' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---By this common judgment we intend to dispose of above two petitions as they involve identical points of law on the question of limitation. The above petitions are directed against two orders both, dated 20-7-1998 passed by the Sindh Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeals Nos.79 of 1998 and 80 of 1998, dismissing the petitioners above appeals on the ground that the same were time-barred.
2. The brief facts are that both the petitioners have been working as . S.L.T. And H.S.T. In the High Schools, Government of Sindh, Karachi. They considered themselves qualified and eligible to be considered for promotion against the posts of Headmaster, subject specialist and S.D.E.O. Treating at par with the high school teachers, according to recruitment rules against 75% promotion quota.
The petitioners filed departmental representation, which were rejected on 21-11-1997, whereupon they filed departmental appeals, dated 18-12-1997. Since the above appeals remained pending, they filed above Service Appeals before the Tribunal within 90 days of the filing of the above departmental appeals but the same have been declined on the ground that they were filed after the expiry of 142 days instead of 120 days from the original order, dated 21-11-1997. The petitioners have therefore, filed the present petitions for leave to appeal.
' Earlier the above petitions have come up for hearing on 22-1-1999, when we issued the notice to the learned Advocate-General, Sindh on behalf of the Government and as amicus curiae to Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate for today.
3. Mr. Abdus Sattar Mughal, Advocate, has appeared for the petitioners with the special permission of the Court as he has not yet been enrolled. Mr. Salim Samo, learned Additional Advocate-General has put in appearance on behalf of the Provincial Government, whereas Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate has appeared as amicus curiae.
4. Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, Advocate has referred to the following judgments:--
(1) Muhammad Siddique v. Mian Amir Khisro and 2 others (1985 SCMR 1848).
(2) Fazal Elahi Siddiqui v. Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others (PLD 1990 SC 692).
(3) Federation of Pakistan v. Muhammad Azim Khan and others (1989 SCMR 1271).
(4) Syed Shamshad Hussain v. The Controller of Post Offices, Karachi and 2 others (PLD 1987 SC 256).
(5) Shabir Ahmed v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government through its Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and another (1997 PLC (C.S.) 478) (Supreme Court (AJ&K)).
(6) Rehmat Ullah Zia v. Aziz-ud-Din Qureshi and others (1998 PLC (C.S.) 132) SC (AJ&K)).
In the above first four reports which contain the judgments of this Court it has been held that the appeal must be filed within 30 days from the expiry of waiting period of 90 days i.e. a clear period of 120 days for filing appeal before the Tribunal is available to a civil servant. The above view has been followed in the above last two reports which relate to the judgments of the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
5. In view of the above legal position, if we were to compute the period of 120 days from the date of filing of departmental appeal i.e. 18-12-1997 the appeals would be within 120 days as the same were filed on 14-4-1998. In this view of the matter, Mr. Salim Samo, learned Additional Advocate-General appearing for the Provincial Government has conceded that the above petitions are fit to be remanded to the Tribunal.
6. We, therefore, convert the above petitions into appeal and by consent remand the case to the Tribunal with the direction to decide the above two cases.