1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.93 OF 2008 Mrs.Seema Sitakant Kamat .. Petitioner Vs. The Welfare Commissioner, Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.M.Pradhan i/b Ms.Leena Patil for the petitioner Ms.Geeta Shastri, A.G.P. for respondent nos.2 State Mr.C.J.Sawant, Sr.Advocate i/b Mr.V.C.Ghosalkar for respondent nos.1 CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 4th August, 2008 DATED : 4th August, 2008 DATED : 4th August, 2008 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this court by filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a grievance that she has not been given due promotion and the benefits accrued therefrom during her tenure in the office and was required to 2 discharge the duties of Superintendent with additional 10% of basic pay whereas the employees junior to her in other departments were promoted and got the benefits. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that subsequently on 04.02.04, she came to be promoted after making repeated representation which order has been annexed as Exhibit ’A’ and immediately thereafter she made a representation to the Department by letter dated 16.02.2004 which has been annexed as Exhibit ’B’. 3. The petitioner refers to the correspondence made by her with the respondent department in the matter. Actually what the petitioner is seeking is that she should be treated on par with persons who have been employed alongwith her and granted promotions and that the petitioner though due for promotion was denied of the same. 4. We have gone through the correspondence and we find that the petitioner failed to agitate the grievance by approaching the court at proper time 3 inspite of being informed by the respondent that she is not entitled for any such benefit. The petitioner retired from the post of Superintended on 28.02.04 and except for having correspondence did not agitate the matter by taking recourse to the remedy available to her under the law. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received a letter dated 19.04.2007 wherein her claim has been finally rejected and this communication gives her cause of action for approaching this court. 6. We have gone through the letter dated 19.04.2007 issued by the respondent Maharashtra Labour Welfare Association wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the petitioner should discontinue making such representation as she was not entitled for any promotion. Further it also clarifies that the promotion was given to Mrs.V.J.Manjarekar from 1.1.04 as Superintendent as she was Senior to her and thereafter the petitioner was promoted as Superintendent on 9.2.04 and, therefore, no injustice was caused to the 4 petitioner. 7. We find that apart from the merits of the matter the very fact that the petitioner has approached this court after a lapse of 4 years from her retirement and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed, no order as to costs. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J ) ( K.K. TATED, J )