1 W.P.No.11287/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.11287 OF 2010. Rangnath Gopalrao Mudgalkar, Age 78 years, Occ.Nil Pensioner, R/o 76, Saraswati Nagar, Parbhani. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept., Mantralaya, Mumbai and others. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Ajay S. Deshpande, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Reserved on : 01.03.2011. Pronounced on : 10.03.2011. 2 W.P.No.11287/10 PER COURT 1. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, thereby, dismissing the Original Application of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner states that one Mr.Namle, who was junior to the petitioner was consistently granted promotions ahead of him and being aggrieved by consistent injustice being done, the petitioner approached the Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad invoking appellate jurisdiction conferred upon him. The Additional Commissioner, Aurangabad allowed the appeal and directed that the seniority of the petitioner is above Mr.Namle and Mr.Khan in the cadre of initial appointment and so also ordered that the claims accruing on account of his being senior should be settled within six months. The said order was passed by the Additional Commissioner on 9.6.1988. Thereafter, the petitioner stood retired on 31.12.1990 on attaining the age of 3 W.P.No.11287/10 superannuation. 3. The petitioner states that it was not within the competence of Additional Commissioner to assign a deemed date of promotion in the said cadre of Gazetted Class II The deemed date of promotion in cadre of Gazetted Class II came to be granted by the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad by an order dated 24.12.1990. However, no arrears of pay and allowances were sanctioned under the said order. The petitioner thereafter filed Original Application No. 1040/2001. The same came to be dismissed by the Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 11.6.2010. 4. Mr.Ajay Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Tribunal committed grave error in not considering the case of the petitioner for granting deemed date of promotion in MDS-I with effect from 10.4.1985. So also not granting the difference in financial benefits as per the deemed date of promotion granted by the Additional Commissioner and the 4 W.P.No.11287/10 Divisional Commissioner. Mr.Deshpande, further submitted that even in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Respondents before the Tribunal it was specifically admitted by them that a detail proposal is received from Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. After the scrutiny the proposal is submitted to GAD for its concurrence. The GAD has raised some objections. After fulfillment of the objections, the proposal may be sent to GAD for their concurrence. In light of the same, it was contended by Mr.Deshpande, that there was no impediment for the Tribunal to award difference in the financial benefits accrued to the petitioner on account of being granted deemed date of promotions. According to him, the Tribunal committed a grave error in relying on the Circular dated 4.10.1975. The same was already superseded and is not applicable in view of the subsequent Circular dated 24th October 1979. Even the earlier Circular dated 24.2.1965, is clear which states that the petitioner is to be paid the difference of financial benefits from the deemed date. 5 W.P.No.11287/10 5. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned Asstt. Govt.Pleader contends that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was claiming deemed date of promotion to MDS Class-I with effect from 1985 and as such had approached the Tribunal after 16 years which was patently barred by limitation. So also the difference in the financial benefits on account of being granted deemed date of promotion were also claimed after a period of eleven years. The Tribunal has considered this aspect. Even on merits, the applicant is not entitled for any relief. 6. We have heard the learned counsels at length, also perused the judgment. The petitioner is claiming deemed date of promotion to MDS Class I cadre with effect from 1985 i.e.the date when Mr.Namle, was promoted in the cadre of MDS Class I. The petitioner till the date of his retirement did not complain of the said fact but has approached the Tribunal in 2001. So also the difference of financial benefits are claimed after a period of 11 years. 6 W.P.No.11287/10 This Court in its extra ordinary Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not come to the aid of a petitioner who himself is not diligent. Even the petitioner had not filed any application for condonation of delay. No plausible explanation is put forth by the petitioner for such delay. The Tribunal in paras 12 and 13 of its judgment has referred this fact. In light of the fact that we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction on account of the gross delay on the part of the applicant in approaching the Tribunal, we are not considering other points raised by the petitioner. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 6y (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/wp1128710 7 W.P.No.11287/10