' ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN).---The relevant facts of this appeal are that the appellant Mr. Zafar Ahmed is presently working as Member (Finance), Pakistan Science Foundation, Islamabad. He was inducted in the Secretariat Group in BPS-19 as Deputy Secretary vide Notification dated 8-9-1983 and he joined as such on 14-9-1983: In April, 1989, the Establishment Division circulated a provisional seniority list of the officers of Secretariat Group wherein the name of appellant was shown at S.No, 53 of BPS-19 Officers. He made representation against that list claiming his seniority from 28-3-1978, the date of his continuous officiation in BPS-19 in the earlier department. He did not receive any reply. He also did not pursue the matter because of disciplinary proceedings pending against him, and as well as the serious illness of his wife; and further also that in the gradation lists issued in 1989, 1990, 1991 and 1993, certain officers who were appointed after the appointment of the appellant, and had been promoted as Joint Secretary (B-20) were shown junior to him, and as such he had no grievance to agitate. In the meanwhile, the appellant had been promoted as Joint Secretary (B-20) on 1-11-1990, and in the gradation list of BPS-20 Officers of the Secretariat Group, issued in 1993, his name appeared at S.No,
164. The Establishment Division on 28-8-1994 issued another Gradation List of BPS-20 officers of the Secretariat Group as on 1-7-1994, and invited objections, and in this list the name of the appellant appeared at S.No, 153 of BPS-20 Officers and the name of the respondents appeared above his name. Being aggrieved, he made representation on 13-9-1994 which remained unresponded. He then filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 4-1-1995 with the prayer that the Establishment Division may be directed to refix his seniority as Deputy Secretary in the Secretariat Group from the date of his continuous officiation in B-19, viz. 28-3-1978 as such relief has already been extended to Dr. Aleem Mahmood, Dr. Abdul Hamid Qureshi, M/s. S. Ibrahim Shah and Abdul Razzaq Khan.
2. We have heard Mr. SA.M. Wahidi, the Advocate appearing for the appellant at length, and his attention was invited to the legal objection of limitation raised by the respondent-department, particularly when cause of action arose to the appellant in 1989 when the seniority list of officers of the Secretariat Group was issued. He argued that the appellant has impugned the seniority list issued in 1994 to which objections were invited and after the expiry of 90 days waiting period, he has filed this appeal which is in time.
3. Before adverting to the merits of the case, we would like to dispose of the legal objection of limitation raised by the respondent Government first, as to whether after 11 years we can revert back to the position of his seniority as Deputy Secretary i.e, from 1978 and upset the entire service structure of the officers of the Secretariat Group as the appellant failed to come before this Tribunal within time. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not in consonance with the factual position of the case as the appellant is presently working in BPS-20 and his seniority could only be determined when position is taken back to the seniority of BPS-19 officers, therefore, the limitation starts from the first seniority list issued, as stated by the appellant in the memo. Of appeal, in 1989, which he did challenge, but did not file appeal before the Tribunal.
Reliance is being placed by the appellant on the judgments of this Tribunal in the cases of Dr. Aleem Mahmood, Dr. Abdul Hamid Qureshi, M/s. S. Ibrahim Shah and Abdul Razzaq Khan, but the fact is that those persons approached the Tribunal in time and got the benefit, but the case of the appellant is not on that footing. It may be pointed out that seniority lists are being issued from time to time and objection% are invited, but this cannot give condonation of delay for going back to the position of years and years back whenever there is any wrong in the new seniority list and it cannot give condonation and in our view, the contention of the appellant is misconceived. Moreover, it was known to the appellant that the above-named officers, relied upon by the appellant, had challenged their seniority before this Tribunal, and it was proper for the appellant to have come to the Tribunal in accordance with law. It may also be mentioned here that after the pronouncement of the Judgment in Dr.Aleem Mahmood's case and others, other officers also rushed to this Tribunal, and in the service appeal filed by Mr. Pervez Ijaz Sheikh (Appeal No,406 (R) of 1993) took exception and dismissed the appeal on the point of limitation. And one of the grounds was that the Tribunal cannot open the pandora box when there were specific provisions in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 for the aggrieved civil servants for bringing their grievances before it, within the specified limit. For the sake of arguments, if this appeal is allowed, then we will be ignoring all the provisions of law, and we are sorry, that we cannot do. The petitioner in Appeal No,406(R) of 1993, Mr. Pervez Ijaz Sheikh challenged the judgment of the Tribunal before the Supreme Court in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,145 of 1994, and the Hon`ble Supreme Court dealt with the matter at length and observed as under, the case is reported in 1994 SCM R 1523: "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 of 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 of 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, which 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 with in 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 found 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."
' We also rely on 1994 SCM R 1033 (Muhammad Arshad Saeed, D.I.-G. v. Secretary, Establishment Division and others) wherein it has been held that even a void order is to be challenged before the Tribunal within the specified time limit provided by law and plea that no limitation runs against a void order has been repelled.
4. In view of the Supreme Court authoritative judgments, as referred to above, we are sorry we cannot accept the contention of the appellant for restoration of his seniority as Deputy Secretary (B-19) in the Secretariat Group with effect from 1978 and demolish the service structure built right from 1989 and even onwards. The appeal is patently time-barred. It is also pertinent to mention here that the appellant has not filed any application for condonation of delay. The result is that the appeal fails on the point of limitation and is accordingly dismissed with costs.