/ 1 / IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.165 OF 2002 J. Ramamurthy ...Petitioner V/s. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.R.C. Kotiankar for Petitioner. Mr.G. Hariharan alongwith Mr.N.R. Prajapati for Respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : 4TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. :- 1. Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, dated 3rd January, 2001. Vide this order, the Central Administrative Tribunal held that the Original Application No.1026 of 1994 filed by the Petitioner was barred by time and consequently dismissed the same without any order as to costs. 2. It has been noticed that the Respondent No.2 and 3 whose promotion was being questioned in the Original Application, had been promoted in the year 1989 and the Petitioner made for the first time grievance on 21st July, 1993. This conduct seems in the light of the / 2 / fact that apparently, the Original Application was filed more than one year after making representation. Application was held to be barred by time. It is really not necessary for us either to notice the facts in detail or examine merits or otherwise of the arguments placed before us. Petitioner has already superannuated in his post in question and this writ petition in any case would not result in granting any relief to the Petitioner. At the best, matter will have to be remanded even if we accept the contentions placed on behalf of the Petitioner. Only argument which may be of some help to the Petitioner that the representation of the Petitioner was rejected by the Respondents, filed on 15th September, 1994, which apparently is beyond the period of one year. Conduct of the Petitioner himself would dis-entitle to claim any relief in the present writ petition. We do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. Writ petition is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.