Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 199, 212(2) & 13---Writ jurisdiction despite Art. 212(2) bar---Order directing de-novo inquiry not a “final order” relating to terms and conditions; High Court’s jurisdiction under Art. 199 not ousted---Initiating a second/de-novo inquiry on identical charges after a lawful exoneration violates Art. 13 (double jeopardy) and the rule that no one be vexed twice for the same cause. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Tariq Saeed v. Government of the Punjab, 2022 LHC (relied upon for maintainability where only an inquiry is ordered) • Sayyed Saeed Hussain Shah v. Province of Punjab 1981 PLC 297 • Muhammad Yar Buttar v. Board of Governors, OPF 1999 SCMR 819 (b) Balochistan Employees’ Efficiency and Discipline Act, 2011 ----Ss. 13(6) & 17(7)---Scope of de-novo inquiry and revisional powers---Where, pursuant to Supreme Court’s directions, a regular inquiry has been conducted, recommendations accepted by the competent authority, and the civil servant reinstated, a subsequent statement of allegations on the same charges under S. 13(6) is void ab initio; departmental reliance on S. 17(7) cannot override finality of prior exoneration. (c) Fundamental Rules ----FR-54 (Section-I, Chapter-VIII), cl. (a)---Back benefits on reinstatement---Entitlement to arrears, seniority, and related service benefits must be examined under FR-54 by the competent authority/committee; inquiry limited to quantum and conditions of back benefits (including mitigation for outside earnings), not to re-opening concluded misconduct charges. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Bashir v. Government of Punjab 1994 SCMR 1801 (guidelines for FR-54 determination and committee process) (d) Service law—effect of earlier Supreme Court order and departmental exoneration ----De-novo inquiry after exoneration---Pursuant to Supreme Court’s order dated 12-02-2018 in CP No. 169-Q/2012, a regular inquiry was held and the petitioner was exonerated; recommendations accepted and petitioner reinstated vide notifications dated 17-07-2019 and 01-08-2019---Issuance of fresh statement of allegations on identical facts is unlawful and contrary to final departmental adjudication. Cited Cases: • Director-General (Field), Agriculture Dept., Lahore v. Haji Abdul Rehman, PLD/SC (principle against being vexed twice affirmed) Disposition --- Constitution petition partly allowed. Statement of allegations/de-novo inquiry dated 31-08-2022 under S. 13(6) of BEEDA, 2011 set aside. Competent authority directed to process petitioner’s claim for back benefits strictly under FR-54 and in light of Muhammad Bashir (1994 SCMR 1801). Order accordingly.

Summary: (a) Service Law – Proforma Promotion – Principles and Entitlement---Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, R. 13(i)---Punjab Subordinate Judiciary---Proforma promotion---Right of consideration---Appellant was terminated in 2004 but later reinstated in service in 2014 with back benefits and continuity of service---His junior was promoted as Senior Civil Judge in 2013, whereas he was promoted in 2019 after clearance of adverse reports---Held, once all impediments to promotion had been removed and appellant was deemed continuously in service, he was entitled to consideration for promotion from the date his junior was promoted---Failure to grant such relief would amount to unfair treatment and denial of legitimate career progression---Reliance placed on Abdul Jabbar Khan v. Government of Sindh (1996 SCMR 850), Chief Secretary, Sindh v. Riaz Ahmed Massan (2016 SCMR 1784), and Nazir Ahmed Langah v. Lahore High Court, Lahore (2024 PLC (C.S.) 1566).(b) Administrative Law – Officiating Promotion – Effect on Proforma Promotion---Officiating promotion v. regular promotion---Whether officiating promotion precludes a civil servant from claiming proforma promotion---Held, an officiating promotion, if made in accordance with eligibility criteria and not rescinded later, does not permanently preclude a civil servant from receiving proforma promotion if his junior was promoted to a substantive post---Respondents failed to show that the junior’s promotion was not made against a regular vacancy, thus the appellant’s claim was valid---Reliance placed on Secretary to Government of Punjab, Communication and Works Department v. Muhammad Khalid Usmani [2017 PLC (C.S.) 373].(c) Service Law – Limitation – Joinder of Necessary Parties---Limitation Act, 1908, S. 22---Whether an appeal is barred due to impleading necessary parties at a later stage---Held, if an appeal is filed in time against the primary department, subsequent joinder of necessary parties does not render the entire appeal time-barred---Where administrative inefficiency or procedural delays cause a civil servant to be deprived of his rightful claim, he cannot be non-suited merely due to a technical procedural lapse---Reliance placed on Messrs Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2020 SC 641) and Chami Narayanan v. V.R. Krishna Iyer (AIR 1998 Kerala 365).