' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---Appellant Mr. Obaid Alam Hussain Khan Chaudhry was appointed as Section Officer in WAPDA on 10-4-1978. He was posted in the Budget and Finance Section on 29-10-1978. His services were regularised on 24-5-1979. He submitted a representation for his seniority which was accepted partially vide order dated 23-1-1998 and the competent Authority decided as under:---
(a) To grant seniority to the above-named officer in the cadre of Assistant Director (Admn.) with effect from the date of his initial appointment as Assistant Director (Admn.), viz. 22-4-1978. His name shall, therefore, appear at serial No, 4(a) of the seniority list of Assistant Directors (Admn.) appointed before 30-1-1980 (Common Services) i.e, above the name of Mr. Iftikhar Ahmad.
(b) To transfer and post Mr. Obaid Alam Hussain Khan Choudhry as Assistant Director (Admn.) in the Office of Chief Engineer, TPS, Guddu, against an existing vacancy, with immediate effect and until further orders. Events of arrival/departure may be notified to all concerned in due course of time."
' He again filed another representation on 25-1-1988 that he may be promoted as Deputy Director (Admn.) from the date of promotion of Mr. Muhammad Akhtar, i.e, from 29-9-1983, who was junior to him. The appellant was informed that his case could not be considered for pro forma promotion as Deputy Director unless he clears the departmental promotion examination. He complied with this objection. A seniority list of Deputy Directors was issued in the year 1990 in which the appellant has been shown at S.No,
66. He filed objection and was informed that the matter was being examined separately and final decision will be communicated to him. Finally, by letter dated 11-1- 1992, he was informed that his for transfer back in the Admn. Cadre was accepted and that seniority already allowed in the cadre a Deputy Director (Admn) is correct. Being aggrieved with this reply, he has filed this appeal.
2. We have heard Mr. Hafiz Tariq Naseem, learned counsel for the appellant. He has argued that the appellant was directly appointed as Section Officer and was posted in the Budget Section and there should be no discrimination in the seniority list as the appellant's date of appointment is earlier than that of the respondents.
3. Mr. Hafiz Muhammad Yousuf, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent WAPDA has taken the point of limitation and submitted that the respondents were promoted as Deputy Directors in Grade-18 earlier than the appellant and some were promoted in 1983 and some in 1986. Therefore, at this stage, he cannot be given any relief and his appeal is barred by limitation.
4. The appellant has challenged the seniority of Deputy Directors in Grade-18. The seniority list issued in the year 1990. He has not challenged the seniority of all the respondents at the time he was in Grade-17. The facts are that the respondents Nos.3 to 18 were promoted in Grade-18 in 1983.
He did not challenge their promotions when M/s. Muhammad Akhtar and Iftikhar Ahmad were also promoted. The appellant did not approach the Tribunal at that time. He now requests for pro forma promotion retrospectively after seven years when during that period he worked in Grade-17 and so such appeal was filed. This revised seniority list has been prepared in Grade-18. The request for pro forma promotion after seven years cannot be considered. We are of the view that this appeal is barred by time. Therefore, condonation application is rejected with the result appeal is dismissed as time-barred.