' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The Petitioner, a civil servant, seeks leave to appeal under Article 212(3) of the Constitution against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal dated 29-4-1985 whereby his appeal against the denial of specified increments on improvement of his qualifications, was dismissed.
2. The Petitioner claims to be employed earlier in the Commercial Department and later in the Educational Department. When he entered service in 1963, he was a matriculate. He improved his qualifications by becoming a F.Sc. In 1964, a B.Sc. In 1966 and M.Sc. In 1970. He was under incentive scheme and claimed the increments allowable on such improvement of qualifications. The Service Tribunal examined the entire history of the case and found that the claim was untenable on the following ground:-- "The appellant having been refused payment went to the Civil Court on 3-7-1983, but the suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction on 26-09-1984. The departmental appeal was filed on 12-11-1984, when the cause of action had admittedly accrued to the appellant on or before 3-7-1983, when he filed the civil suit. The departmental appeal, in these circumstances was hopelessly barred by time, as from the date of cause of action, only one month's period was available to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant was bona fide pursuing the remedy before the civil Court, and that the time spent in that Court deserves to be condoned. In this argument, there is no substance, for the law was clear on the point since 1973 and 1974 that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant. We cannot, therefore, say that the appellant's action in going to the Civil Court was bona fide. An act done without the care and caution is never recognised as an act done in good faith."
3. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the refusal of the Service Tribunal to condone the delay as good reasons were available in support of condonation of delay and has taken us to the merits of the case to show the justification of it.
4. On the question of limitation we find that there is no legal error whatsoever. The Tribunal was justified in taking into consideration the factors which it has taken in condoning or not condoning the delay that took place. On merits the learned counsel has also not been able to show that improvement of qualifications necessarily entitled the Petitioner to its grant of the increments as of right.
5. In the circumstances we find that no case is made out for leave to appeal nd the Petition is dismissed.