(d) Administrative Justice – Doctrine of Bona Fide Mistake – Effect on Procedural Compliance---Principle Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (an act alone does not make one liable unless there is wrongful intent)---Bona fide mistakes in procedural matters such as misjoinder or non-joinder of parties should not hinder substantive justice---Held, where an appellant makes a genuine procedural mistake without mala fide intent, courts should prioritize substantive justice over technicalities---Reliance placed on Pitt v. Holt [(2013) UKSC 26], Barclays Bank Ltd v. W J Simms, Son and Cooke (Southern) Ltd [(1980) QB 677], and Guruvayya v. Dattatraya [(1903) ILR 28 Bom. 11].(e) Fundamental Rights – Fair Treatment in Service Matters---Right to equal opportunity in service progression---Failure to consider a civil servant for proforma promotion despite removal of adverse remarks constitutes denial of fair treatment and violates principles of equality and justice---Reliance placed on Federation of Pakistan v. Jahanzeb [2023 PLC (C.S.) 336] and Wadhu Mal v. Province of Sindh [2023 PLC (C.S.) 1310].--- Disposition:Appeal allowed – Impugned orders dated 15.11.2021 and 18.12.2021 set aside.Respondent authority directed to reconsider the appellant’s proforma promotion from the date his junior was promoted, in accordance with law.

Summary: Intra Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1973--- Section 230 of the Election Act, 2017, Functions of Federal Caretaker Government ?The Federal Care Taker Government inserted Rule 7A in the Rule 2020 framed under National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 and under Section 3(3) & 3(5) of the NADRA Ordinance ibid appointed Chairman, NADRA which was assailed through constitutional petition. Thereafter, incumbent elected Federal Government affirmed the amendment in the Rule 7-A in terms of Rule 17(1)(b) read with Rule 19 (1) of the Rules of Business, 1973 and, issued a fresh notification of appointment of Chairman, NADRA. The subsequent notification of appointment of Chairman were not assailed through making any amendment in the writ petition. But High Court annulled appointment of Chairman NADRA through suo moto resumption of jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 whereas High Court does not enjoy suo moto jurisdiction to issue quo warranto writ and annul the appointments as such appeal (ICA) is accepted and judgment of learned Single Bench set aside. 720Election Petition 20792/24 Shahzad Nazir Vs Election Commission of Pakistan (PP 165) etc Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad 18- 02- 2025 2025 LHC 3892

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Art. 9 & 14 –– Right to life and dignity –– Pension as a fundamental right –– Delay in payment of pension amounts to violation of fundamental rights –– Held, right to life under Article 9 includes the right to livelihood, sustenance, and security, particularly for the legal heirs of deceased government employees––Refusal or delay in disbursement of pensionary benefits to a retired employee or their legal heirs amounts to inhumane and degrading treatment under Article 14 of the Constitution––Government departments must ensure timely processing and disbursement of pension and retirement dues to uphold dignity and constitutional protections. (b) Service Law –– Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 –– Date of birth –– Rectification –– Scope and limitation –– Date of birth once recorded in official service records at the time of appointment is final and cannot be altered except where a clerical error is proved––No rectification can be made posthumously or after decades of service unless established through timely application by the employee during service––Petitioner, being legal heir, could not seek posthumous correction in deceased husband’s service record after 29 years of service and post-retirement. Relied on: Chief Secretary Government of Balochistan v. Asmatullah Kakar (2020 SCMR 1678) Qamaruddin v. Pakistan (2007 SCMR 66) Dr. Muhammad Aslam Baloch v. Govt. of Balochistan (2014 SCMR 1723) Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456) Dr. Zulfiqar Ahmed Malik v. Federation of Pakistan (2019 SCMR 1973) Muhammad Khaliq Mandokhail v. Government of Balochistan (C.P. No. 4428 of 2019) (c) Service Law –– Pension and Retirement Benefits –– Entitlement of Legal Heirs –– Delay in processing –– Direction to Government departments –– Legal obligation –– Held, the petitioner (widow of deceased civil servant) was entitled to family pension and other retirement benefits of her late husband––Respondent department failed to process dues despite acknowledgment of employment and retirement––Court directed respondents to release all outstanding pensionary benefits based on service book records within 30 days, along with arrears––Departments directed to establish transparent and efficient mechanisms to avoid bureaucratic delays in future. (d) Government Duty –– Accountability in Pension Processing –– Public servant rights –– Legal and moral responsibility of the State –– Court emphasized that unnecessary procedural hurdles that delay pensions violate principles of justice and governance––Retired civil servants and their families deserve prompt disbursement of pensions as a matter of right, not privilege––Court directed all government departments to avoid systemic inefficiencies and respect the constitutional rights of retirees. Disposition: Petition disposed of with directions to disburse all pensionary dues within 30 days.