' MUHAMMAD RAZA KHAN (MEMBER).---The appellant is practically aggrieved by order dated 15-1- 1981 whereby the private respondents Nos,3 to 6 were promoted as Senior Drilling Engineer to B-18 and the appellant was not promoted. However, he has been promoted to the said post on 13-3- 1996 and thereafter he filed a departmental appeal on 8-5-1996 which has been rejected by the department on 23-6-1997. It appears that thereafter the appellant submitted another appeal to respondent No,1, which was withheld by the department as intimated on 22-7-1997 and all these orders dated 15-1-1981, 23-6-1997 and 22-7-1997 have been challenged by the appellant in the present service appeal filed on 13-9-1997 asking for antedation of his promotion to 1981 the date when his juniors were promoted.
2. The official as well as the private respondents contested the appeal. Separate written objections have been filed. We have listened to the appellant in person and private respondents in person and the learned standing counsel for the department assisted by the departmental representative.
3. The appellant and the private respondents admittedly joined the service in the Geological Survey of Pakistan on 1-6-1966 as a Class-II service. Later on there had been promotions and selections in 1974. In 1966 the appellant was senior to the rest of the colleagues but in 1974 and thereafter certain steps were taken and some of the respondents were selected by the Commission against a particular quota of reserved seats whereas others were deprived due to non-availability of such seats. However, with the passage of time the parties got their promotion as Drilling Engineer and in the meanwhile the appellant proceeded abroad in 1979. He returned in 1984 and when he found that the private respondents have been promoted in 1981, he allegedly agitated the issue but with no result. He again went on deputation in 1986 to Nigeria and returned back in 1988. During this period he demanded his promotion out verbally and he was allegedly informed verbally that his case for promotion will be considered after the completion of study by the Management Services Division. Ultimately he was promoted on 13-3-1996 which is to be agitated as stated hereinbefore.
4. The private respondents had their arguments against the appellant as well as the other private respondents. However, the arguments of the private respondents will be required only if the appellant satisfies the competency of his appeal on legal and factual ground.
5. The question of limitation is of immense importance. In this case the impugned order was passed in 1981 and the same cannot be challenged in 1997 after the expiry of 16 years when there is no evidence of any representation or departmental appeal addressed to the department within the prescribed period from the date of the order or at least from the date of knowledge. So far as the department is concerned, the appellant would certainly count limitation from the date of rejection of his departmental appeal though belated. However, with regard to the rights of the private respondents, time cannot be extended indefinitely because with the passage of time valuable rights have been accrued to the private respondents which could not be denied to them without any fault on their part. Hence we have to hold that the appeal was seriously hit by the period of limitation prescribed in section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, particularly when there is no cause to ignore or condone the delay with regard to the rights accrued to the private respondents.
6. The contention of the appellant is that from 1981 to 1996 he could not ask for his seniority or antedation of his promotion unless he was actually promoted to the higher post whereafter he can legally claim for antedation. As stated hereinabove the question of seniority and antedation of promotion are interlinked. If seniority of a person was not challenged and after the passage of several years the incumbents of the senior posts get their right to the said posts and they could not be relegated to junior position thereafter. However, the request for antedation of promotion can be considered from the said date for the purpose of pay, length of service etc. But without agitating the seniority position of the private respondents.
7. Even if it is presumed that the cause of action asking for antedation of promotion to 1981 was accrued in 1996 even then 'the appellant, was required to have filed departmental appeal within 30 days of the accrual of cause of action i,e, the -date of promotion being 13-3-1996 and should have filed appeal to the Tribunal after 90 days of such departmental appeal. The first appeal is said to have been filed on 8-5-1996 for which there is no proof that the appellant represented against the promotion of the respondents. The only appeal which is available on record is the one dated 12-6- 1997 which has already been rejected on 23-6-1997. In this view the appeal of 12-6-1997 or even that of 8-5-1996 was beyond the prescribed period of 30 days from 13-3-1996 the date of promotion. Hence the departmental appeal was belated and consequently all the further steps become incompetent.
8. Even otherwise the rejection of the departmental appeal was conveyed on 23-6-1997 and since there is only one provision of departmental appeal, therefore, there was no occasion for filing an appeal on 24-6-1997 to the next higher authority. However, the appellant had filed the second appeal on 24-6-1997 which has also been withheld as communicated on 22-7-1997. Even if 22-7- 1997 is presumed to be the date of rejection of a departmental appeal on merit, the service appeal should have been filed within 30 days thereafter, whereas the appellant has filed appeal on 13-9- 1997 i,e, at least 20 days beyond the limitation period. Hence the appeal is hit by principle of limitation from every angle and there is no application for condonation of delay nor there is any justification to condone the delay. Hence such huge laches cannot be overlooked. Even on merit, the appellant had been informed by the department in 1981 vide two separate letters that the case of promotion of officers to next higher grade was under process and he should report back if he was so interested in his promotion and despite despatch of such letters/notices, the appellant did not report back to the department. When he reported back he was duly promoted and was placed on the seniority already occupied by him. Despite the unimbiguous stand taken by the department in written objection, the appellant has not cared to rejoin the department and promotion could not be made of a person who was not serving the department at that time when such promotions were being considered. Even otherwise the appellant was not on deputation in 1981 in the interest of the department or the country so that he could have been recalled for consideration of promotion.
He was on extraordinary leave without pay and in such a situation the department was not obliged to have. Recalled him and when he was recalled he did not bother to report back. Thus the appellant is estopped to turn a round after 15 years, and demand for benefits which were intentionally bypassed earlier.
9. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any force in the present appeal, which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties be informed.