- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2270 OF 2000 ... Mrs.R.K.Rathaur ..Petitioner v/s. Union of India & ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.S.P.Saxena for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 22ND JANUARY, 2008 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner was working as a Tutor with the Respondent No.2. The Respondent No.2 proposed to revert the Petitioner to the post of clerk because according to the Respondent No.2 post of Tutor was not available. The Petitioner, therefore, approached - 2 - the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.84 of 1993. That Application was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on the ground that the post of Tutor was not available. 2. That order was challenged in this petition. By order dated 3rd May, 2000 passed in this petition the Division Bench of this Court issued certain directions. When the matter came before the Court on 30th August, 2000 the court found that the directions given by the Court have not been observed and nothing has been done, therefore, the court granted interim relief to the Petitioner in terms of prayer clauses (b) & (c). As a consequence of the grant of interim relief the Petitioner continued to work in the post of Tutor in Hindi Department under the Respondent No.2. During the pendency of the petition the Petitioner applied for the voluntary retirement from the post of Tutor and that notice was accepted by the Respondent No.2 by communication dated 25-11-2005. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has placed a copy of that communication on record. It is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. As a result of acceptance of notice of voluntary - 3 - retirement the Petitioner stands retired from the services of the Respondent No.2 from the post of Tutor. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner is now being paid pension on the basis of her working on the post of Tutor. 3. Respondents are not appearing. In our opinion, as the Petitioner has worked in the post of Tutor and has retired from that post, though because of the interim order passed by this Court, following order would meet the ends of justice. O R D E R (i) Respondents are directed to continue the Petitioner in the post of Tutor as was done by the interim order passed by this Court and they are further directed to continue to pay the Petitioner pension on the basis of her working on the post of Tutor. (ii) Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. - 4 - (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)