' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Briefly, the facts of this appeal are that the appellant Mr. Anwarul Haq was recruited as Assistant Engineer (B/R), Class-II, on 12-8-1968, alongwith eight others as mentioned in Memel of Appeal out of which five were promoted as Assistant Executive Engineers on 15-3-1971 after clearing the departmental examination. It is stated that the appellant was not promoted as meeting of DPC was not held till 17-5-1971 when the Government decided to place all the Graduate Engineers in Class I without passing the departmental examination. In the meanwhile, 11 Assistant Executive Engineers were recruited. The appellant became due for promotion alongwith 11 AXENs in the year 1993, and according to him, the question of relative seniority became a live issue. The appellant made an application on 1-4-1993 to the E-in-C with a request to supply copies of seniority lists of Civilian Officers issued after 1975 for reference and reconciliation of seniority. He was informed vide letter dated 19-4-1993 by the E-in-C that seniority lists are not provided to the officers individually but the officers could see the seniority lists in the HQ, if so desired, and it was also stated that seniority list was last published in 1989 and sufficient copies thereof were sent to the H.Q. The appellant made a representation on 8-6-1993 to the E-in- C in which he alleged that he alongwith his two colleagues namely M/s. Ayaz Ahmed Qureshi and Yousuf Ali, redesignated as AXEN, were placed junior to other AXENs inducted after 17-5-1971. In reply, he was informed vide letter dated 13-7-1993 that seniority lists had been correctly prepared and the matter cannot be reopened. He then filed appeal dated 21-81993 to the Secretary, Establishment Division but the E-in-C returned the same with the remarks that representation be addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence. He accordingly preferred appeal on 7-4-1994 to the Secretary, Defence which remained unresponded. Ultimately, the appellant has filed this appeal under section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 on 1-8-1994, with a prayer that he be declared senior to all the private respondents as XEN and placed above Mr. Abdul Majid at S. No, 12 and below Mr. Aslam G. Sadiq at S.No, 11 in the seniority list of XENs issued in 1989, and further all the seniority lists issued since 1975 be rectified accordingly.
2. We have heard Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddiqi, the learned. Counsel for the appellant at length. It is argued that the department has neither prepared/issued any seniority list nor has circulated the same to the officers concerned, which is mandatory and he was referred to Sl. No,154 at page 148 of ESTACODE, 1983 Edition, wherein it has been provided that seniority list be circulated to the officers concerned and objections invited. He has also referred to 1980 SCM R 711 and 1985 SCM R 1953 in support of his submissions, that in case seniority list is not circulated, the aggrieved person cannot come to the Tribunal.
3. The main factor in this appeal is that the appellant as it appears is aggrieved by promotions of some officers but he has not annexed any order with regard to promotion so that the Tribunal could arrive at a just conclusion to determine the point of limitation which is basically involved in this appeal as the appellant wants that seniority lists issued since 1975 be corrected. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that seniority of the appellant has been determined on the basis of Establishment Division Office Memorandum No,8/2/71-DI, dated 17th May, 1971 whereunder Graduate Engineers were redesignated as Class I Officers. The appellant for the first time made an application on 1-4-1993 to E-in-C requesting for supply of seniority lists of Civilian Officers since 1975, and also stated that presently seniority lists of officers are issued to Headquarters only and its contents are not disseminated to individual officers. He requested that instructions be issued for circulation of the lists to all officers so that discrepancy if any is pointed out for corrective measures. He has not alleged that seniority list was never issued since 1975. The appellant has produced an unattested copy of a letter dated 19th April, 1993 issued by E-in-C wherein it has been stated that seniority lists are not provided to officers individually but they can see the lists in the headquarter. It was also mentioned that seniority list of civilian officers was last published in 1989. We are sorry we cannot agree with the argument of the learned counsel that seniority list is to be sent to an individual officer but it is always circulated and the appellant has not made any grievance in the application but only requested for copies of the seniority lists so far issued since 1975. He has not taken the ground that he was unaware about his seniority. The appellant also made another representation dated 8th June, 1993 wherein he had the grievance against the Ministry of Defence letter dated 25th July, 1975 (placed at page 13 of the memo. Of appeal) whereby Graduate Assistant Engineers of the MES were redesignated at Assistant Executive Engineers. This letter is a material document for the purpose of this appeal, and the relevant paragraphs of the application are reproduced below for the sake of convenience: "From perusal of seniority lists, it however appears that the officers inducted as AXENs even after 17th May, 1971 have been placed above these three officers in seniority thus contravening the provisions of abovesaid para. 2 of the Government letter. This has made me to lag behind my own colleagues (at a to e above) thus adversely affecting my career.
' In view of above it is requested that instructions be issued to remove the said anomaly so that officers inducted in the department on the same date are allowed to maintain seniority with their colleagues according to the demands of natural justice and universally accepted principles of seniority."
' It may be mentioned here that in pursuance of the Establishment Division Office Memorandum dated 17th May, 1971, the Ministry of Defence vide their letter No,1441/1/4/EID/2711/D3A/7, dated 25th July, 1975, addressed to the Engineer-in-Chief, GHQ, Rawalpindi, redesignated as many as 35 Graduate Assistant Engineers of the MES, including the appellant, as Assistant Executive Engineers, with effect from 17-5-1971 in case of the appellant, and under para. 2 of the above letter, it had clearly been indicated that after redesignation of the Assistant Engineers as AXENs, they were to rank junior to all the existing Assistant Executive Engineers, and this is the letter by which the appellant has been hurt by relegating him to lower position in seniority vis-a-vis his counterparts.
The appellant did not agitate against this letter at that time and kept silent for about a decade for the reasons best known to him. He only for the first time made an application dated 1-4-1993 to the Engineer-in-Chief for supply of seniority list of civilian officers issued after 1975 and in reply he was informed that seniority lists are not provided to individual officers and that the last seniority list was published in 1989. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant was not aware of his seniority position and in fact it had come to his knowledge in July, 1975 on the issuance of the Ministry of Defence dated 25th July, 1975 when his post was redesignated and he was relegated in seniority to lower position as against his counterparts, and he cannot agitate his grievance at such a belated stage. The appellant tried to make the issue alive by making representations to the E-in-C, on the ground of supplying copy of seniority list, and he was rightly informed vide letter dated 13th July, 1993 that seniority list was prepared in the light of Ministry of Defence letter dated 25th July, 1975 and circulated in the whole department but nothing wrong was intimated and now after lapse of 18 years, the request is time-barred and untenable. Therefore in these circumstances, this appeal is hopelessly time-barred. Furthermore, the appellant made appeal to the Secretary, Establishment Division, on 21-8-1993 with the following prayers: ".... It is respectfully requested that implementation of the letter of Ministry of Defence dated 25-7- 1975 be made in accordance with the letter and spirit of the O.M. Dated 17-5-1971 issued by the Establishment Division and its misinterpretation by E-in-C's Branch be corrected and all seniority lists including the one issued in 1989 be corrected accordingly and the appellant may be given all the over due back benefits."
' This appeal for seeking relief as far back as 1975, is clearly time-barred. In response to the. Advice of E-in-C Branch, the appellant repeated another appeal addressed to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence on 7-4-1994, but there is no response, and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in PLD 1990 SC 951 (Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik), wherein it has been held that when an appeal before the departmental authority was time-barred, the appeal before the Tribunal was also incompetent on that account. The cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable and are not attracted in the present case. The appeal also is not maintainable under section 4(1) of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 as there is no order, whether original or appellate, which could be appealed against before this Tribunal.
4. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal is dismissed in limine.