was passed by Registrar of the University.

2. A question was posed to the learned counsel for the appellant as to

the appellant was a civil servant or not and this tribunal has the jurisdiction to

entertain this appeal and adjudicate upon. Learned counsel for the appellant

responded that the appellant is a civil servant being employee of University of

Gujrat.

3. Arguments heard and record perused.

4. Undeniably, the appellant was an employee of University of Gujrat.

According to rule 2(j) Punjab Government Rules of Business, 2011, the

“department” means a self contained administrative unit in the Secretariat,

responsible for the conduct of business of the government. Whereas according to

rule 2(c ) ibid the autonomous body means body mentioned in the column No. 4 of

the first schedule. According to first scheduled under rule 2 and 3 of the rule ibid

University of Gujrat is an autonomous body. Such autonomous is not attached

department of Higher Education Department, Government of the Punjab. In terms

of section 2 (h)(i) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 the appellant is no doubt employee of

autonomous body but the section 19 of the PEEDA Act, 2006 regarding appeals

before this Tribunal has been amended on 29.5.2014. According to amended

section 19 of the EEDA Act, 2006 the employee other than the employees as

mentioned in section 2(h)(1) of the PEEDA Act, 2006 can prefer appeal. Thus, the

employees as mentioned 2(h)(1) like appellant being the employee of University of

Gujrat, cannot file appeal before this Tribunal. Moreover, the appellant is not a civil

servant, therefore, I found that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this

appeal and adjudicate upon the matter. Resultantly the instant appeal is dismissed in

limine being not maintainable. In these circumstances, remedy lies elsewhere.