1980 PLP 964 (SCMR)

DORAB PATEL, J‑The petitioner was the Deputy Director, Food, first in the Multan and Bahwalpur Division and then in the North‑West Frontier Province. He was suspended in 1969 and charged‑sheeted on 10‑11‑1969 under M. L. R.

58. He was retired on 5‑6‑1970 under M. L. R. 58 and he filed a review application before Mr. Bhutto, the then Chief Martial Law Administrator on 14‑3‑1972 in which he challenged the order passed against him as illegal, arbitrary and perverse. He went on making representations to the authorities about his review but he was informed by a letter dated 29‑7‑1977 by the present Martial Law Authorities that he had to seek his remedies before the Services Tribunals that bad been set up in 1973. The petitioner's order of retirement has not been produced before us but he stated that as the order had been passed by the President of Pakistan, he filed a service appeal before the Federal Service Tribunal at Islamabad. The date on which he filed this appeal is not known. Be that as it may, the appeal was dismissed on 27-12‑1377 on the short ground that the appeal had to be filed before the North‑West Frontier Province Service Tribunal, as the petitioner was an employee of the North‑West Frontier Province at the time of his retirement: The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal before the North‑West Frontier Province Service Tribunal and this appeal was dismissed on the obvious ground that it was time‑barred. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition for leave under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. As the petitioner was a layman, we explained to him that as held by the North‑West Frontier Province Service Tribunal in its order of 16‑4‑1978, the bad to file the appeal within six months of the establishment of the Provincial Services Tribunal, which was set up in April 1974. But, as he filed his appeal in 1977, it was patently time‑barred. The petitioner's only reply was that he was prosecuting his remedies with the Government and that he was not aware of the law. Now, even on the footing that this explanation furnished some justifica tion for the petitioner's delay in filing his appeal, he should have filed an application for condoning delay before the Tribunal, but as he did not the Tribunal had no option but to dismiss an appeal which was patently time‑barred. As the, petitioner has filed an application for condoning delay in this Court, we have to observe that ignorance of the law is no ground for condoning delay, therefore, we see no merit in this application and in an event it would not be for us to condone the delay as relief in this respect w not sought before the Tribunal. The petition is without merit and is dismissed. Petition dismissed.