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S.497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 409, 468, 471, 420, 161, 465, 109 & 34---Prevention of Corruption Act (II of 1947), S. 5---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, cheating and dishonestly inducing someone to deliver property, forgery for valuable security, use of a forged document as genuine, criminal breach of trust by public servant, public servant accepting any gratification other than legal remuneration, offence of forgery, abetment, common intention, criminal misconduct---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Rule of consistency---Allegations against the accused-petitioner were that he through forged document and with the connivance of Naib Tehsildar sold out land measuring 1410 kanals including common village lands and public grazing land fraudulently---Admittedly, the accused/petitioner was not a Government servant hence S.409, P.P.C, and S.5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were not applicable to the extent of the petitioner in the present case---Co-accused, who were arrested by the police in the instant case, had already been granted post arrest bail by the Chief Court and another nominated accused, the then Naib Tehsildar was on interim bail, as such the present petitioner became entitled for concession of bail on the basis of rule of consistency---Moreover, there was unexplained delay of one year and two months in lodging of the FIR and the documentary evidence available on the prosecution file suggested the matter being of private transaction---Piece of land regarding which the transaction was alleged was not Government land as per revenue record, rather the same was recorded as Jagir of Raja's of the area in the revenue documents---Investigation in the matter to the extent of the present petitioner was completed and the petitioner was behind bars without any trial in the case---Nothing was available on case file to prove the entrustment of the petitioner for the offence of criminal breach of trust, hence, the application of S.409, P.P.C., in the instant matter required further inquiry to the extent of present petitioner---Other sections did not fall under the prohibitory clause of S.497,Cr.P.C.---Petitioner was local habitant of the area and the prosecution had not taken the plea of abscondance or tampering with the evidence by the accused, as such in absence of any allegation of abscondance or tempering with the prosecution evidence by the petitioner, bail was not to be withheld as punishment, because the accused/ petitioner would face the sentence, if ultimately convicted by the Trial Court at the time of conclusion of the trial---Bail petition was allowed, in circumstances. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497---Bail---Tentative assessment---Scope---Findings made in bail order are tentative in nature and the Trial Court needs not be influenced by them in any way. Abdul Karim, Ammar Sadib and Tariq Shah for Petitioner. Faqeer Shah Special Prosecutor for Anti-Corruption Department GB for the State. Date of hearing: 13th February, 2025.

Summary: National Commission of Human Rights Act (XVI of 2012)- - S. 9 (a) (i) & (ii)- Enforcement of service/pensionary rights-Jurisdiction of National Commission of Human Rights (NCHR)-Scope-Human, constitutional and service rights-Distinction stated-Filing of complaint by a retired employee of United Bank Limited (UBL) for enhancement of his pension-National Commission for Human Rights in exercise of its jurisdiction passed an order of enhancement of pension, however, that order was set aside by the Single Judge of High Court-Validity-Dispute arose between the NCHR and UBL over an issue of pension of an employee of UBL, who was neither a civil servant nor a public servant, rather an employee of a private sector commercial bank, whose rights, duties and remedies in case of disputes were governed by private sector labour laws and their employment contract, but not by the laws applicable to civil or public servants-National Commission for Human Rights was a statutory body established to promote and protect human rights under the National Commission for Human Rights Act, 2012 and its mandate included investigating complaints of human rights violations, abetment thereof, or negligence in preventing such violations by public servants, however, pension-related disputes, such as the enhancement of pension amounts, were governed by employment contracts, banking regulations and other laws to which UBL and its employees were subject and such matters were within the jurisdiction of specialised forums provided by the laws, thus, NCHR's directive to enhance the pension amount was beyond its statutory authority and constituted an overreach of its jurisdiction-Intra-Court Appeal was dismissed in limine, in circumstances. 2018 SCMR 736 ref.

