IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2157 OF 2009 Dr. Ashok Kumar Sadanand Banait ..Petitioner versus Principal, Arts, Science & Commerce and Others ..Respondents Mr Shriram S.S. Kulkarni for Petitioner Mr. Anilkumar Patil for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent Nos. 4,5 and 7 CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 15, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of non grant of pension and pensionary benefits though the petitioner retired from the service as lecturer way back in 2005. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in spite of the fact that number of years have passed, the case of the petitioner's for grant of pension and pensionary benefits has not been settled and therefore, the petitioner had no option but to approach this Court for necessary directions to the respondents. The additional affidavit of respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 7 shows that respondent-management was time and again requested to forward the proposal of the petitioner in respect of consideration of condonation of break in service of the petitioner. However, the management failed to respond. The similar is the situation about the sending of the proposal of the petitioner for grant of pension and pensionary benefits to the Competent Authority. The learned Counsel for the management on the other hand, has submitted that the Management initially submitted the proposal of the petitioner for grant of pension and pensionary benefits to the Competent Authority. However, the pension case of the petitioner could not be finalized because of certain queries made by the Indian Audit and Accounts Department. It is therefore, contended that the Management is not solely responsible for the delay caused. The learned Advocate for the Management has submitted that the fresh proposal in respect of condonation of delay in break in service of the petitioner shall be submitted to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 during the course of the day. The learned AGP states that the appropriate decision would be taken in this regard and necessary payments will be disbursed accordingly by the State Government/ Competent Authority within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the said proposal. 2 The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far as interest on delayed payment of pension and pensionary benefits are concerned, the issue may be directed to be considered by the State Government 3 In the backdrop of the above referred facts, particularity in view of the statements made by the learned Counsel for the Management as well as learned AGP, no specific direction as such is necessary to be issued to the respondents and therefore, we dispose of the petition keeping open the issue about grant of interest, if any, to be decided by the State Government in accordance with law after following the principles of natural justice. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)