1 wp786.11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION KJ WRIT PETITION NO.786 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. )..Petitioners Vs. Rajaram Kondiba Wagh )..Respondent ---- Mr.N.P.Deshpande AGP for the petitioners. Mr.Ram Apte, Sr.Advocate @ Mr.Pratap Patil for the respondent. ---- CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ DATE : 7/3/2011. PC 1 Insofar as the case of respondent in this petition is concerned, in our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal on the basis of admitted facts cannot be doubted. The respondent before us was granted promotion on 21.6.1990. As a result, he completed 12 years of service on 21.6.2002 and therefore, became eligible for being considered for promotion on 21.6.2002. The departmental 2 wp786.11.sxw inquiry however, pertains to charge-sheet issued on 11.12.2002 which is posterior in point of time and cannot be the basis to affect the benefit of Assured Career Progression to be given to the candidate for the period between 21.6.1990 till 21.6.2002. It is for that reason, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to place the case of the respondent before the DPC for consideration of higher pay scale under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. 2 Learned Counsel for the petitioners now, on instructions, states that the date mentioned by the petitioners in the reply affidavit about granting deemed date of promotion to the respondent is incorrect. There is some factual error in the date mentioned in the reply affidavit. That grievance could have and ought to be made before the Tribunal itself in the first place. 3 Realising this position, Counsel for the petitioners prays that the petitioners be granted liberty to file Review Petition before the Tribunal on the basis of the facts which have now come to the notice of the department. 3 wp786.11.sxw 4 In the circumstances, while disposing of this Writ petition, we make it clear that it will be open for the petitioners to apply to the Tribunal for review on the ground that the factual position mentioned in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the department is incorrect and it would have a bearing on the outcome of the conclusion reached in the order dated 29.9.2010 passed in O.A.No. 135 of 2010. Ordered accordingly. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)