ORDER : By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following substantive reliefs:- “b) That the applicant may kindly be treated to be on the post of TGT for all intents and purposes since 25.7.2005 in view of Ann. P-1 and may kindly be granted all consequential seniority and financial benefits till date. (c) That the applicant may kindly be deemed to be promoted to the post of PGT since 25.7.2016 when junior to the applicant has been promoted and salary of the applicant may kindly be reaffixed and arrears of differential of amount may kindly be directed to be paid to the applicant.” 2. Petitioner approached the erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal) by way of O.A. No. 1486 of 2017. On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application was transferred to this Court and has been registered as CWPOA No. 1813 of 2020. 3. The grievance of the petitioner is that though she was promoted as Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT) from the post of Language Teacher vide order dated 25.7.2005 (Annexure P1), but she could not avail the benefit thereof since the transfer order was never conveyed to her. Petitioner approached the Tribunal only in the year 2017 on the pretext that she allegedly came to know about her colleagues, who had been promoted as TGTs on 25.7.2005, had further been promoted as PGTs vide order dated 25.7.2016. 4. In reply filed on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the Original Application filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation, as she had approached the Tribunal after a period of more than 12 years after the date of promotion orders, issued on 25.7.2005. It is further submitted that the petitioner was aware about her promotion orders to the post of TGT, issued in the year 2005. Petitioner had approached the Principal, GSSS, Badera-Rajputa, District Una, where she was posted in the year 2006 regarding her promotion orders, to which, the concerned Principal had replied on 9.3.2006 that no such promotion orders were received in the school. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 6. Section 21 of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 prescribes limitation for filing Original Application before the Tribunal, which reads as under:- “21. Limitation. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record carefully. 6. Section 21 of the H.P. State Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 prescribes limitation for filing Original Application before the Tribunal, which reads as under:- “21. Limitation. (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made, within one year from the date on which such final order has been made; (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as is mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where- (a) the grievance in respect of which an application is made had arisen by reason of any order made at any time during the period of three years immediately preceding the date on which the jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Tribunal becomes exercisable under this Act in respect of the matter to which such order relates; and (b) no proceedings for the redressal of such grievance had been commenced before the said date before any High Court, the application shall be entertained by the Tribunal if it is made within the period referred to in clause (a), or, as the case may be, clause (b), of subsection (1) or within a period of six months from the said date, whichever period expires later. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) or sub-section (2), an application may be admitted after the period of one year specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) or, as the case may be, the period of six months specified in sub-section (2), if the applicant satisfies the Tribunal that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period”. 7. The grievance of the petitioner that she was not aware about transfer order till 2016 does not appear to be factually correct. 7. The grievance of the petitioner that she was not aware about transfer order till 2016 does not appear to be factually correct. Document Annexure P-3 placed by the petitioner herself on record reveals that she had become aware about her promotion order at-least on 9.3.2006, when she approached the Principal of the school, where she was posted. Thereafter, petitioner did nothing and kept silent. Petitioner did not make any representation to her employer regarding non implementation of her promotion order, meaning thereby that petitioner had waived off her right to promotion. 8. The promotion of TGTs to the post of PGTs ordered vide Annexure P-4, dated 25.7.2016, could not have by any means, revived the cause of action, if any, in favour of the petitioner. Once the petitioner had not agitated her right for more than 12 years, she could not be allowed to raise her grievance on the basis of promotion order of TGTs to the post of PGTs, issued on 25.7.2016. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled as D.C.S. Negi vs. Union of India & others, 2018 (16) SCC 721 has held as under:- “A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced section makes it clear that the Tribunal cannot admit an application unless the same is made within the time specified in clauses (a) and (b) of Section 21 (1) or Section 21 (2) or an order is passed in terms of sub-section (3) for entertaining the application after the prescribed period. Since Section 21 (1) is couched in negative form, it is the duty of the Tribunal to first consider whether the application is within limitation. An application can be admitted only if the same is found to have been made within the prescribed period or sufficient cause is shown for not doing so within the prescribed period and an order is passed under Section 21 (3)”. 10. Thus, in view of above discussion, the Original Application filed by the petitioner before the erstwhile Tribunal was hopelessly time barred. In any case, the petition is hit by un-explained delay and latches. Otherwise also, there is no merit in the instant petition and the same is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.