Summary: (Against judgment dated 30.01.2023 passed by the Punjab Service Tribunal, Lahore in Appeal No. 4271 of 2020). Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973)--- ----S. 4---Dismissal from service---Absence without leave---Interference in penalty---Principle---Substantial question of law of public importance---Scope---Petitioner/civil servant remained absent from service and was proceeded against departmentally and was dismissed from service---Penalty imposed by authorities was maintained by Service Tribunal---Validity---Tribunal or Court intervenes due to severity or nature of penalty imposed by competent authority by considering it unreasonable, perverse, excessively harsh, or by exercising leniency---Such interference is based on conclusion that penalty is disproportionate to proven misconduct as determined through test of proportionality---Interference with penalty imposed by department must be approached with caution and careful consideration, reserved for cases where order is entirely perverse or so clearly disproportionate and excessive to the misconduct that allowing it to stand would be unfair, unjust, and inequitable---Petitioner/civil servant was repeatedly served and called to present his defence but chose not to, particularly in the appeal and the revision which he himself filed yet failed to appear in or tender his defence---Cases of willful absence from duty are fairly straightforward as government officers who deliberately are absent from duty without permission are aware of the fact that they would be proceeded against for their absence from duty---Legal issue may qualify as a substantial question of law of public importance if it; (i) requires interpretation of law, rules, instructions, notifications or governmental policy; (ii) remains unresolved by Supreme Court or is subject to ambiguity, conflicting interpretations, or requires a discussion of alternative perspectives; (iii) exposes a lack of clarity in law, particularly where contradictory judicial precedents exist; or (iv) reveals a serious violation of due process that affects fundamental rights or procedural fairness under the Constitution---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by Service Tribunal as petitioner/civil servant failed to raise any substantial question of law of public importance---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal was refused. Tahira Waheed v. Director, Federal Government Educational Institutions 2003 SCMR 1090; Secretary to Government of the Punjab v. Zakir Ali 2022 SCMR 951; Fayyaz Hussain v. Executive District Officer (Education) 2023 PLC (C.S.) 422; Tasawar Hussain v. Deputy Commissioner 2023 PLC (C.S.) 69; Muhammad Ali S. Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan through Establishment Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others 2008 PLC (C.S.) 428; Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza 2023 SCMR 803; Secretary Revenue Division v. Iftikhar Ahmed Tabassum PLD 2019 SC 563; Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services Faisalabad v. Muhammad Zafarullah 2021 SCMR 400; Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Nargis Jamal 2022 SCMR 2114 and Secretary Revenue Division v. Iftikhar Ahmed Tabassum PLD 2019 SC 563 rel. Mudassar Khalid Abbasi, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner with Petitioner. Sanaullah Zahid, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for Respondents. Date of hearing: 4th February, 2025.

Summary: (a) Service Law ----Disciplinary proceedings---Absence from duty without sanction of leave---Punishment of dismissal from service---Scope---Petitioner, a police officer, was dismissed from service due to unauthorized absence from duty for a prolonged period from 07.10.2017 to 28.03.2018 without obtaining sanctioned leave or permission from the competent authority---Petitioner contended that his absence was neither willful nor intentional as he had lost his passport while traveling abroad, preventing his timely return---Held, that government officers, particularly those serving in disciplinary forces, are expected to adhere to rules and regulations governing leave and duty obligations---Absence from duty without sanctioned leave, regardless of reason, carries consequences, and an officer absent from duty does so at his own risk---Disciplinary action was initiated, and the Petitioner was repeatedly served notices at various stages, yet he failed to appear before the competent authorities in departmental proceedings, appeal, and revision petitions---Court held that the Petitioner’s non-appearance and failure to inform the department of his situation reflected a lack of due diligence and professional responsibility, justifying his dismissal from service---No procedural violation was found, and due process was observed---No interference was warranted. Cited Cases: • Tahira Waheed v. Director, Federal Government Educational Institutions (2003 SCMR 1090) • Secretary to Government of the Punjab v. Zakir Ali (2022 SCMR 951) • Fayyaz Hussain v. Executive District Officer (Education) (2023 PLC (CS) 422) • Tasawar Hussain v. Deputy Commissioner (2023 PLC (CS) 69) (b) Service Law ----Willful absence from duty---Requirement of regular inquiry---Scope---Petitioner argued that his dismissal was unlawful as no regular inquiry was conducted before imposing the penalty---Held, that a regular inquiry is not required where absence from duty is an admitted fact and evident from the record---Court reaffirmed that government officers must adhere to the established procedure for obtaining leave, failing which they bear the consequences of unauthorized absence---Willful absence from duty is characterized by failure to report, failure to communicate reasons for absence, and failure to participate in disciplinary proceedings---Where an employee does not avail opportunities to present a defense despite repeated notices, he forfeits his right to challenge disciplinary action based on procedural grounds. Cited Cases: • Muhammad Ali S. Bukhari v. Federation of Pakistan (2008 PLC (CS) 428) (c) Service Law ----Proportionality of punishment---Dismissal from service---Judicial interference in disciplinary penalties---Scope---Petitioner contended that his punishment of dismissal from service was harsh and should be reduced---Held, that the determination