1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5152 OF 2009 Bhau Dhaku Margale .... Petitioner V/s. Samaj Shikshan Mandal and Ors. ..... Respondents Smt.Anita Agarwal, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for the respondent – State. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 08TH APRIL, 2010 P.C. 1. It is not in dispute that regular candidates have already been selected, and since initially petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis, he had no right to the post. The petitioner had filed a writ petition to continue him on the post, but it was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Against the order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner had filed Letters Patent Appeal and the Division Bench has directed that respondents may consider to continue him till regular selectee is available. Subsequently, petitioner applied for selection, but he was not selected and respondent Nos.5 and 6 came to be selected. In view of the same, we find no substance in the claim of the petitioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 2 petitioner was not paid regular salary for the period between 1997 to 1999. In this behalf, it will be open to the petitioner to make representation to the concerned department and the department shall as per the service record of the petitioner, find out as to whether he was entitled to salary for the relevant period. 3. In our view, the claim of the petitioner is too stale to be considered, as earlier the petitioner has not made any grievance with the department/management. However, it is for the respondents to consider as to whether the petitioner is entitled to salary or not for the aforesaid intervening period. Even in Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench has not given any such direction asking the management to pay salary to the petitioner, nor we have found any argument on behalf of the petitioner to that effect. Still, it is for the management to consider the representation of the petitioner, if any, in accordance with law. 4. Subject to what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. ( R.G.KETKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )