' SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The appellant with the leave of the Court challenges the order of the Federal Service Tribunal whereby his appeal has been dismissed as barred by time.
2. The appellant was appointed as Pharmacist in Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS), Islamabad while respondent No,4 was appointed on 24-3-1986. Thereafter, by Notification dated 27-2-1989 respondent No,4 was appointed on regular basis with effect from 27-3-1986. In August, 1991 respondent was given a current charge of the post of Chief Pharmacist (BPS-18) for a period of three months which was extended for another period of three months and was finally discontinued.
Respondent No,4 made an application that .His current charge should have been given to him because the post of the Chief Pharmacist (BPS-18) was at the strength of Islamabad Hospital, PIMS.
Respondent No,4 filed writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The appellant was also made a party and there on 17-11-1992 he came to know about the notification dated 27-2-1989 which provided for appointment of respondent No,4 as Pharmacist with effect from 27-3-1976. He filed departmental appeal on 15-12-1992 which was not replied and, therefore, he filed appeal before the Tribunal on 13-4-1993. The Tribunal held that as the departmental appeal was time- barred and there was no final order of rejection the appeal filed before the Tribunal was barred by time and the delay was not condoned. Leave was granted to consider whether the appeal was barred by time in view of the observation made by the Tribunal itself.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has brought on record documents to show that the appellant had been agitating against Notification of 27-2-1989 to be forged which bears manipulations. He has also filed a letter which the appellant had written to the Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press, which informed that the notification had not been received in the press for publication. The original Notification dated 27-2-1989 does not seem to have been produced. We have also noticed that the words "with effect from 27-3-1986" seem to have been added afterwards. Be that as it may, the fact remains that since the Notification does not seem to have been brought on record and this fact came to knowledge on 17-11-1992 the departmental appeal having been filed on 15-12-1992 and as no reply was received the appeal filed before Tribunal on 13-4-1993 was within time. In the facts and circumstances of the case the limitation should be computed from the date of knowledge of respondent No,1 about the notification which has regularized the appointment of respondent No,4 with effect from 27-3-1976.
4. Mr. Fazal Elahi Siddigi, the learned counsel for respondent No,4 vehemently argued that respondent No,4 was promoted on 27-8-1981 and thereafter he got the current charge but it was not challenged. The fact remains that as the promotion was based on the notification dated 27-2- 1989 which was not within the knowledge of the appellant as it was not published and particularly as there seems to be interpolations for which an enquiry is going on in the department against respondent No,4 the appellant was justified in initiating the matter and filing appeal as stated above. We allow the appeal and remand the case to the Federal Service Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits.