AJK Civil Servants (Appeal) Rules, 1991

—Rules 3,4 & 5—Right of appeal—mode and manner of filing the appeal—Under Rules 3, it is postulated that a civil servant shall be entitled to appeal to the appellate authority from an original order passed by the authority or an authorised officer who imposed upon him any penalty—Under Rule, 4 right of appeal is available to a civil servant before an appellate authority from an original order passed by the authority—the mode and manner of filing the appeal is provided under Rule 5. Fazal Hussain vs Chief Conservator Forest & others 2018 SCR 390 (B)
Rules 3,4 & 5—Right of appeal—mode and manner of filing the appeal—Neither the father of a civil servant nor any other family member can file appeal on his behalf—Held: A perusal of the above Rules would show that the right of appeal is personal right of civil servant and he can file the same in his own name before the designated authority. Further held:Neither the father of a civil servant nor any other family member can file appeal on his behalf. Fazal Hussain vs Chief Conservator Forest & others 2018 SCR 390 (C)
Rule 10 — A revision petition filed after a period of three months shall not be entertained — In the present case petition was filed after four years — Hopelessly time barred — If a penalty has been imposed the Govt. will not be competent to revise it suo motu or otherwise if no appeal is preferred — Appeal filed in a wrong forum was not an appeal in the eye of law — It is also the requirement of rule 10 that Govt. has to examine the record and then pass an order after considering the legality or propriety of order sought to be vacated — The order passed by the Prime Minister is clear violation of rule 10. Abdul Qadir v. Abdul Karim and 4 others 2000 SCR 97 (F)
A civil servant who has filed an appeal before the departmental authority is entitled to a decision on it as a right. Ghulam-ud-Din v. AJK Government & 2 others 1998 SCR 194 (A)
Rule 12 — order passed in appeal, review or representation by authority — when attain finality — authority has no jurisdiction to recall the same — According to the provisions of rule 12 of the Appeal Rules, 1991 an order passed under these rules in appeal, review petition or representation shall be final. Thus, the law has attached finality to the orders passed in review under the provisions of the Appeal Rules, 1991. The bare reading of the notification dated 26.06.2008 leads to the conclusion that the same has been passed on review filed by the respondent. Thus, by operation of law this order has attained finality and the authority after passing the said final order has got no legal jurisdiction to recall the same or nullify it. Azad Govt. & 3 others v. Dr. Kh. Rafique Ahmed & 25 others 2016 SCR 268 (C)
Rule 12 — finality attached under this rule — operative only against departmental authority — same is no bar against remedy before judicial forum — The finality attached to the order under rule 12 is operative against the departmental authority whereas the remedy before the judicial forum is not a bar under the provisions of these rules — If the civil servants was aggrieved from the order he could have approached the proper forum for remedy and if the order is not challenged within prescribed period of limitation, the same has become final and cannot be set-aside by the authority in view of the provisions of rules 12 — Held: the impugned notification dated 18.04.2011 to the extent of the respondent is clearly violative of rule 12 which has been rightly set-aside. Even, the order relating to the terms and conditions of civil servants passed by the departmental authority adversely affecting the rights of other civil servants which has not been challenged at proper forum, cannot be nullified or deemed inoperative while determining the question of seniority. Azad Govt. & 3 others v. Dr. Kh. Rafique Ahmed & 25 others 2016 SCR 268 (D)1996 SCR 171 rel.
—Section 21 (2) —Right of representation—where no right of appeal exists, the right of representation is provided to a civil servant. Muhammad Ishfaq vs Muhammad Ayoob & others 2018 SCR 824 (B) 1995 SCR 189 Rel.
—Right of appeal has been given against the order of the appointing authority and not against the order passed by appellate authority. Muhammad Ishfaq vs Muhammad Ayoob & others 2018 SCR 824 (A)
—appeal/representation—delegation of authority—powers of delegator—delegator and delegatee cannot exercise powers at same time—However, delegator can pass order after withdrawal of order of delegation. Held: After delegation and favourable recommendations, the authority cannot depart from the same. Law is well settled that both the delegator and the delegatee cannot exercise their powers at the same time although after delegation, the delegate is not denuded from its power and the delegator can pass order after withdrawing the order of delegation. Ch. Muhammad Ayub V. Competent Authority & 10 others 2020 SCR 758 (A)