' ROSHAN ALI MANGI (MEMBER).---The appellant who was an Assistant Accountant and has already been retired from service with effect from 6-5-1992 on superannuation his grievance is that his colleagues M/s. Fakhar-uz-Zaman and Abdul Rehman were given pro forma promotion vide office order dated 24-8-1983, consequent upon the judgment of the Supreme Court, whereas he was ignored. He, therefore, approached the Lahore High Court by way of writ petition which was dismissed. Therefore, he made a number of representations to the respondents for redressed of his grievance but of no avail. Ultimately he was informed vide letter dated 25-4-1996 that his appeal on the matter was dismissed by the Lahore High Court in 1992, as such his application did not merit reconsideration, He has, therefore, filed the present appeal on 22-5-1996 before the Tribunal with the prayer that the respondents be directed to grant him seniority with effect from 26-4-1965 on the analogy of his other colleagues cited above: promotion as Assistant Accountant from 1975 and Budget Officer from 1986 for the purpose of pay, increments, arrears and revision of pension.
2. Before we go into the merit of the case, we propose to resolve first; the question of limitation.
3. The appellant's grievance arose in 1983 when M/s. Fakhar-uzZaman and Abdul Rehman were given pro forma promotion vide office order dated 24-8-1983, in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court. Instead of agitating against this order he chose to sleep over the matter. The forum of the Federal Service Tribunal was available to him at that time also but he preferred to remain quiet. However, along with three others he filed a writ petition followed by inter Court appeal in Lahore High Court in 1992 but lost. Thereafter he continued pouring his representations to the respondents who ultimately informed him vide letter dated 25-5-1996 that as the matter was already dismissed by the Lahore High Court during 1992, therefore, in the light of High Court decision his application did not merit consideration. On the basis of this rejection the appellant has filed the present appeal which is hopelessly time-barred especially when he has impugned the order which was passed on 24-8-1983 i,e, about 13 years ago.
4. Although the appellant has submitted the application for condemnation, nevertheless he has not given any cogent reason for such a long delay worth considering. It is a settled law that after the prescribed period of limitation has elapsed, the door of justice is closed in, no pleas of injustice, A hardship or ignorance can be of any avail unless the delay is properly explained and accounted for. (1988 SCMR 1354).
5. In view of inordinate delay, the appeal cannot be accepted. Accordingly it is dismissed in limine.