IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. 
 
 
Mr. Justice Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi 
 
 
Mr. Justice Saiyed Saeed Ashhad 
 
CIVIL PETITION NO.378-L OF 2004 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 12.12.2003 passed by Federal  
Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.514(L)(C.S)/2003) 
 
Muhammad Aslam 
 
 
 
 
 
     …Petitioner   
 
Versus 
 
Water & Power Development Authority etc.  
 
     …Respondents 
 
For the Petitioner:  
 
Mr. Mehboob Azhar Sheikh, ASC  
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondents: 
 
Mr. Faiz-ur-Rehman, AOR  
 
Date of hearing: 
 
 
23.11.2006 
 
ORDER 
 
Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, CJ. - This petition has been filed 
for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 12.12.2003 passed by 
Federal Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No.514(L)(C.S.)/2003. 
2. 
It is to be noted that petitioner has been non-suited firstly for the 
reasons that the appeal filed before the department was barred by time 
and secondly the memo of appeal was not signed by the petitioner in 
terms of Rule 6(F) of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1974.  
3. 
Learned counsel for the petitioner while arguing the case on the 
point that the department appeal was not dismissed on limitation but on 
merits contended that the Tribunal should not have non-suited the 
petitioner on this score as law laid down by this Court in the case of 
Anwarul Haq Vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, 
Establishment Division Islamabad and 13 others (1995 SCMR 1505) 
would not be attracted. It may be noted that we have gone through the 
decision of the departmental authority, according to which the appeal 
filed by him was rejected. Therefore, the presumption would be that it 
has been rejected both on limitation as well as on merits. Besides it is 
CP No.378-L of 2004.doc 
2
well settled in the case Anwarul Haq (supra) that if departmental appeal 
is not file within the statutory period the appeal before the Tribunal 
would not competent. Relevant para is, therefore, reproduced herein 
below: - 
"The learned counsel for the petitioner frankly conceded before us that 
after redesignation of the post he has been performing his official 
functions as Assistant Executive Engineer. The Tribunal was, therefore, 
right in holding that after a lapse of 18 years the relief sought by the 
petitioner for correction of the seniority list was time barred. Reliance 
was also rightly placed by the learned Tribunal on the judgment of this 
Court in the case of Chairman, PIAC v. Nasim Malik (PLD 1990 SC 951) 
that when an appeal before the departmental authority was time-barred, 
the appeal before the Tribunal was also incompetent on that account.” 
3. 
The above view was reiterated by this Court in the cases of (i) Dr. 
Amwar Ali Sahto and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others 
(PLD 2002 SC 101) (ii) State Bank of Pakistan v. Khyber Zaman and 
others (2004 SCMR 1426) and (iii) N.E.D. university of Engineering 
and Technology v. Syed Ashfaq Hussain Shah  (2006 SCMR 453). 
4. 
Since the petitioner has been non-suited for non-filing of the 
appeal within time, therefore, without dilating on other grounds which 
prevailed upon the Tribunal we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal 
in view of the above settled legal position.  
5. 
Thus for the forgoing reasons we see no force in the petition, which 
is dismissed, and leave declined.  
 
Chief Justice 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Islamabad, the 
23rd November, 2006 
Atif/* 
NOT APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
