' SAEEDUZZAMAN S1DDIQUI, J.---The petitioner is seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of Federal Service Tribunal dated 23-1-1994, whereby, the Service Appeal filed by the petitioner claiming seniority in the Secretariat Group with effect from 13-8-1983 was rejected as time-barred and misconceived.
' The relevant facts of the case are that the petitioner who joined Government Service in Postal Group in BPS-17 on 15-3-1971 was promoted to BPS-19 in the Postal Group with effect from 13-8-1983.
The petitioner was later inducted in the Secretariat Group as Deputy Secretary with effect from 23- 9-1984 vide Notification No, F-59(14)83-E.2, dated 29-12-1988. The petitioner claims to have represented to the Secretary, Establishment Division on 14-9-1989 for assigning him seniority in B.P.S. 19 with effect from 13-8-1983 when he was promoted in the Postal Group in B.P.S. 19, but in spite of his representation, in the gradation list issued by the Authorities in 1990 he was assigned seniority as Deputy Secretary on the basis of the date of his induction in Secretariat Group, e.g. 23- 9-1984. The petitioner on the basis of the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal No, 54/1991 (Federation of Pakistan v. Manzoor Hussain and others) made a representation/appeal on 6-6- 1993 for fixing his seniority as Deputy Secretary from the date of his regular appointment in BPS-19 e.g. 13-8-1983, which was rejected on 25-10-1993.
' The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that findings of the Tribunal that the appeal of the petitioner was time-barred is based on misappreciation of the documents on record. According to learned counsel the representation/appeal of the petitioner filed on 14-9-1989 was decided on 25- 10-1993 and as such the appeal filed before the Tribunal on 27-11-1993 was within time. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has no merit. The petitioner in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his memo. Of appeal before the Service Tribunal stated as follow:-- "5. That after his induction, the appellant learnt through reliable sources that he was being given seniority w.e.f, 23-9-1984, i.e, the date of his transfer as Deputy Secretary in the Federal Secretariat instead of from the date of his regular promotion in BPS-19 in the Postal Group i.e, 13-8-1983. The appellant requested the Secretary, Establishment Division on 14-9-1989 (Appendix VI) for fixing his seniority keeping in view the date of his promotion in BPS-19 on regular basis in his parent group.
The appellant was made to believe that he would be accorded seniority according to law as and when the formal seniority list was issued. However, the respondent No, 1 did not assign him correct seniority in the Gradation List issued in the year 1990 (Appendix VII) and fixed his seniority with reference to the date of his appointment by transfer as Deputy Secretary, i.e, 23-9-1984 which placed him junior to 23 officers who were otherwise junior to the appellant taking into consideration the date of appointment/promotion to a BPS-19 post in the parent Group/Department).
6. That in the meantime, this Honourable Tribunal, vide judgment dated 12-8-1990, in Appeal No, 265(R)/1989 (Mr. Manzoor Hussain v. Secretary, Establishment Division and others) interpreted the rule of seniority in respect of Joint Secretaries (Para. 9 of O.M. Dated 12-4-1976 at Appendix V which contains provision almost similar to the one as prescribed in para. 8 ibid in respect of Deputy Secretaries. The Honourable Tribunal held that the officers inducted in the Secretariat Group are entitled to reckon their seniority from the dates of their continuous regular officiation in BPS-20. This judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No, 54/1991 (Federation of Pakistan v.
Mr. Manzoor Hussain and others) (Appendix VIII).
7. That the relevant rule of seniority having been interpreted by this IIonourable Tribunal vide judgment dated 12-8-1990 and the same having been upheld by the Honourable Supreme Court, the appellant filed a departmental representation/appeal on 6-6-1993 (Appendix I) for fixing his seniority as Deputy Secretary from the date of continuous regular officiation against the post in BPS-19 with effect from 13-8-1983 in light of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan cited above."
