1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3844/2008 Bharat N.Kanitkar Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner of Police Mumbai,& Ors. Respondents Mr.A.N.Mulla advocate for the petitioner Mr.P.I.Khemani,A.G.P.for the State CORAM : J.N.PATEL & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATED : 20TH APRIL,2009 P.C. . Heard. 2] This Petition is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 11/1/2007 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal , Bombay in O.A.No.739/2006 confirming the dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner had joined Police Force as a police constable on 1/3/1989 . In the year 1990 he was given duty at Reserve Bank of India , Bombay Central. The petitioner and the other constables were found drunk and were playing cards while on duty at Reserve Bank of India during night. Somebody reported about the incident and the action was taken against the petitioner and the said 2 constables. Departmental enquiry was conducted and in May,1994 his services were terminated by the disciplinary authority . He preferred appeal to respondent no.3 and the said appeal was dismissed on 6/2/1995 .It is contended in the petition that the said order of dismissal was not communicated to him , on the other hand, he was posted to different police station on duty till 1997. After 1997 to November,2005 the petitioner approached the respondent for his reinstatement on duty. However,it yielded no result. He thereafter filed O.A.no.739/2006 alongwith M.A.no.318/06 for condonation of delay. However,the matter was dismissed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by its order dated 11/1/2007 refusing to condone the inordinate delay of ten years. Being aggrieved with the said order this petition is filed. 3] The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner despite of his dismissal was asked to work as Head Constable till 1997 and he had put in total service of nearly 8 years. He has further submitted that the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal deserves to be set aside and the petitioner should have been given an opportunity to contest his application on merits. 4] Perused the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. We do not find any error and illegality in the said order to interfere in the said matter. Hence the petition stands dismissed in limini with no order as to costs. 3 5] However,at the time of submissions the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that considering the years of service put in by the petitioner he is entitled for pension , which ought to have been considered by the State. He has further submitted that the petitioner has family responsibility of children and old mother . 6] The petitioner for his entitlement to the pension may approach the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority to consider if he is entitled to the pension under the law. (J. N. PATEL , J ) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J)