ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN). ---Appellant Bashir Ahmed was enrolled as Labourer in Sta Health Org. Of CMH., Mardan on 1-7-1982. He made an application dated 7-7-1991 wherein he stared that he intends to go to Saudi Arabia where he has sought some job and in his place his brother Mumtaz Khan may be appointed and his entire service of'8 years may be transferred to his credit. This request being not tenable was not responded and accordingly he was discharged from service with effect from 1-2-1992, to which he filed appeal but the same was rejected and he was informed fide letter dated 26-8-1992. He has filed this appeal before the Tribunal on 18-6-1994.
2. Pre-admission notice was issued to the respondents for comments and the appeal was admitted for regular hearing.
3. At the the of regular hearing, the appellant argued the appeal, with the assistance of M/s. Muhammad Rafiq, Lift Operator, Peshawar High Court and one Muhammad Nazir, purportedly to be known as brothers of the appellant. It is submitted that since appellant's request for transfer of service to his brother was not acceded to and he was on duty and had been drawing salary up to 31-1-1992 whereafter he was discharged from service with effect from1-2-1992 without notice and the order is illegal.
4. Mr. M. Javid Aziz Sandhu, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, alongwith the departmental representatives, has taken the objection of limitation that the appeal is hopelessly barred by the and there is no application for condonation of delay, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed on this score alone. On merits, it is submitted that after making application on 7-7-1991, the appellant went away to Saudi Arabia but Col. Aziz continued making payment of his salary to his brother but name in the roll continued to be of the appellant, and the appellant taking advantage of this, has come before the Tribunal with mala fide intention and wants service.
According to Col. Ashraf, the appellant was convicted in Saudi Arabia and was deported and on his return he, with mala fide intention taking advantage of illegality of Col. Aziz filed this appeal.
5. Before adverting to the merits of the case, we have first to determine the point of limitation. In this case, the order of discharge was passed on 1-2-1992 and in case the appellant had any grievance, he was supposed to file departmental appeal within thirty days, according to law, which he made after a period of six months, and in reply he was informed vide letter dated 26-8-1992 that his appeal has been rejected. However, the appeal was not rejected on the point of limitation.
Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the respondents as they had not rejected the appeal as being the-barred. But the admitted position is that the appellate order was passed on 26-8-1992 and under the rules it was incumbent upon him to have come to the Tribunal for redress of his grievance within thirty days, but instead he filed this appeal on 18-6-1994 i.e. After a period of one year and ten months and the appeal is clearly barred by the. From the record it appears that the appellant had been pursuing his remedy with the Hon'ble Wafaqi Mohtasib and the President of Pakistan, whereas his remedy according to law lay before this Tribunal, and this exercise of pursuing remedy was at his own risk and cost. He was informed by the Hon'ble Wafaqi Mohtasib vide letter dated 24-9-1992 that his petition was not maintainable on the point of jurisdiction, therefore, the contention of the appellant that he was not aware of the provisions of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is incorrect. He could have come to this Tribunal after reply of Wafaqi Mohtasib but he did not care and continued making representations here and there and lastly he also made a petition to the President of Pakistan which was forwarded for further action to GHQ and in response thereto the appellant was duly informed by Surgeon-- General, GHQ, vide letter dated 10th February, 1994 that reply had already been given to the President's Secretariat (Public), Islamabad. The appellant has pressed this letter, in aid, for the purpose of limitation but such a letter cannot be deemed to be a final rejection order but it was merely a reply as a result of correspondence between the to departments and cannot come to the rescue of the appellant for commutation of period of limitation. There is specific provision of limitation for filing appeals before the Tribunal in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 and the appellant has not been able to justify such .a long delay to seek condonation. From whatever angle we examine the appeal, it is hopelessly the- barred and even the appellant has also not filed application for condonation of delay. The appeal is hopelessly the-barred, therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we dismiss it on the point of limitation, but with no order as to costs.