1 W.P.No.11373/10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.11373 OF 2010. Karimabi W/o Badruddin ... Petitioner. Versus The Registrar, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth,Parbhani and another ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.G.Dalal, advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 24.01.2011. ORDER (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. The petitioner assails the 2 W.P.No.11373/10 order/communication dated 25.2.1998 and 26.12.2007, whereby the petitioner has been relieved on 28.2.1999, on attaining the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner, she would complete age of 60 years on 3l.3.2009 and not on 28.2.1999. By communication dated 25.2.1998, the Respondents have retired the petitioner from the service with effect from 28.2.1999. The petitioner was relieved from her duties on 28.2.1999. 2. Mr.Dalal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially the Respondent No.1 had recorded the date of birth of petitioner as 7.3.1949 and her date of retirement would be 3l.3.2009. By making the petitioner to retire with effect from 28.2.1999, the petitioner has been deprived of service of 10 (ten) years so also emoluments of the said period and she is entitled for the same. Mr.Dalal, learned counsel further contends that time and again the petitioner was representing to the Respondents but the petitioner did not get any response and eventually on 26.12.2007, the Respondent No.1 3 W.P.No.11373/10 communicated that the application of the petitioner can not be considered and thereafter the petition has been filed at the earliest in 2009. 3. The petitioner does not dispute that she has been made to retire with effect from 28.3.1999 vide letter dated 25.2.1998 and she is also relieved on the said date. The petitioner is putting forth her grievance before this Court after ten (10) years. No proper explanation is coming forth for such delay and laches. This Court would not exercise its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction in favour of a litigant who is not diligent. As such the Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence. The Writ Petition accordingly is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (NARESH H.PATIL,J.) asp/office/wp11373.10 4 W.P.No.11373/10