1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4431 OF 2009 Arun Kishan Ingle : Petitioner versus Union of India & ors. : Respondents. Mr.R C Kotiankar for the Petitioner. Mr. T J Pandian for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 14th June 2010 P.C. 1 Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard by the consent of the parties. 2 This is a thoroughly misconceived Petition filed by the Petitioner. By way of this Petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Member, Central Administrative Tribunal as back as on 30th April 1997. The Petitioner herein approached the Tribunal on the ground that his services were wrongly terminated by the order 21/12/1985. According to the Petitioner, he was appointed as a casual labourer between 23/11/1980 and 18/2/1983 in Engineering Department and thereafter in Carriage and Wagon Department from 15/2/1984 and was brought on monthly rated casual establishment from 2 14/9/1984. It is the case of the Petitioner that at the time of termination of his services, he was on monthly rated casual establishment and he had completed 120 days of service at the time of termination of services. The Tribunal by the impugned order, which is passed as back as on 30th April 1997, directed the Department to reinstate the Petitioner as M.R.C.L. (Muster Rated Casual Labourer) within two months from the date of communication of that order. The Tribunal also granted benefit of counting of previous service from 23/11/80 to 31/12/85 as per rules however the period from 1986 to 1997 was to be treated as “dies non”. The Petitioner also challenges the said order on the ground that some other similarly situated employees were given the benefit. It is undisputed that in view of the order of the Tribunal, the Department has already reinstated the Petitioner in service. According to the Petitioner, he should have been given seniority from 21/12/1985 onwards i.e. from the date of termination of his services all through out. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the period between 1-1-1986 to 4-7-1997 i.e. the date on which he was reinstated is required to be counted for the purposes of seniority. 3 In our view, there is hardly any substance in the above Petition. The Tribunal has passed the impugned order as back as on 30th 3 April 1997. The Petitioner has accepted the benefit of reinstatement and other benefits granted by the department and has filed this Petition after a period of 12 years. If the Petitioner had any grievance as regards fixation of his seniority at the time of his reinstatement in service, he ought to have raised the said issue at that time. In stead he accepted the order and other benefits given by the Department and therefore accepted the said posts just because some other employees were given the benefit which is claimed by the Petitioner, would not entitled the Petitioner to now raise the said issue. In any event, it appears that the said employees were given the benefit some time in the year 1997. In our view, the claim of the Petitioner therefore is a stale claim and cannot be considered after such a long period. In the facts and circumstances of the case this Court cannot interdict at this stage. 4 We therefore do not find merit in the Petition, which is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]