1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8191 OF 2010 C.V.Madhavan Pillai, Age 63 years, Occ-Retired R/o 27, Nandigram Colony, Garkheda, Pundlik Nagar Road, Aurangabad, Tq. Dist.Aurangabad. .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. [Copy to be served on Government Pleader, High Court of Judicature of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad.] .. RESPONDENT ... Mr. P.N. Kutti, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for respondent. ... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 4th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER A.A. SAYED, J.] 2 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is heard finally by consent. 2] The petitioner by the above petition takes exception to the order dated 23/2/2010 passed by learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ( ‘MAT’ for the sake of brevity) by which order the application of the petitioner claiming deemed date of promotion and consequential benefits therefrom, came to be rejected. 3] The petitioner who was appointed as Overseer in the Irrigation Department of State of Maharashtra on 20.8.1965, had retired on superannuation on 30.6.2004. He is however, claiming deemed date of promotion as Sub-Divisional Officer with effect from 1.1.1976 and deemed date of promotion as Executive Engineer as per Career Acceleration Program with effect from 1.8.2001 and consequently the benefits therefrom. Before the learned MAT, the petitioner though had sought substantive prayers in his application, had restricted his prayer at the time of hearing, seeking a direction to the respondent to decide his representation/application within stipulated period. The cause had arisen about three and half decades ago or atleast about a 3 decade ago when the petitioner was in fact promoted as Sub Divisional Officer on 3.7.2001. Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 prescribes one year's limitation in respect of final order made by the competent authority from the date on which such final order has been made and in case of representation wherein no final order has been made by the competent authority and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of the said period of six months. In the instant case, even between the date of retirement (30.06.2004)/ initial representation (24.06.2004) of the petitioner, and the filing of the Original Application before learned MAT a period of about 5 years had elapsed. 4] The cause of action for filing the application before learned MAT was clearly beyond limitation. The learned MAT by the impugned order dated 23/2/2010, rightly rejected the Original Application of the petitioner as time barred. Before us, it is contended that it was only a limited prayer for considering the representation of the petitioner which was pressed and which was wrongly rejected by the learned MAT. 4 5] Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the impugned order is unexceptionable and does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp8191.10