VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 363 OF 2008 Shyamrao Ishwar Kakade Petitioners Vs. Union of India and Ors. Respondents Mr. A. I. Bhatkar, for the Petitioner. Dr. Poornima Advani i/b The Law Point for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, AND A. P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : May 2, 2008. PC :- . There were some charges of misconduct against the petitioner and after an inquiry, he was imposed with the penalty with the reduction to a lower stage in the time scale, by the order dated February 17, 1995. However, the disciplinary authority did not spell out the time period after which he could be re-considered for the promotion. He filed the appeal on 16th March 1995. The appeal was rejected by the appellate authority, though it was modified to reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale by one stage. The order of appellate authority was passed on August 28, 1995. However, on August 9, 1995 the - 2 - disciplinary authority had issued amended order by adding the words "for a period three years" at the end of the original order of punishment, wherein it is further directed that "Shri S. I. Kakade, Jr. Office Assistant, Office of the Regional Executive Director, Bombay will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay." 2. Obviously, this order should also be read as order of the appellate authority. When the appeal was filed by him, it was necessary to be spelt out by the petitioner before he could be promoted. The petitioner was promoted as senior assistant w.e.f. 1-7-1996 by the order dated 22-12-2005. However the date of his prmotion has been subsequently changed to the date 1st March 1998. The petitioner was serving the sentence, that was the period during which he could not be promoted in view of the punishment. Therefore, we do not find any merits as it appears that change of date of promotion appears to be justified. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the order which laid time period for which he could not be promoted, as specified by the authority, he could have challenged the said order of the appellate authority earlier. Thirteen years have passed from - 3 - the date 9-8-1995 and the petitioner had not chosen a recourse to challenge this order even till today. In the absence of any reason for not challenging the said order 9-8-1995 till to this date, the petitioner’s case may not be justified. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we give liberty to the petitioner to make representation to the respondents, who may consider the same in the light of the subsequent conduct of the petitioner, i.e. the conduct after he served the punishment. With these observation, petition is dismissed. Sd/- [ BILAL NAZKI, J. ] Sd/- [ A. P.BHANGALE, J.]