1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5029 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.5029 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.5029 OF 2005 Chandrakant Baburao Mirajkar ...Petitioner Chandrakant Baburao Mirajkar ...Petitioner Chandrakant Baburao Mirajkar ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ----- ----- ----- Ms.Shilpa Mangle Adv. i/b. Mr. P.D.Pise Adv. for Ms.Shilpa Mangle Adv. i/b. Mr. P.D.Pise Adv. for Ms.Shilpa Mangle Adv. i/b. Mr. P.D.Pise Adv. for Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 6TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 6TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 6TH DECEMBER, 2005 . Learned Counsel for Petitioner seeks . Learned Counsel for Petitioner seeks . Learned Counsel for Petitioner seeks adjournment on the ground that Mr. Pise is not adjournment on the ground that Mr. Pise is not adjournment on the ground that Mr. Pise is not available. We have considered the impugned order. available. We have considered the impugned order. available. We have considered the impugned order. The Petitioner has already retired on 31st April 1997. The Petitioner has already retired on 31st April 1997. The Petitioner has already retired on 31st April 1997. He filed original application in the year 2003 to He filed original application in the year 2003 to He filed original application in the year 2003 to claim time bound promotional scale. The learned claim time bound promotional scale. The learned claim time bound promotional scale. The learned Tribunal, though the claim was time barred, yet Tribunal, though the claim was time barred, yet Tribunal, though the claim was time barred, yet considered the Petitioner’s case and on assessment of considered the Petitioner’s case and on assessment of considered the Petitioner’s case and on assessment of C.R. reports gave finding that his claim for time C.R. reports gave finding that his claim for time C.R. reports gave finding that his claim for time bound promotion does not deserve any consideration, bound promotion does not deserve any consideration, bound promotion does not deserve any consideration, hence rejected. hence rejected. hence rejected. . On the above facts we find that there appears . On the above facts we find that there appears . On the above facts we find that there appears no error on the face of the record warranting no error on the face of the record warranting no error on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court. In the light of that the interference by this Court. In the light of that the interference by this Court. In the light of that the Petition is dismissed. Petition is dismissed. Petition is dismissed. (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) 2 (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)