1. ' AFTAB AHMED (MEMBER).---Umer Wahid appellant was appointed as Statistical (Yfficer B-17 in the Central Board of Revenue in the year 1988. Later in pursuance of some advertisement and interviews held by the Federal. Public Service Commission, the appellant was offered the post of Deputy Director B-18 by the Central Board of Revenue vide their letter dated 19-5-1992 and the appellant joined the Revenue Board with effect from 20-5-1992 vide Notification dated 23-5-1992.
2. In May, 1993, a provisional seniority list of Deputy Directors in the Office of Directorate of Research and Statistics was circulated. The appellant was placed at Serial No,3 of the list. It' is said that the appellant had no grievance against the seniority position but had objections on the observations mentioned in the remarks column. The observations are reproduced hereunder for reference sake : "Nominated by F.P.S.C. Against a lien post of Mr. Talib Hussain."
3. ' Accordingly the appellant filed a representation against the remarks/observations with the Secretary, Central Board of Revenue on 9-6-1993. The application is reproduced hereunder for reference:-- "The Second Secretary, (Administration I) Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad.
4. Sub: PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF DEPUTY DIRECTORS, DIRECTORATE OF RESEARCH AND. STATISTICS.
5. ' Kindly refer your Letter No,15(35)-Admn./81, dated 23rd May, 1993 on the above subject. I have no objection on the seniority of the Deputy Directors, but my date of appointment as Deputy Director is May 20, 1993 instead of May 23, 1993 which may be corrected. Secondly, the remarks ' Nominated by F.P.S.C. Against a lien post of Mr. Talib Hussain' may be deleted as no such condition has been mentioned in the Letter of Offer No,20(1)Admn/79, dated May, 1992 (Copy enclosed) as well as in the Notification No,81-HQE/92, dated May 23, 1993 (copy enclosed).
6. (Sd.)
7. (UMER WAH1D), Deputy Director 9-6-1993."
8. ' Since the appellant did not receive any reply to his representation 'dated 9-6-1993, he submitted a reminder to the Member (Admn.), C.B.R. On 4-10-1993. Another petition was filed by the appellant with the Chairman, C.B.R. On 27-12-1994 which was replied to by C.B.R. Vide their memo. Dated 19-3- 1994. Yet another petition was filed by the appellant on 17-10-1994 with the Secretary (Admn.), C.B.R.
9. Seeking finalization of the seniority' list. Thereafter, on 26-12-1994 the appellant filed an application with the Secretary, Establishment Division, requesting that the applicant's appointment as Deputy Director be treated/declared as regular one. Since no reply was received from the Establishment Division to application dated 26-12-1994, the present appeal was filed with the Tribunal on 18-4- 1995 after the expiry of statutory waiting period with the prayer that the observation given in the provisional seniority list dated 23-5-1993 may be set aside and the appellant be declared to be appointed as Deputy Director against a clear vacancy.
2. At the time of preliminary hearing, Sheikh Riaz-ul-Haq, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant could not satisfy us with regard to the limitation. According to him, aggrieved by memo.
10. Dated 19-3-1994, the appellant filed an .Application which was said to be a departmental appeal with the Secretary, Establishment Division on 26-12-1994 and had come to the Tribunal on 18-4- 1995 after having received no reply to the said departmental appeal/application.
3. We have examined the record. The observations/remarks of the C.B.R. As to the nomination of the appellant by Federal Public Service. Commission against a lien post admittedly appeared for the first time in the provisional seniority list dated 23-5-1993. The appellant represented against the remarks frankly stating that he had no objection on the seniority position but had objection to the observations given in the remarks column and that the same should be deleted. It appears that no reply was given to the appellant by the C.B.R. To his application dated 9-6-1993. Since he had no grievance regarding seniority, he was not to wait for the finalization of the seniority list and should have approached the Tribunal within 30 days of the expiry of statutory waiting period of 90 days from 9-6-1993. He, however, kept on making application to various authorities in the C.B.R. Pressing to finalize the seniority list to which he had admittedly no grievance. The record shows that a reply was given to him by the C.B.R. Vide Memo. Dated 19-3-1994 but the appellant instead of coming to the Tribunal still chose to file a petition with the Secretary (Admn.), C.B.R. On 17-10-1994 and another one with the Secretary, Establishment Division on 26-12-1994 i,e, after about nine months of the departmental reply. The repeated applications/representations would, however, not extend the period of limitation which expired somewhere in October, 1993 because he had no grievance against the seniority position and was supposed to approach the Tribunal within the tithe prescribed by law against the so-called observations/remarks, if he was at all aggrieved by it. He did not come to the Tribunal even on receipt of the departmental reply, dated 19-3-1994 and again filed a belated petition with the Secretary, Establishment Division on 26-12-1994. This petition was also time-barred because; for arguments sake 'only, appeal to the departmental authority if any should have been filed within 30 days .Of the communication/receipt of the departmental reply.
11. From whatever angle we, may see to it, the appeal is hopelessly time-barred and is accordingly dismissed in limine. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.