1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5073 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Irrigation Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai .. Petitioner (Orig.Respondent No.1) Versus Suryakant Martandrao Joshi and ors. .. Respondents Shri K.B.Chaudhari, Additional Govt.Pleader for petitioner CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND A.V.POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 11th August 2009 PER COURT 1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner-State questioning the correctness of the order dated 21.9.2005, in Original Application No.513 of 2003, rendered by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. This petition which questions the order dated 21.9.2005 has been filed on 20.7.2009 i.e. after more than four years. By virtue of the impugned order, the Tribunal directed the respondents to condone the break in service of the respondent herein w.e.f. 12.11.1985 to 3.1.1987 and also to consider the period of his service w.e.f. 5.12.1978 to 15.2.1979 by condoning the break w.e.f. 16.2.1979 to 6.11.1979. 2 2. We have heard Shri K.B.Chaudhari, learned Additional Govt.Pleader on behalf of the petitioner with whose assistance we have perused the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal at paragraphs 8 and 9 of the order has observed that the respondent had filed Writ Petition No.978 of 1985 which came to be disposed of on the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that the respondent herein would be accommodated in some different project in the same cadre. The respondent was thereafter reinstated on 4.1.1987. The Tribunal then referred to the Government Resolution and after considering the aforesaid Government Resolution and the facts came to the conclusion that the break in service was deserving to be condoned. Upon perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is not entitled to be set aside as no perversity in reasonings of the Tribunal is noticed by us. Apart from that there is inordinate delay of more than four years in filing this petition challenging the aforesaid order. 3. Thus, we see no merit in the petition and the petition is, therefore, summarily dismissed with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/5073.09wp) 3