1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7338 OF 2009. Shrikant s/o Nathu Narkhade - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra & others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.VY Patil,Advocate for Petitioner; Mrs.SD Shelke,AGP for Respondent No.1-State; Mr.SB Madde, Adv. h/for Mr.NB Suryawanshi, Adv.for Respondent No.2; Mr.KC Sant, Advocate for Respondent No.4. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J. DATE : 27th September, 2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard. 2) The unfortunate petitioner, employee of a Gram Panchayat, appeared before the competent forum with union leader and faced the brunt of rejection as the claim could not be established. The voluminous documents on record illustrate, salary dues recoverable and receivable by the petitioner. 3) Mr.Sant, representing the Gram Panchayat, could not indicate as to legitimacy of 2 the amount payable to the petitioner. However, he has accepted that the petitioner was serving in the Gram Panchayat. The petitioner has, by virtue of Right to information Act, received the document from the Gram Panchayat, which illustrated, he was in service, discharging his obligations and his 52 months’ salary was payable by the Gram Panchayat, Respondent No.4. 4) The petitioner has, apart from the salary, claimed other benefits, such as Weekly Off; 16 years’ dress payment. Be that, as it may; the entitlement of salary dues of Rs. 78,000/- is eloquent, which the Respondent No.4 – Gram Panchayat is directed to pay in time-bound frame within three months.. For the other infringed benefits, Respondent No.4 will consider the Government policy and discharge its obligation and liability, if the petitioner is eligible to receive the same. 5) The Zilla Parishad will ensure to discharge its obligation in relation to meeting the grants, to be released in favour of the Gram Panchayat as per the Rules. 6) With these observations, Writ Petition is allowed to the extent as indicated above. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/