ATTAULLAH KHAN, J.--- Through this Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner seeks the declaration of order dated 13-1-2004 passed by respondent No,1 as illegal, unjust, mala fide and arbitrary.
2. Briefly stated facts of the case giving rise to the filing of the writ petition in hand are that the petitioner was serving as Lineman-II in PFSCO and during the year 1989, some 3200 meter dog Conductor and 1200 Meter SSR were stolen from the Feeders of Abdul Khel and Goor Langi about which F.I.R. No,68 dated 29-10-2003 was registered against unknown culprits. An inquiry was conducted into the matter and ultimately the impugned order was passed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner is entitled to the relief because the impugned order is patently illegal and discriminatory. He submitted that one Din Muhammad, a similarly placed person, had appealed to the Federal Services Tribunal Islamabad who has been granted relief but the petitioner has been declined the same which is a sheer example of discrimination.
4. We have considered the available record and arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner has not applied to the Federal Services Tribunal Islamabad and thus he cannot take benefit from the case of similarly placed person Muhammad Din, who had approached there well in time. Had he been vigilant, he would have applied to the Federal Services Tribunal Islamabad together with similarly placed Muhammad Din or separately.
Law favours vigilant and not indolent. No reasons are available to establish that the petitioner was prevented by some unavoidable circumstances to approach the Federal Services Tribunal. Now by filing the instant Constitutional petition, the petitioner wants to avail the remedy which could have been granted by the Tribunal.
6. Another fact to be taken into consideration is the time factor. The 'impugned order is dated 13-1- 2004, according to which a penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner filed the present writ petition on 22-2-2011. Thus he has remained mum for more than seven years. There is also nothing on the record to show as to Why he has remained silent for such a long time and has not filed appeal before the Federal Services Tribunal Islamabad, like his co-employee Muhammad Din, who was similarly placed.
7. It is a settled law that Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 provides an extra ordinary remedy to the aggrieved person for invoking the Constitutional Jurisdiction of the High Court within the parameter of its jurisdiction. When a law provides a remedy to some other authority (in this case Federal Services Tribunal) and that remedy is not availed, then entertaining a writ petition would be an abuse of authority and cannot be permitted. In the instant case, the petitioner was required to have filed an appeal, like his co-employee, before the Federal Services Tribunal, but he failed. Therefore, the present petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 is not competent. Reference may be given to a case reported in 1980 SCM R 280, wherein it has been held:-- "If a person voluntarily fails to avail himself all the remedies available to him under the Civil Law, he has no locus standi to maintain writ petition in High Court."
8. The petitioner was also required to had been vigilant about his right infringed and any wilful slackness on his part would disentitle him for any remedy under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. In the case in hand, the petitioner did not care for his relief against an order passed on 13-1-2004 and moved this Court on 22-2-2011 with a delay of almost eight years. This is a gross negligence on his part. In this respect, reliance is placed on a case reported in PLD 2003 SC 132 wherein it has been held that:--- "They remained totally silent and unmoved for more than 30 years and perhaps waited for the emergence of calamity, and disaster of heavy floods resulting in destruction of the record. One fails to understand any 'rational and logic behind inactive and indifferent attitude of the respondents, who got up from a deep slumber long after the repeal of laws without taking any concrete steps or measures for advancement of their cause which strongly militates against an element of fairness and bona fide on their part. On account of laches in setting the machinery of law into motion, they have indeed disentitled themselves to the exercise of discretionary and equitable jurisdiction, which in all cases must be exercised in order to foster the ends of justice and to right a wrong. Writ jurisdiction is undoubtedly discretionary and ex-ordinary in nature which may not be invoked by a party who demonstrates a style of slackness and laxity on his part. Furthermore, if a party does not choose legal remedy available under the Statute strictly speaking jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be exercised in his favour. Law is well settled that a party guilty of gross negligence and ladies is not entitled to the equitable relief. One who seeks equity must show that equities leans in his favour. In the facts and circumstances of the appeal, we are, therefore, in no manner of doubt that the High Court was not competent to exercise its writ jurisdiction conferred under Article 199 of the Constitution".
9. The upshot of our above discussion is that the petitioner did not avail the remedy of Federal Services Tribunal Islamabad. The impugned order was passed on 13-1-2004 while the present writ petition has been filed on 22-2-2011, i,e, with a delay of more than seven years. So in these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief.
10. Having no substance, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.