IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7553 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 7553 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 7553 OF 2007 P.S. Deshmukh ] .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India & 3 ors. ] .. Respondents Mr. S.P. Saxena for the petitioner. Mr. V.A. Masurkar with R. Rodrigues for the respondent No.1. CORAM: S.B. MHASE & A.A. KUMBHAKONI, JJ. DATED: 4TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. : 1. Heard. We have perused the order of the Tribunal dated 26th July, 2006, passed in O.A. No.102 of 2005 by the Central Administrative Tribunal. 2. The petitioner was promoted from the post of Inspector to the higher post of Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices on 4th November, 1992. Ad-hoc further promotion was given to the petitioner to the post of Superintendent of Post Offices with effect from 17th May, 1996. The grievance of the petitioner is that when he was to be considered for regular promotion, his : 2 : earlier Confidential Reports of the year 1993-94 / 1994-95 with adverse remarks were considered, though his representation against the same was pending. 3. However, we find that the petitioner’s representation was considered and it was rejected by an order dated 24th May, 2002. It is further his grievance that the said representation was considered at a belated stage and by a retired person and, therefore, it was not possible for a retired person to recollect things after a period of five to six years and to properly appreciate the representation. The observations were made by the person who had initialled the Confidential Record and under whom the petitioner was directly working. The authority which heard the explanation given by the petitioner is superior to the officer initialling the CR and, therefore, it cannot be said that the very officer who was in that post should have considered the representation. Even after retirement of the said officer, the next person can consider it and, therefore, no grievance can be made in this regard. 4. It is further found that at a subsequent promotion stage, the petitioner was given promotion and at the time of his retirement, the benefit of pay scale was also made available to the petitioner. No loss of : 3 : emoluments or pensionary benefits has been caused to the petitioner. 5. We, therefore, refrain ourselves from entertaining the Writ Petition and it is, accordingly, rejected. Sd/- Sd/- [A.A. [A.A. [A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.] KUMBHAKONI, J.] KUMBHAKONI, J.] [S.B. [S.B. [S.B. MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.] MHASE, J.]