Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1437 1998 SLD 1437 1998 SCMR 882
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 1266 of 1995, decision dated: 27-03-1998
NASIR ASLAM.ZAHID, MUNAWAR AHMAD MIRZA AND ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

ABDUL WAHID

VS

CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, ISLAMABAD and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)-------S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.212(3)---Leave to appeal was granted to consider, inter alia, the plea of discriminatory treatment meted out to the appellant as compared to another employee of the department. (b) Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--S. 4---Appeal---Aggrieved civil servant does not have unfettered discretion to file representation, appeal or review before the next higher specified Authority, at any time---Line has to be drawn whereafter no representation would be competent or entertainable---Any commission, slackness, negligence without specifying sufficient cause with regard to commencing period of representation contained in S. 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 cannot be easily ignored or overlooked---If original representation was barred by time and aggrieved employee did not disclose sufficient causes for such delay or inability to move Departmental Authority within prescribed period, then no subsequent order or disposal of such incompetent representation/appeal/review could create fresh cause of action or automatically operate to condone delay of limitation in availing the remedy under S. 4 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The aggrieved employee is necessarily required to agitate his grievance before the appropriate Departmental Authority within thirty days. from communication of the order adversely affecting him. Therefore, terminus ad quem has been explicitly mentioned in section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Any delay caused in approaching the appropriate/prescribed Authority or availing the remedy of representation beyond specified period without sufficient cause shall be obviously detrimental. The mandatory provisions of section 4 create express constraints whereby arty employee aggrieved from departmental order affecting his terms and conditions should approach for rectification with greatest promptitude, so that controversy amongst contestants may not prolong or disturb day-to-day working. Seemingly, it is difficult to assume that period of limitation so prescribed would be dependent upon sweet choice of aggrieved person who might wake up from deep slumber at his own…
🔒
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