(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 262 OF 2010 Gajmal Rupchand Thakare, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Datta Colony, Plot No.64, Nandurbar, District : Nandurbar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Chief Engineer, Public Works Regional Division, Nasik. 3. The Superintending Engineer, Public Works Department, Dhule. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. P.B. Shirsath, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2010 COURT'S ORDER (Per R.M. Borde, J.) : 1. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer in Public Works Department and later on he was promoted as Sub-Divisional Officer. According to the petitioner, one Mr. B.J. Mahale, Mr. S.S. Padvi and Mr. A.B. Gavit were also appointed along with him. Furthermore, the petitioner contends that he is senior to the above persons. However, the aforesaid three persons were considered for promotion earlier than the petitioner. The petitioner has also been further promoted as Executive Engineer since 14-9-2010. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for a deemed date of promotion in the cadre of Executive Engineer, as that of Mr. B.J. Mahale, Mr. S.S. Padvi and Mr. A.B. Gavit which is of 31st January 2003. (3) 2. The petitioner had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for ventilating his grievance. However, the Original Application tendered by the petitioner has been turned down on the ground that the same is tendered beyond prescribed period of limitation. As such, the petitioner has approached this Court by presenting this petition. 3. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents have filed affidavit in reply. In paragraph 8 of the reply, it is stated that as far as deemed date is concerned, as per the rules and regulations and following due procedure with concurrence of General Administrative Department and Finance Department, the deemed date will be given to the petitioner. 4. In view of the statement made in the affidavit in reply, the grievance raised by the petitioner, in this petition, does not need any consideration. The petition can be disposed of in view of the statement made in paragraph 8 of the reply on behalf of respondent no.1. It is also clarified that while considering the entitlement of the petitioner for a deemed date of promotion in the cadre of Executive Engineer, as well as, for awarding further benefits, the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, rejecting the Original Application tendered by the petitioner, would not be an impediment. (4) 5. Save and except above observations, the petition is dismissed. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp262