' NOOR MUHAMMAD MAGSI (MEMBER).---Since both the Appeals Nos. 568(R) and 569(R) of 1994, are similar and identical, these appeals are disposed of by this consolidated order.
2. The appellants M/s. Syed Afzal Hussain Shah and Abdul Qadeer, were employees of Airport Security Force. They were discharged from service by similar order dated 28-3-1987 under Pakistan Army Act Rules 12 II(III) being unsuitable for further Airport Security Service on account of maintaining/having contacts with smugglers. They filed departmental appeals for re-instatement in service but received no response from the appellate authority. Then they were approaching Defence Minister and Prime Minister, but of no avail. After this they approached to Wafaqi Mohtasib, but their complaint was turned down on 26-3-1987 due to lack of jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mohtasib in service matters. Then they filed writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. According to learned counsel for the appellants, the same was returned by the High Court vide order dated 20-11-1994 for presenting it before the Service Tribunal. Hence these appeals before the Service Tribunal on 26-12-1994.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants argued the case. After going through the arguments and record, we found that the appeals are hopelessly time-barred. By way of these appeals, the learned counsel wants us to set aside the impugned orders passed long before i,e, on 28-3-1987. In the application for condonation of delay, it has been stated that the appellants filed writ petitions before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, because prior to 1993, it was not clear as to which particular rules govern the services of employees of A.S.F. The position was only clarified by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case titled as Fasihuddin v. Khawar Latif Butt and others (1993 SCM R 1), whereby the employees of A.S.F. Were deemed to be governed by Government Servants (E&D)
Rules, 1973. Therefore, the writ petitions were returned by the Lahore High Court vide order dated 20-11-1994 for presenting it before the Service Tribunal. The learned counsel submitted that there is no delay in filing the appeal because writ 'petition was pending in the High Court and soon after when it was returned by the High Court, the appellants approached this honourable Tribunal within 30 days of that order. The plea of the appellants' counsel is not tenable because the petition was not returned by the High Court but it was on the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellants, the petition was returned. For the sake of arguments, if there were no specific rules prior to 1993, but when it was cleared, according to learned counsel, by the Supreme Court in 1993, the appellant must have cows to this Tribunal at that time, but they failed to do so. Pursuing remedy in wrong forum is no excuse for condonation of delay. Further the appellants did not produce copy of their writ petition before the High Court to prove when they approached the High Court, nor their counsel has stated anything during the course of arguments that when they had filed writ petition in the High Court. Each and every day of delay is to be explained. As such we see A no substance in the condonation application, which is rejected. The claim of the appellants cannot be entertained at this belated stage. In view of Supreme Court's decision reported in 1987 SCM R 92, when an appeal is clearly time-barred, there is no need to go into the merit of the case.
4. For the foregoing reasons, both the appeals are dismissed in limine as time-barred.