In his application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, the petitioner stated as under:- "2. That about seven colleagues of the applicant, initially posted as Deputy Secretary in the Federal Secretariat under section 10 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, filed appeals in this Honourable Court for the determination of their seniority from the original date of appointment/promotion in BPS-19 in their parent departments. Since this issue was sub judice in this Honourable Tribunal, the appellant considered it appropriate to wait for the adjudication and did not file appeal under his own name.
3. That another Appeal No, 265(R)/1989 filed by Mr. Manzoor Hussain was also pending in this Honourable Tribunal which was accepted. Later, the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan upheld the decision of this Honourable Tribunal and the appellant was under bona fide belief that the principle laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan was binding on the Government of Pakistan. In this bona fide belief, the appellant waited for an appropriate decision by the Government of Pakistan.
4. That the appellant in his departmental appeal had asked/requested' the respondent No, 1 to restore his seniority in the light of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Mr. Manzoor Hussain's case, but his request has not been acceded to. Therefore, this Honourable Tribunal is being approached."
From the above statements made by the petitioner in his memo. Of appeal and the application under section 5 of Limitation Act filed before the Service Tribunal, it is quite clear that in spite of his representation dated 14-9-1989 the petitioner was shown junior to 23 other officers who were junior to him in the gradation list issued by the Department in 1990. The petitioner made no representation against the gradation list issued by the Department in 1990 and kept waiting for decision on the appeal of some of his colleagues preferred before the Tribunal. The petitioner on his own showing made representation on 6-6-1993 claiming seniority from 13-8-1983 on the basis of judgment of this Court in Civil Appeal No, 54/1991 (Federation of Pakistan v. Manzoor Hussain and others) which was already time-barred. The petitioner could not claim start of a fresh period of limitation by preferring an appeal on 6-6-1993 against list issued in 1990 in which the petitioner was assigned seniority from 23-9-1984 and which he failed to challenge. The contention of the petitioner's counsel that the representation made by his client on 14-9-1989 was decided by the Authorities on 27-10-1993 is belied by the categorical statement made by the petitioner in his memo. Of appeal and the application filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act, before the Tribunal.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on two unreported decisions of this Court Civil Appeal No, 220 of 1993 (Federation of Pakistan v. M. Roshan Ali Mangi), decided on 22-6-1993 and Civil Appeal No, 586/1992 (Syed Firdous Ali v. Secretary Establishment and others) decided on 30- 11-1993 to contend that in similar circumstances, this Court granted relief to the aggrieved civil servant irrespective of the period of limitation. In Civil Appeal No, 220 of 1993 (supra), the question of limitation was not at all gone into by this Court. The contention of the Government in the above case that the respondents in the above appeal had not agitated his claim before 2-5-1991, was found to be incorrect and it was in this context that this Court observed that the technical plea of this kind did not behave a party like the Federation of Pakistan to raise in a service matter. In Civil Appeal No, 586 of 1992, the appellant was aggrieved with the order passed in respect of his seniority on 4-11-1984. He filed departmental appeal against the order on 29-11-1984. However, the Tribunal in that case took the view that immediately after filing departmental appeal he should have come to the Service Tribunal within 120 days available to him. This observation of the Tribunal was overruled as the departmental appeal was disposed of on 2-5-1990 and the appeal filed by the appellant before the Tribunal on 30-5-1990 was held to be within time. In the case Chairman, Pakistan Railways, Lahore v. Muhammad Latif and others (1984 SCM R 286), it was agitated before this Court that the respondents in the above-cited case not being party to the case in which the Service Tribunal has laid down the rule for fixation of the seniority, the benefit of that case could not be extended by the Tribunal to the respondents who were not party in that case. Leave was refused in the case with the observation that the benefit could not be denied to respondent on the sole ground that he was not party to the litigation because it was declaratory and the rule of seniority applicable to the establishment and the respondent had sought only correction of the seniority in accordance with the rules. In this case also there was no question of limitation either raised or decided by this Court. The case of Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division v. Bashir Ahmed Khan (PLD 1985 SC 309) relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not of any assistance to the petitioner in the present case. The result of the above discussion is that the order passed by the Federal Service Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed and leave to appeal is refused.