' AKBAR M. MEMON, MEMBER.----Appellants hereinabove, who were appointed by the respondents as Trainee Engineers, Management Trainees and Meter Readers on different dates, have challenged their order of termination issued on dates shown in below mentioned chart.{{URDU TEXT}} Appeal No, Appellant. Designation Date of appointment Date of termination Date of departmental appeal Whether approached any forum.
251 Rainza Ali T.E 22-6-1995 10-3-1999 252 Bhambro M.T. 30-6-1996 11-2-1999 5-12-200 253 Ved Parkash M.T. 9-5-1996 10-3-1999 254 Zubair. Ahmed Talpur Meter Reader 10-10-1996 26-9-1997 255 . Abdul Rehman Meter Reader 1-9-1996 26-9-1997 256 M. A inal Meter Reader 26-5-1996 26-9-1997 257 M. Ali Khan Meter Reader 30-6-1996 26-9-1997 258 Khan .
Muhammad Meter Reader 6-6-1996 26-9-1997 5-12-2000 High Court 259 Shahzad Zafar Meter Reader 11-6-1995 26-9-1997 260 Abdul Aziz Marr. T.E 19-9-1995 10-3-1999 261 Mehboob All M.T. 8-10-1995 28-10-1997 262 M. Jumman T.E. 4-5-1995 10-3-1999 263 Abdul Hussain T.E. 23-10-1994 28-10-1997 264 M. Sharjeel Mustafa Meter Reader 30-6-1996 26-9-1997 5-12-2000 High Court 265 Gulab sio Ram (hand Meter Reader 30-6-1996 . 26-9-1997 5-12-2000 High Court 266 Khair .
Muhammad T.E. 1-2-1995 10-3-1999
2. Since facts of all these appeals are almost identical, as such, we intend to dispose of the same by this single order.
3. Mr. Muzaffarul Haq, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants, who were appointed in different disciplines on various dates had put in service of more than one year, 3 years and 4 to 5 years and considering their working with the respondents, they ought to have been regularized but instead of doing so, the respondents terminated their services without issuance of show-cause notice, as such, the order of their termination from the face of it appears to be void. He has contended that, no doubt, some of the appellants had filed their departmental appeals and some of them had approached different forums, where contempt application was also moved, but they said contempt application was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. At the same time, he has contended that following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported in 1996 SCM R 1185, when a particular forum viz. Service Tribunal or Supreme Court decides a point of law, relating to the terms of service which covers not only the case of civil servants who litigated, but the same rule is to be followed for others, who had not entered into litigation and considering this rule of law, the present appellants, who had not approached this Tribunal or Supreme Court well within time, be granted the same relief. At the same time, he has contended that in certain cases, the respondents had given undertaking that the incumbents like the present appellants will not be removed from service excepting in due course of law, but the respondent had backed out from their undertaking, as such, this very fact amounts to contempt of Court as has been held in PLD 1976 Lahore 580. Adding further to his arguments, he contended that when the order is void from the face of it, then no limitation would run for which he has placed reliance on 1978 CLR 99. He has also filed photocopy of certain orders passed in Miscellaneous Application No,3583 of 1997 and Constitutional Petition No,136 of 1997, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 17-10-2001. Placing reliance on these authorities and photocopy .Of the orders, he, has contended that all these appeals be admitted so that same be decided on merits.
4. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, we have gone through each appeal file.
5. Perusal of all the appeal files reveal that no doubt some of the appellants had approached Hon'ble High Court; but the termination order in all these appeals was passed in years 1999 and 1997 and full details have been given in above chart in respect of each appellant. No doubt, some of the appellants had filed their departmental appeals, but such departmental appeals were filed after lapse of 632 and 1134 days. At the same time, they did not find it fit to approach this Tribunal well within time. From the chart, referred to above, it would appear that almost all the appellants had filed their respective appeals after a delay of about 632 and 1134 days for which there is no explanation. The memo. Of appeal in all these appeals has been typed in stereotype manner and each appeal makes a mention that the appellant had not approached any other forum, then too, some of the appellants had approached Hon'ble High Court and without giving any justification, it has been argued by the counsel for the appellants that the delay be condoned and the only ground, which has been given in the affidavit annexed with application under section 5 of Limitation Act is that due to property (sic) the appellants could not file their respective appeal before the Tribunal. We are in respectful agreement with the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the appellants, but considering that the facts of appeals of the present appellants are quite distinguishable from those, which appear in the cited authorities we are unable to accept the arguments advanced by Mr. Haq as the cited authority particularly 1996 SCM R 1185 was in respect of person who had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court well within time, but in the instant appeals, the appellants have come after long delay of over 632 and 1134 days when they got up from the deep slumber. In such circumstances, we decline to consider their applications for condonation of delay, which stand rejected.
6. Perusal of the service conditions in respect of the Meter Readers would show that the appellants were appointed specifically by the respondents of their project requirement and it was also mentioned in the appointment letter that the said appointment will automatically stand terminated on completion of the project. These all conditions were accepted by the appellants at the time of joining their assignment. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the order of termination was void ab initio or that the same was bad in law as there was no show-cause notice.
This being the position, we do not think that there is any merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. However, we have already come to the conclusion that the appeals are hopelessly time-barred as such, we decline to admit these appeals, which stands dismissed in limine.