This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging the dismissal of a promotion benefit application. The court held that continuous non-statutory representations do not extend the limitation period, upholding the Tribunal's view.
The Writ Petition was dismissed. No costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 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 :
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.
wp5209-2018.doc
- 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.
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
1 issue framed by the court
Whether delay in filing Original Application due to non-statutory representation can be condoned.
Digambar Rajaram Parodwad
State of Maharashtra
Pradeep Nandrajog
R.G. Avachat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
