Case Details

Citation(s)
1989 SLG 1604 1989 SLD 1604 1989 PLC 857
Service Tribunal, Punjab
Case No. 238 of 1986, decided on 30th November, 1987.
IHSANUL HAQ CHAUDHRY CHAIRMAN, KHAWAJA MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND ABDUL RASHID, MEMBERS
Ch. Riaz Ahmad for Appellant. Sh. Pervaiz Alamgir for
Respondents.

BABU KHAN

VS

CHAIRMAN, WAPDA and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Civil service-- --- Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4--Civil servant's claim for ante­dating promotion--Time-barred appeal--Condonation of delay--Extension of time--Delay in filing appeal condoned and appeal admitted to regular hearing for the reason that civil servant's previous appeal before Tribunal was wrongly rejected on misconception that Tribunal was incompetent to hear the same-­Because of such misconception, allowance for the time taken before Federal Service Tribunal was also given to civil servant--Time was thus extended in the ends of justice. (b) Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974)-------- ---S. 8--Punjab Service Tribunals Act (IX of 1974), S. 4--Claim for ante-dated promotion--Entitlement--Civil servant being required to perform the duties of higher post, was entitled to the pay of higher post with effect from specified date-­Civil servant was also entitled to count his service in BPS-18 towards increments in that scale because he did not suffer from any ineligibility or deficiency--Civil servant thus was allowed BPS-18 with effect from specified date and also the increments in that scale--Civil servant's appeal for ante-dating promotion however, was dismissed. 1986 S C M R 991 re1. JUDGMENT CH. ABDUL RASHID (MEMBER).--This is an appeal filed by Mr. Babu Khan, Deputy Director (Retired) for ante-dating his promotion as Senior Officer (Administration) in NPS-18 with effect from 29-1-1977 instead of 7-6-1978. He has made the WAPDA through General Manager (Administration), WAPDA, Lahore as respondent No. 1 and Secretary, Irrigation and Power, Punjab Government as respondent No. 2. The appeal was filed on 13-3-1986 and admitted to regular hearing on 10-9-1986. The respondent No. 1 has contested the same. The respondent No. 2 neither filed written statement nor contested the case. 2. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has raised the point that the appeal is barred by limitation. We have examined the point. The appellant earlier filed appeal No. 203 of 1984 before this Tribunal on 10-3-1984 against the impugned order dated 27-2-1984 which was within time. This Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide order dated 29-3-1984 for…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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