1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2011 AGAINST WRIT PETITION NO. 1728 OF 2009 Shri Rajaram Nana Mane, .. Petitioner Vs. Superintending Engineer, Sangli Circle, Sangli .. Respondent. Mr. D.K.Ghaisas, for the petitioner. Ms.A.R.S.Baxi. for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED : 26th APRIL, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent no.1. 2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.7.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.1728 of 2009, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been rejected. The petition was directed against the order of the Industrial Court dated 28.8.08 dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner. The sole contention urged by the petitioner was that since he was given a deemed date of promotion to a particular post, he is entitled to salary and benefits of the post from that date. This contention was rejected by the Industrial Court and confirmed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order. The T 2 learned Single Judge, while dealing with the contentions, has made the following observations in the order dated 13.7.2010. “Admittedly, the petitioner contends that he was denied the promotion as an Upper Division Clerk in 1978. He was later promoted to that post. He was then denied the promotion as an Assistant Accountant in May,1993. Obviously, therefore, the petitioner would not be entitled to other benefits of that post since he was given a deemed date of promotion from 1995. The Industrial Court has rightly held that the complaint is barred by limitation since the petitioner had sought a deemed date of promotion from 1993 by filing a complaint in 2004. On merits as well, the Industrial Court has rightly held that these benefits cannot be given to the petitioner in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and ors Vs O.P.Gupta & ors, 1996 7 SCC 533 and of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jaising Rangarao Raut Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Board, 2004 (4) Mh.L.J. 115.” We have also perused the reasons recorded by the Industrial Court on the issue of limitation. Having considered over all facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge, while rejecting the writ petition, we find no merit in the appeal. Hence, Appeal is dismissed. (U.D.SALVI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)