1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 109 OF 2009 Jitendra Pundlik Chandhary .. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. .. Respondents Shri S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri S. K. Tambe, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri R. J. Godbole, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 4 served. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 23RD SEPTEMBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER [Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] : 1. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the letter dated 22nd August, 2008 vide which the services of the petitioner have been placed under suspension by order of respondent No. 3. 2. In affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 and 4 2 dated 24th August, 2009, it was stated that, though an order of suspension was passed against the petitioner, the care taker was appointed who has permitted the petitioner to sign the muster roll. It was also stated that, the pay bills are pending with the Joint Director. However, vide subsequent affidavit dated 11th September, 2009, the position is clarified and it is stated that, the salary has been paid up to October, 2008. 3. In that view of the matter, it appears to be undisputed position that, the order of suspension was not given effect to. The respondents No. 3 and 4 are, therefore, directed to submit the pay bills to the Respondent No. 2, for the period during which the petitioner was allegedly under suspension, if the bills are not already submitted. The said bills shall be submitted within a period of two weeks from today. 4. On receipt of such bills, the respondent No. 2 shall take necessary steps for releasing the salary of the petitioner within a period of three weeks thereafter. The petition is therefore, disposed of. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/Sept. 09