| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1994 SLG 361 1994 SLD 361 1994 PLC 589 |
Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad
Appeal No. 123(K) of 1993; decided on 9-12-1993
ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD ISMAIL, MEMBER
S. Mushtaq Hussain for Appellant. Niaz Ahmad Khan, Standing Counsel for
Respondents.
Appeal No. 123(K) of 1993; decided on 9-12-1993
ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM, CHAIRMAN AND MUHAMMAD ISMAIL, MEMBER
S. Mushtaq Hussain for Appellant. Niaz Ahmad Khan, Standing Counsel for
Respondents.
MUKHTAR AHMED
VS
SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and another
Law:
Section:
(a) Civil Servants Act (LXXI of 1973)Ss. 4 & 22AppealMaintainabilityCivil servant made representation with regard to reckoning seniority first time after about seventeen years from accrual of cause of action to him and filed appeal after about one year from rejection of his representation and about eighteen years of accrual of cause of actionNo application for condonation of delay was filed by civil servantSuch representation and appeal were rightly dismissed being timebarred and such inordinate delay could not be condoned when even application for condonation was not filed. Kadir Bux v. Province of Sindh 1982 SCMR 582 ref. (b) Civil service SeniorityCivil servant who joined service as Inspector, was to be promoted as Assistant Incometax Officer (A.I.T.O.) after passing departmental examination within prescribed period of two years from his appointmentSuch person had failed to appear in that examination within prescribed period and had passed that examination after about ten years of his appointmentOther civil servants who though were junior to said civil servant had passed examination within prescribed period of two years and were promoted as A.I.T.O. prior to himCivil servant, in circumstances, had lost his seniority in comparison to his colleagues and could not compete with them as they had passed required examination earlier. Muhammad Nabi v. Secretary, Establishment Division 1991 SCMR 1872 ref. JUDGMENT ABDUL RAZZAQ A. THAHIM (CHAIRMAN). The facts of this appeal are that , the appellant Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed joined as Inspector, Incometax on 2311965. He qualified the departmental examination held in April 1975 and was promoted as Assistant Incometax Officer (AITO) on 2581981. In the meantime, the CBR vide Notification dated 611982 promoted 54 Inspectors as AITOs with retrospective effect, but in the said Notification the name of the appellant was not included. The appellant made representation on 2021982 that his seniority may be reckoned with the batch who were promoted earlier vide CBR Notification dated 1971975 as their services were regularised. Subsequently, the CBR revised its earlier Notification dated 611982 by its Notification dated 2361986…
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