1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 523 OF 2009 Vithal Marutirao Ekbote. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. Suresh S. Pakale for the Petitioner. Mr. V. S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Ms. M. G. Kulkarni for Respondent No.3. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI and SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : 9TH APRIL, 2009. P.C.: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Grievance Committee mainly on the ground that the order is not reasoned order. Even the contentions raised by the petitioner before the Grievance Committee have not been addressed. This submission of the petitioner does not seem to be misplaced. But since the matter is pending for a long time and the petitioner has been agitating for a long time, therefore, we thought it appropriate not to remand the matter back to the Grievance Committee but to look into the grievance of the petitioner. 2. The petitioner' s contention is that the post of Personal Assistant 2 became available after two posts were created in the year 1990. He was, however, promoted to the post of Personal Assistant with effect from 27th June, 1997. He submits that since the post had been created in the year 1990 he should be taken to have been promoted in the year 1990 and be given benefits accordingly. This is not possible. It is always for the employer to decide whether to fill up the post or not to fill up the post. The post can be kept vacant. Also fact of the matter is that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Personal Assistant with effect from 27th June, 1997 and according to the counter affidavit the arrears from that date have already been paid to the petitioner. 3. In this view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (BILAL NAZKI, J.) Sd/- (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)