(1) WP 2972.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2972 OF 2011 Balasaheb Maruti Holambe PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.S. Dambe, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 22ND AUGUST, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Though the Court has directed the learned A.G.P. to take instructions as back as on 25th April, 2011, even after a period of four (4) months, the learned A.G.P. reports no instructions. In that view of the matter, we will have to proceed on the basis that the averments in the Petition are un-controverted and as such deemed to be accepted. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 3. By way of present Petition, the petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the order of (2) WP 2972.2011 the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 11.11.2010, thereby dismissing the Original Application of the petitioner on the ground of being filed after the prescribed limitation. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the allowance etc. 4. We do not find it necessary to go into the correctness of the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, inasmuch as this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not prevented from entertaining the claim of the petitioner, if it finds that injustice is being done to the petitioner. 5. A perusal of the communication dated 4.3.2010 at page 88 of the paperbook which is addressed by Tahsildar, Parali Vaijanath would reveal that the Tahsildar himself has found that the petitioner has completed more than 18 years of service and as such has recommended the proposal for grant of pensionary benefits to the Accountant General, Maharashtra (Accounts and Entitlement). (3) WP 2972.2011 6. The Petition is therefore disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.5 to decide the proposal submitted by the Tahsildar dated 4.3.2010 within a period of three (3) months from today and if the petitioner is found to be entitled to the pensionary benefits, it is further directed that the pensionary benefits, in fact, be paid to the petitioner within a period of six (6) months from today. Rule made absolute in the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/