| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2023 SLG 1374 2023 SLD 1374 2023 SCMR 866 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition No. 3287 of 2019, decided on 18th August, 2022. Date of hearing: 18th August, 2022. (Against judgment Dated 25.07.2019 of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed In Appeal No.388(P)CS of 2019)
Present: Umar Ata Bandial, C.J., Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Zia ur Rehman Tajik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nasir Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents.
Civil Petition No. 3287 of 2019, decided on 18th August, 2022. Date of hearing: 18th August, 2022. (Against judgment Dated 25.07.2019 of Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad, passed In Appeal No.388(P)CS of 2019)
Present: Umar Ata Bandial, C.J., Ijaz Ul Ahsan and Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi, JJ
Zia ur Rehman Tajik, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nasir Mehmood, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents.
KIRAMAT KHAN---Petitioner
VERSUS
IG, FRONTIER CORPS and others-----Respondents
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 14
Law: Service Tribunals Act, 1973
Section: 4
(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)--- ----S. 14---Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Court without jurisdiction---Scope---In order to avail the benefit of section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908 it is imperative that a litigant seeking benefit of the said provision must show that he was prosecuting his remedy with due diligence and in good faith in a Court which from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature is unable to entertain it---Material words are due diligence and good faith in prosecuting a remedy before a wrong forum---Term due diligence entails that a person takes such care as a reasonable person would take in deciding on a forum to approach. (b) Frontier Corps Ordinance (XXVI of 1959)--- ----Preamble---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S. 4---Service Tribunal, jurisdiction of---Employees of the Frontier Corps---Such employees shall be governed under the provisions of Frontier Corps Ordinance, 1959 and for the limited purpose would enjoy the status of civil servants---As such, they could avail their remedies before the (Service) Tribunal for redressal of their grievances. IG, HQ Frontier Corps v. Ghulam Hussain 2004 SCMR 1397 and Commandant, Frontier Constabulary v. Gul Raqib Khan 2018 SCMR 903 ref. (c) Limitation--- ----Void order---Limitation would run even against a void order and an aggrieved party must approach the competent forum for redressal of his grievance within the period of limitation provided by law. Parvez Musharraf v. Nadeem Ahmed (Advocate) PLD 2014 SC 585; Muhammad Sharif v. MCB Bank Limited 2021 SCMR 1158 and Wajdad v. Provincial Government 2020 SCMR 2046 ref. ORDER IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad (the Tribunal) dated 25.07.2019. Through the impugned judgment, Appeal No.388(P)CS of 2019 filed by the petitioner was dismissed in limine having been found to be barred by time. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was working with Khyber Rifles in the rank of Naik. On 26.07.2017, he was performing his duty as Signal Operator at Shaheed More Check Post, Torkham when a person named Amir Din son of Tikka…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492