' DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH, J.---Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, dated 25-5-2000 whereby his appeal was dismissed in limine.
2. Petitioner joined the respondent-Department as Divisional Accountant on 11-8-1950.
Subsequently the said non-gazetted post was said to be analogous to that of Sub-Divisional Officer of PWD vide paragraph 43 of the Central Public Department Code under rule 20(c) of Central Public Works Accounts Code which was a Class-II gazetted post. Before the Tribunal petitioner's claim was that he was having equal status to that of S.D.O. But despite that he was not granted the same. The Auditor-General of Pakistan recommended the case of the petitioner with his other colleagues to the Ministry of Finance for upgradation of the post of Divisional Accountant but it remained pending for about 20 years and ultimately the Finance Division on 10-8-1994 upgraded the said post to B-16 with 33% of selection grade in B-17. According to petitioner, he retired from service on 1-7-1984. He made numerous representations against it but all in vain consequently he approached the Federal Service Tribunal on 1-7-1998 with prayer that the order dated 11-2-1998 passed by respondent No,2 whereby his request for upgradation was turned down, may be set aside and respondents be directed to allow the petitioner B-17 w,e,f, 1-3-1972 with all consequential benefits. The Federal Service Tribunal, after hearing the arguments of the parties and perusing the record, dismissed the appeal in limine vide judgment dated 25-5-2000 holding that the appeal itself was time-barred for which application for condonation of delay was also not filed and further that the petitioner was not having any cause of action as he had retired from service on 1-7-1984 whereas the upgradation of the post was made in 1994 therefore, he had no locus standi to be benefited of such upgradation.
3. We have perused the impugned order of the Federal Service Tribunal. Admittedly the petitioner did not have any cause of action as he stood retired from service on 1-7-1984 whereas upgradation of the post was notified in 1994 as such he had no locus standi to get any benefit of such upgradation. We do not find any flaw or legal infirmity in the well-reasoned order of the Service Tribunal warranting interference. Consequently, the petition is dismissed and leave is refused.