MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Aggrieved of his non promotion, the petitioner states to have filed a representation on 13-9-1999, which, according to him, was within the prescribed limitation; however, it remained undecided constraining the petitioner to submit a reminder dated 28-4-2001, which was turned down on 11-6-2002, where after the petitioner stately filed the appeal before the Tribunal well within the limitation commencing from the order dated 11-6-2002, but this has been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that his departmental appeal was beyond the limitation.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the reminder dated 28-4-2001 and the order dated 11-6-2002 passed thereupon stated that he had filed the representation on 13-9-1999, which has been so acknowledged in the order ibid, therefore, such being within the period of limitation, therefore, the view set out by the Tribunal, holding it to be barred by time is erroneous and illegal.
3. We are afraid that the above plea has no force for the reason if the representation of the departmental appeal was not decided within a period of 90 days, the petitioner under proviso (a) of section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 could file the appeal before the Tribunal and that has not been so done. It has not been explained as to why for such long period, the petitioner kept mum and did not approach the Tribunal, rather purportedly initiated a remainder, which, in fact, was rightly considered by the Tribunal being the representation for the first time and calculated the limitation therefrom. The submission that during this period the petitioner also approached the High Court, suffice it to say that such action of the petitioner was absolutely irrelevant and would not extend the period of limitation.
4. Resultantly, this petition has no merits and is hereby dismissed.