ssp 1 WP 6156 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6156 of 2010 Suresh Ramkisan Byas .....Petitioner V/s. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. and Ors. ..... Respondents Ms.Bhavana Mhatre, for the petitioner. Mr.A.M.Vernekar, for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr.S.R.Ganbavale, for respondent No.8. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 6th DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for appropriate writ directions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing respondent No.8 to reconstitute the vigilance committee for reconsidering the report dated 27-05-2008. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1974. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the year 2002, his case for promotion should have been considered in the sports quota on the ground that he is is a sportsman and he was entitled to get promotion in the sports quota. The petitioner has already retired from the service in May 2010 and the grievance is regarding the promotion of 2002. The Vigilance authorities found that no concerned Officer was responsible in any manner. The report of the Vigilance Committee finds place at Exh.O, ssp 2 WP 6156 of 2010 page No.87 of the compilation. The Vigilance Committee submitted report in view of the complaint of the petitioner about the illegality in the promotion given to other employees and the Vigilance Committee has considered the said aspect in detail. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a fresh vigilance committee may be constituted. It is required to be noted that the grievance of the petitioner is for promotion as back as in the year 2002 and subsequently the petitioner was retired from the service. The vigilance committee has also considered the charges levelled against Mr.A.K.Trivedi and detailed reasons have been given by the Vigilance Committee at page 109 onwards in this behalf. By going through the same, we do not find any substance in the say of the petitioner. Even otherwise, the grievance of the petitioner is regarding non-promotion and in our view, such a dispute cannot be decided and agitated at such a belated stage and after such a long time. 3. In view of what is stated above, the writ petition is rejected. ( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )