| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2026 SLG 4325 = 2026 SLD 4325 = 2026 SCP 240 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petitions No. 352, 353, 355 and 356 of 2026 [Against judgment dated 05.11.2025 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal Nos. 856(R)CS/2022, 713(R)CS/2022 to 715(R)CS/2022]
Presented By: Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi, CJ Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui Mr. Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb
Ms. Saira Laique, Registrar, Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
Civil Petitions No. 352, 353, 355 and 356 of 2026 [Against judgment dated 05.11.2025 of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad passed in Appeal Nos. 856(R)CS/2022, 713(R)CS/2022 to 715(R)CS/2022]
Presented By: Mr. Justice Yahya Afridi, CJ Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui Mr. Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb
Ms. Saira Laique, Registrar, Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
The Director General, Federal Directorate of Education, Islamabad. [In all cases] … Petitioner
VERSUS
Ms. Sajida Anjum and others. [In CP No.352/26] Sheikh Shahid Pervaiz and others. [In CP No.353/26] Muhammad Afzal Zia. [In CP No.355/26] Pervaiz Akhtar and others. [In CP No.356/26] … Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 212(3)
Law: Limitation Act, 1908
Section: 12,5
Law: Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974
Section: 21(1),21(2)
Law: General Clauses Act, 1897
Section: 27
Summary The Supreme Court dismissed Civil Petitions Nos. 352, 353, 355, and 356 of 2026 filed by a government department against a Federal Service Tribunal judgment that had restored employees' BPS-17 promotions with effect from 02.01.2011. The Court held that while limitation for Article 212(3) petitions against Federal Service Tribunal judgments runs from the date of communication of the signed judgment under Rule 21 of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules, 1974 (when no formal announcement occurs), the petitions were still filed beyond the 60-day limitation period. The Court refused to condone the delay, ruling that internal administrative procedures and bureaucratic processes do not constitute "sufficient cause" for extending limitation, as government departments are bound by the same limitation rules as ordinary litigants. Core Points Petitions filed under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against Federal Service Tribunal judgment dated 05.11.2025 Respondents (employees) granted Time Scale Promotion from BPS-16 to BPS-17 w.e.f. 02.01.2011 via Notification dated 25.04.2013 Accountant General withheld revised pay slips; later notification dated 05.07.2017 altered effective date to 01.01.2016 Federal Service Tribunal allowed respondents' appeals and directed restoration of original benefit (judgment dated 05.11.2025) Petitions instituted on 19.01.2026; office objection raised regarding 60-day limitation period Court held limitation commences from date of communication/dispatch of signed judgment under Rule 21 when no formal announcement occurs Even computing from dispatch date (19.11.2025), petitions filed on 19.01.2026 remained beyond limitation Condonation of delay refused: internal administrative procedures, file movements, and approval processes do not constitute 'sufficient cause' Government departments bound by same limitation rules as ordinary litigants; no special privilege granted Applications for condonation dismissed; petitions dismissed as time-barred Law and section Law/Provision Section/Rule Key Principle/Holding Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 Article 212(3) Confers right of appeal to Supreme…