SHAHID KHAN, J. Through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner Gul Aslam seeks the following relief:- "a. Respondents may graciously be directed to restore the seniority of petitioner as was prior to 30.3.1986 and they may also be directed to grant him promotions on its due date according to his actual seniority. b. Respondents may further be directed to reckon the seniority of Mess Munshis with immediate effect w.e.f 30.3. 1986. c. It is further prayed that seniority of Mess Munshis, affect the rights of petitioner adversely, may please be declared as ineffective upon rights of the petitioner. d. Respondents may further be directed to award BPS-18 as personal grade to the petitioner after awarding him to the post of Office Superintendent (BPS-17). e. Respondents may also be directed to pay all the arrears and other monetary benefits to the petitioner after awarding him promotions as well as personal grade and also to re-calculate his pensionary benefits."
2. The facts giving rise to the instant petition as mentioned in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Clerk (BPS-5) in Gomal University, D.I. Khan on 26.7.1981 on ad-hoc basis, however, his services were regularized on 18.01.1983; that in 80's, Mess Munshis were also serving in the University in BPS-5; that vide office order, dated 30.3.1986, upon the recommendation of Finance and Planning Committee, the cadre of Mess Munshis was changed and they were re- designated as Junior Clerk and were included in the clerical cadre; that vide office order dated 30.12.1987, the Mess Munshis were awarded promotion to the post of Senior Clerks. ignoring the petitioner and others, despite the fact that the date of regular appointment of the petitioner is 18.01.1983, whereas, the Mess Munshis were re-designated on 30.3.1986; that as per actual seniority, the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Office Assistant on 15.01.2008, but he was given such promotion w.e.f. 05.8.2008; that when there was turn of promotion of petitioner to the post of Office Superintendent, one Aslam Khan was promoted vide order dated 01.4.2015; that thereafter, the petitioner moved applications to the respondents for restoration of his seniority, but to no avail and in the meanwhile, the petitioner got retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 11.02.2016, hence the instant petition.
3. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
4. Perusal of the record reveals that primarily the petitioner is aggrieved from the order, dated 30.3.1986, whereby, upon the recommendation of Finance and Planning Committee, the cadre of Mess Munshis was changed and they were re-designated as Junior Clerks. It is the. stance of the petitioner that he came to know of this fact on 07.12.2015 and on the same date, filed an application seeking correction of seniority list with reference to Mess Munshi and for award of promotions to him on due dates. There can be no exception to the rule that the delay in seeking the remedy of appeal, review or revision beyond the period of limitation provided under the statute, in absence of reasonable explanation, cannot be condoned and in the same manner if the remedy of writ petition is not availed within reasonable time, the interference can be refused on the ground of laches. No plausible or logical justification has been offered in the memo. of petition to show as to why the petitioner was waiting for such a long time to approach this Court. Question of laches in the case of promotion has much significance and due to inordinate delay, the things and circumstances are enormously changed. The petitioner applied in 2015, but instead of approaching vigilantly he maintained complete silence and was in deep slumber and on 19.5.2018, filed the instant petition and that too when he got retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Due to recklessness and lethargic attitude in approaching the court of law in the promotion matters, the entire complexion and scenario become changed, thus, we feel no hesitation in our mind to hold that the petition is hit by laches. The consideration upon which the court refuses to exercise its discretion where the petition is delayed is not only by limitation but matters relating to the conduct of parties and change in the situation. Laches in simplest form mean failure of a person to do something which should have been done by him within a reasonable time. If remedy of constitutional petition is not availed within reasonable time the interference can be refused on the ground of laches. It is well settled by now that when a Court comes to the conclusion that the petition was hit by laches, it is not required that it should also decide the issue raised in the petition on merits. In this respect, reliance is placed on the case of Muhammad Din v. Abdul Ghani and another (2012 SCMR 1004) wherein it was held that: - "If a Court comes to the conclusion that the petition was barred by laches, it is not required that it should also decide the issue raised in the petition on merits."
5. Even otherwise, grant of relief in writ jurisdiction is discretionary, which is required to be exercised judiciously. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for the exercise of discretion by the Court for grant or refusal of the relief in the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction.
6. For the reasons mentioned above, the instant petition being hit by lathes is hereby dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.