Judgment : (Anoop V. Mohta, J.) Petitioner has challenged order dated 27.11.1997 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) Nagpur, whereby the following order is passed – “The application is partly allowed. The applicants are entitled to absorption on converted regular temporary establishment as semi-skilled workers in the scale of Rs.260-495 with effect from 1.4.1987 in case of applicant Nos. 1 to 4 and with effect from 1.4.1988 in case of applicant no.5. However, they will not be entitled to claim arrears of pay or other consequential benefits but will be entitled to proper fixation of pay accordingly. The respondents are directed to fix their pay within a period of two months. No order as to costs.” 2. The main challenge of the petitioner was revolving around limitation since it was barred by time. Admittedly, Kalelkar Settlement is the foundation for the respondents to claim benefits as they were absorbed and taken on C.R.T.E. with effect from 1.4.1986 vide order dated 7.10.1989. The issue was about absorption in the post of semi skilled worker. The learned Tribunal after considering the material placed on record granted the above relief. Once there is no denial to the settlement, we are inclined to observe that the cause of action is continuing. Therefore, there is no question of accepting the submission that the recovery of arrears with difference and the consequential benefits were time barred. 3. This Court while admitting the petition on 25.8.1998 not granted any interim relief. Petitioner is, therefore, under obligation to comply with the order passed by MAT. The order so passed, in our view, needs no interference specially at the instance of the petitioner on the ground of limitation. The petitioner in the additional affidavit has made reference to the various Circulars by observing “post as per work and pay scale”. It is stated that representation of respondent no. 5 is still pending. Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, there is no case made out by the petitioner to interfere with the reasoned order passed by MAT. We are dismissing the petition. However, it is made clear that the representation of respondent no. 5 dated 8.5.2012 be considered in accordance with law, based upon the order already passed by MAT. The petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.