filed.
4-A. The upshot of the above discussion is that he accepted the seniority position over the respondents at the time of his superannuation i.e, 29-9-1991 and now he is estopped from agitating a matter which was accepted by him and was closed at the time of his retirement. The learned counsel has cited two cases reported as 1993 PLC (C.S.) 14434 and 1983 PLC (C.S.) 1092 but these are not applicable to this case as their facts and merits are different.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed in limine being time-barred and devoid of merits.