1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.5731 OF 2010 (Union of India vs. Shrikant Laxmanrao Pitale) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 13, 2011 Heard Shri Bangde, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petition is directed against the order dated 14/9/2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The Central Administrative Tribunal in para (5) of the impugned order has observed thus : “5. In this backdrop, the present O.A. Is allowed with a direction to the respondents to 2 either hold review DPC and consider the case of the applicant for promotion as on 01.05.2004 or in the alternative, the respondents may consider antedating of applicant's promotion on the basis of DPC already held on 29.10.2004 in which the applicant was duly considered and found eligible for promotion for the same year, i.e. 2004-2005 against the same vacancy. Some preceding Confidential Reports of the applicant would have to be considered by the review DPC, in case it is held. However, we leave it to the respondents' wisdom either to hold review DPC to reconsider the case of the applicant or in the alternative, to antedate the promotion of the applicant in the grade of Controller of Mines on the basis of review DPC dated 29.10.2004. In case the applicant is finally granted promotion w.e.f. 01.05.2004, the applicant shall be entitled to notional financial benefits till 01.05.2004 i.e. the date of his superannuation. But we make it clear that the applicant would be entitled to all actual “retiral financial benefits”, on his deemed promotion in the grade of Controller of Mines 3 w.e.f. 01.05.2004 onwards including difference, if any, in pension etc. In fact, the respondents will have to recalculate the retiral benefits accordingly and pay arrears, etc., if any, from the date of retirement till actual payment.” In view of the above referred observations made by the Tribunal, we see no reason to show indulgence. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj