1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1086 OF 2010 ________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | ________________________________________________________ Heard learned counsel for the parties. The opinion recorded by the Tribunal is criticized on the argument that the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the applicant challenged the order dated 17.3.1997, which according to the petitioner, is incorrect. Whereas, the grievance of the petitioner was to direct the respondent no.2 to grant him status of a gazetted officer i.e. Sectional Engineer with effect from 1.4.1986 as per Government resolution dated 16.4.1996 and show the date as 1.4.1986 for the purpose of his seniority and grant him consequential benefits. The argument, however, clearly 2 overlooks that the Tribunal has, in substance, observed that the cause of action had arisen to the petitioner almost 11 and half years back and there was no reason to condone the delay in filing the Original Application before it. We are in agreement with that opinion in the fact situation of the present case in as much as the petitioner was appointed on 1.4.1986 and was granted pay- scale from 1.4.1994, at no point of time from April 1994, the petitioner made grievance that he should be granted pay-scale with effect from 1.4.1986. In that sense, the claim put forth by the petitioner by way of Original Application filed in September, 2009, was hopelessly barred by limitation and there was no reason forthcoming, much less cogent and satisfactory, as to why that should be condoned. Counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the communication dated 30.4.2008 (Exh.D) at page 22 of the petition. This communication is sent to the Secretary, Irrigation Department. It does not refer to the 3 fact that such a representation was made earlier in point and if made, what was the fate of the said representation. If the petitioner had made representation immediately after 1997 and if it has been rejected, the petitioner can not be heard to say that the cause of action would get revived because of the decision on the representation dated 30.4.2008. Taking any view of the matter, therefore, no ground for interference is made out. The petition is dismissed. (S.S. SHINDE, J) (A.M. KHANWILKAR,J) Dt/- 17.02.2010 ndk/c172107