Digambar Rajaram Parodwad v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5209 OF 2018 Digambar Rajaram Parodwad PETITIONER
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS .....
Mr. S.D. Joshi, Advocate holding for Mr. Ashish L. Rajkar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.Y. Mahajan, A.G.P. for the respondents/State .....
CORAM: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, CJ & R.G. AVACHAT, J.
DATE : 26.09.2019 PER COURT :
1] Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2] By the impugned order dated 8th August, 2016, delay in filing Original Application (Stamp) No.553/2015 has not been condoned and as a result, the Original Application has been dismissed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
- 2 - 3] The petitioner was appointed as a Peon on 19th February, 1982 and was promoted as a bailiff on 9th December, 1994. Further promotion earned was that of a clerk/typist on 11th June, 2008. 4] On the plea that a person junior to him named Mr. H.B. Kadam was given benefit of time-bound promotion on completing twelve years service, the petitioner made a representation that even he be given a time-bound second promotion benefit on rendering twelve years service as a Grade-D employee. The representation was made for the first time somewhere in the year 2008. He continued to make representations till he superannuated from service.
5] Suffice it to state that the claim of the petitioner was most confusing for the reason he claimed right to be promoted as a clerk with effect from 10th August, 1993, a date which emerges probably with reference to the promotion earned by Mr. H.B. Kadam. 6] Thus, the cause of action, if any accrued to the petitioner way back in the year 1993.
- 3 - 7] It is settled law that continuous non-statutory representations do not extend the limitation.
8] We find no infirmity in the view taken by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and thus dismiss the Writ Petition. 9] No costs.
(R.G. AVACHAT, J.) CHIEF JUSTICE npj/wp5209-2018.doc