of appropriate punishment falls primarily within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and the Punjab Service Tribunal, and the Supreme Court does not interfere unless the penalty is manifestly disproportionate, perverse, or contrary to law---Tribunal’s findings on facts and evidence are final, and the Supreme Court does not reappraise evidence or reassess factual findings in service matters under Article 212(3) of the Constitution---Interference in disciplinary matters is warranted only in cases where the penalty imposed is excessively harsh, arbitrary, or disproportionate to the misconduct proved---No such circumstances existed in the present case to warrant interference. Cited Cases: • Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza (2023 SCMR 803) • Secretary Revenue Division v. Iftikhar Ahmed Tabassum (PLD 2019 SC 563) • Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services Faisalabad v. Muhammad Zafarullah (2021 SCMR 400) • Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Nargis Jamal (2022 SCMR 2114) (d) Constitutional Law ----Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 212(3) of the Constitution---Substantial question of law of public importance---Scope---Petitioner failed to point out any substantial question of law of public importance that would justify Supreme Court's interference under Article 212(3) of the Constitution---Court reiterated that a case qualifies under Article 212(3) when it involves interpretation of laws, rules, or policies affecting a class of civil servants, presents an unresolved legal question, or raises procedural fairness concerns of constitutional significance---Mere factual disputes or private grievances do not meet this threshold---Petition dismissed as no substantial question of law arose for consideration. Cited Cases: • Secretary Revenue Division v. Iftikhar Ahmed Tabassum (PLD 2019 SC 563) Disposition: Petition dismissed; leave refused.

Summary: (a) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991)--- ----S.5---Judicial Officers’ Protection Act (XVIII of 1850), S. 1---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S. 75---Punjab Civil Servants (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, R.3---Service appeal---Judicial Officer---Charge of misconduct---Granting of post arrest bail on the basis of fake report of Chemical Examiner in deviation of prescribed procedure for Judicial Officers---Effect---Imposition of penalty of dismissal from service---Protection against inadvertent mistakes in judicial acts/order---Scope---Contention of the appellant was that no penalty could be imposed upon him for the reasons that he had been exonerated by the Hearing Officer and being judicial officer he was constitutionally and legally protected for judicially committed inadvertent mistake---Validity---Appellant cross-examined the Investigating Officer (I.O) during the inquiry and suggestions put by him to the I.O. had established that the appellant was hand in glove with the accused of the case---Appellant had privately been briefed by the said accused---Findings of the Hearing Officer qua exoneration of the appellant rest the premises that fake report was placed on the record by the I.O. and as such, there was no fault on the part of the appellant but the said findings were not supported by the record, as well as by the proceedings conducted by the Inquiry Officer because evidence/documents brought on the record during the inquiry had not been considered and properly appreciated by the Hearing Officer, thus, the Authority imposed major penalty of dismissal from service upon the appellant---Three elements had conjoined i.e. the appellant passed a judicial order in deviation of prescribed procedure in the Circular and express mandate of CNSA; the appellant passed judicial order with mala fide intent for extraneous considerations which was proved on record in terms that the appellant was in close contact with the accused persons, who were beneficiary of bail granting order and the appellant had acquired a general reputation of being corrupt---Such elements taken together proved the charge against the appellant and swayed the authority to impose the major penalty of dismissal from service upon him---Principle of according protection to judicial orders is well entrenched in our jurisprudence provided they are passed in good faith without an element of mala fide, however, there is no concept of complete and absolute immunity if extraneous considerations are vividly established---Service appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Government of Sindh and others v. Saiful Haq Hashmi and others 1993 SCMR 956; Arz Muhammad Umrani, Asstt. Political Agent, Dera Bugti v. Atta Muhammad and another 1993 SCMR 633; Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar v. K.M. Sohel 2001 PLC (C.S.) 1253 and Mir Hassan Kalhoro v. Muhammad Chuttal alias Imran and another PLD 2022 Sindh 165 rel. (b) Punjab Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal Act (XII of 1991)--- ----S. 5---Judicial Officer---Misconduct---General reputation of being corrupt---Imposition of penalty of dismissal from service---Principle where general reputation of corruption is attributed to an officer, the superior courts have leaned in favour of imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement---Exception created to such principle---Scope---Such principle is based on the rationale that in order to maintain honesty and integrity among service personnel, improve efficiency in administration of justice and restore public confidence in State institutions, officers of doubtful integrity or suspected of corruption can be compulsorily retired where sufficient evidence is not available to dismiss or remove them from service after considering the employee’s length of service, the nature of offence and the context surrounding misconduct---Charge had been proved against the appellant, which swayed the authority to impose the major penalty of dismissal from service upon him---Service appeal of the judicial officer was dismissed, in circumstances. Muhammad Afzal Zahid, Ex-Additional District and Sessions Judge v. Lahore High Court, Lahore through its Registrar 2025 PLC (C.S.) 669 rel. Appellant in person. Ahtisham ud Din Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 24th January, 2025.

