1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7113 OF 2008 Shri. Devidas Dagadu Patil, Age: 58 years, Occ: Nil, R/o. Aurangpur, Tq. Shahada, District Nandurbar. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Throiugh its Joint Director, Office of Divisional Technical Education, Nashik & Anr. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. S.U. Choudhari, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri. S.P. Shah, Advocate for Respondent No.2. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 12TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner filed application on 09-01-2008, who was working with respondent No.2, for claiming gratuity. It is submitted that the 2 petitioner did not receive any intimation/reply in respect of the said application from the Management and therefore, the petitioner filed present Writ Petition with prayer to direct respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay the amount of gratuity. 3. The respondent - Assistant Director (Non- Technical) in the office of the Joint Director of Technical Education, Regional Office, Nashik filed affidavit in reply. The crux of the reply is that there is an alternate remedy and respondent No.2 is not getting grant from the State. 4. Respondent No.2 filed affidavit in reply through Makrand Nagin Patil, Principal of respondent No.2 College, wherein it is contended that the petition is not maintainable because the the answering respondent is not "State" within Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the alternate remedy is available under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 3 5. We have heard the submissions advanced. In the facts of the case,we find that respondent No.2 ought to have replied to the communication made by the petitioner, to that extent. Unfortunately, the same has not been done. 6. We, therefore, direct respondent No.2 to communicate the petitioner within four weeks from today in respect of his claim for gratuity. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved, he is entitled to approach the competent authorities designated under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, for the same purpose. If the petitioner approaches the competent authority, then we direct the competent authority to dispose of the application of the petitioner, in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/AUG10/wp7113.08