1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1102 OF 2010 Shri Shrikant Anant Shinde : Petitioner versus The State of Maharahstra and ors. : Respondents Mr. N V Bandiwadekar for the Petitioner. Mr. S N Patil AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, R. M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 16th April 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. Mr.S N Patil, AGP, waives notice for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 3. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the judgment dated 20/11/2009 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai in Misc. Application No.89 of 2009 in Original Application (Stamp) No.77 of 2009. By the said decision the Tribunal dismissed the application preferred by the Petitioner for condonation of delay in filing the 2 original application. In the original application, the Petitioner has prayed for several relief. The Tribunal, however, proceeded to reject the application on the ground that the explanation offered by the Petitioner was insufficient to condone the delay of over two years. 4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that that reason may be relevant in the context of other reliefs claimed by the Petitioner but by no stretch of imagination the relief claimed in prayer clause (c) in the original application can be said to have become barred by limitation. For that we would immediately advert to prayer clause (c) of the original application which reads thus :- “(c) By a suitable order/direction, this Hon. Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to forthwith implement the directions issued to him by the Respondent No.2 as contained in the letter dated 23.7.2008 in the context of grievance of the Petitioner about deemed date of promotion and other consequential benefits in the post of Awal Karkoon.” 5. We are in agreement with this submission of the Petitioner that the relief is founded on the communication issued by the Respondent No.2 dated 23.7.2008 and to comply with the directions in the said communication. Since the original application was filed in 3 February 2009, it was obviously within limitation in so far as relief prayed for in the context of the letter dated 23.7.2008. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal at all. 6. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned decision of the Tribunal and relegate the Petitioner before the Tribunal for considering the relief as prayed for in terms of prayer clause (c) in the original application. That is the only relief that would survive for consideration as is contended by the Petitioner. 7. Petition is disposed of on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)