Summary: (From the judgment of the Service Tribunal dated 21-3-2024, in Service Appeal No.120 of 2021). (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act (XXII of 1975)--- ----S. 4---Appeal before the Service Tribunal, filing of---Limitation---Appellant challenged, before the Service Tribunal, a notification vide which the respondent was granted time (notification-in-question), however, the same was dismissed being time-barred having been filed after a period of almost one and a half year---Validity---Appellant in (relevant ground /para of) the memo of appeal before the Service Tribunal had furnished explanation regarding the delay in filing the appeal and stated that the notification-in-question was neither communicated to him nor the same was published in the official gazette---In support of his stance, he appended the certification issued by the Printing and Stationary Department along with the appeal---Moreover, the appellant also filed a separate application for condonation of delay accompanied by an affidavit---Under S. 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, any civil servant aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by a departmental authority, in respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service, may, within ninety days of the communication of such order to him or within six months of the establishment of the appropriate Tribunal, whichever is later, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal--- After perusal of ground (specifically taken in memo of appeal) and the certification issued by the Printing and Stationary Department, it appeared that the notification impugned before the Service Tribunal was neither communicated to the appellant nor the same was published in the official gazette, hence, the appeal filed by the appellant before the Service Tribunal was within limitation. (b) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act (XXII of 1975)--- ----S. 4---Appeal before the Service Tribunal, filing of---Locus standi---Aggrieved person---Appellant challenged, before the Service Tribunal, a notification vide which the respondent was granted time (notification-in-question), however, the same was dismissed---Validity---Admittedly, after issuance of notification-in-question, the appellant was also granted time scale (BS-20), vide notification dated 24.12.2020, w.e.f. 21.10.2019, after completion of the required length of service---Appellant accepted the said notification and appended the same with the concise statement---In case, the appellant was not satisfied with the date he was granted the time scale, then he should have challenged the said notification by way of appeal---Appellant did not challenge the same for modification, hence he was legally estopped to challenge the notification-in-question---Under the provisions of S. 4 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Service Tribunals Act, 1975, a civil servant/appellant has to satisfy the Court that his/her terms and conditions of service have adversely been affected---If a civil servant/appellant fails to point out any violation of the terms and conditions of his/her service, then legally he/she has got no cause of action to file the appeal---In the present case, after completion of the required length of service, the appellant had been granted time scale (BS-20), vide relevant notification (dated 24.12.2020, w.e.f. 21.10.2019) and he accepted the said notification, therefore, he had got no locus standi to challenge the notification-in-question, whereby, the private-respondent was granted time scale (BS-20)---Under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1975, a civil servant is competent to prefer an appeal only if he is found to be an aggrieved person---Thus, Service Tribunal had committed no illegality while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant---Appeal, being merit-less, was dismissed with costs. Syed Shoukat Hussain Gillani v. Abdul Rehman Abbasi and others 1992 SCMR 369 = 1992 PLC (C.S.) 438 ref. Muhammad Abrar, Advocate for Appellant. Ch. Shoukat Aziz, Advocate for Respondent No.7. Date of hearing: 17th January, 2025.