1 acd IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2072 OF 2009 Shri M.V. Kulkarni ... Petitioner. V/s. Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents. ---- Mr. A.P. Vanarse, for the Petitioner. ---- CORAM : V.C.DAGA AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. RESERVED ON: 12TH OCTOBER,2009 PRONOUNCED ON : 9TH DECEMBER 2009 P.C. : 1. This Petition is directed against the order dated 24.9.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in original application no.666 of 2005, whereby and whereunder the original application as well as Misc.Petition No. 680 of 2005 seeking condonation of delay came to be dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner tried to contend that the delay in filing the original application ought to have been condoned by the Tribunal. 2 He also took us through the impugned order and contended that even on merits he has good case and therefore delay ought to have been condoned. In order to consider the prayer for condonation of delay, we also took into account the merits of the matter to find out as to whether any useful purpose would be served by condoning the delay and remanding the matter back to the Tribunal for consideration a fresh. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the the Petitioner and having gone through the impugned order, we are of the confirmed opinion that no useful purpose will be served by condoning the delay since the Petitioner has no case even on merits for condonation of delay. No material particulars and/or fact and evidence in support of prayer for condonation of delay to be found on the record. 4. The factual aspect of the matter is that the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement vide his application dated 27.7.2004 which was duly accepted by the Respondent vide its order dated 25.11.2005. All retiral benefits of the applicant were calculated and paid to him as per the provisions of Pension Rules, 1993. After having accepted the said pensionery benefits and the punishment order in question, the application cannot be allowed to reopen the issue at a belated stage. He cannot be allowed to blow hot and cold. 3 5. Taking overall view of the matter, no fault can be found in the impugned order. The view taken by the Tribunal is reasonable and possible view. This court being a court of appeal is not expected to reappreciate the evidence once again. No perversity in the impugned order could be demonstrated by the Petitioner. Under these circumstances, the Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.A. SAYED J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)