1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 424/2002 Shri Jadhav Jotiba Naraku, TES Group 'B' working as SDI, under General Manager Telecom Goa District, Panaji, Goa, residing at C-25, Government Quarters, Altinho, Panaji, Goa. .......... Petitioner. Versus (1) Union of India, through the Secretary, Department of Telecommunication, under Ministry of Communication Sanchar Bhavan, 13 Ashoka Road, New Delhi – 110 001. (2) The Chief General Manager, Telecom (BSNL), Maharashtra Circle, Mumbai – 400 001. (3) The General Manager, Telecom, Goa, Panaji, Goa ......... Respondents. Mr. M. S. Sonak, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Josephu Vaz, Central Govt. Central Counsel for the respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, CJ. & N.A. BRITTO, J. Date : 21st November, 2008. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER CHIEF JUSTICE) The Central Administrative Tribunal, vide its Order dated 9.4.2002, dismissed two OAs being OA No. 95 and 203, both of 2002 respectively. Against this dismissal order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Dayashanker Dashrat Chaubey, the applicant in OA No.203/2002, preferred a Writ Petition being Writ Petition No. 6463/2002, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by Judgment dated 22.3.2006. There is nothing before us to show that the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Court dated 22.3.2006 has been set aside. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in the present writ petition, which is directed against the same order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, however, in OA No.95/2002 contended that the application has been dismissed primarily on the ground of limitation, while the present cause of action is the recurring one and thus, the claim could not have been dismissed as being barred by time. Reliance is placed on a Judgment of the Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta vs. Union of India and others., (1995) 5 SCC 628. 3 3. We are not impressed with the contention that is raised on behalf of the petitioner. Firstly, the order of rejection was communicated to the petitioner in the year 1997. But, even thereafter the matter is stated to be under consideration of the Authorities and the reliance of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner upon the letters dated 22/2/2001 and 2/11/2001 would not further the cause of the petitioner. The application was, obviously, filed after the undue delay. The determination of seniority was a condition precedent to stepping up of pay. 4. Be that as it may, even if we were to decide the question of limitation in favour of the petitioner, then on merits also the relief claimed by the petitioner will be liable to be rejected in view of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Dayashanker Dashrat Chaubey (supra). We may also notice that the Central Administrative Tribunal has also noticed in the order impugned in the present writ petition that the petitioner had no claim on merits. There is a Judgment of a coordinate Bench in the case of Dayashanker Dashrat Chaubey. We have no reason to take a different view than the one taken 4 in Chaubey (supra). Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE N.A. BRITTO, J. ssm.