( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 589 OF 2010 Ramrao s/o Kisan Pawar PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 590 OF 2010 Sakin Ahmed s/o Ahmed Pathan PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 594 OF 2010 Arjun s/o Waman Arbad PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. R.R. Imale, advocate for the petitioner in all the three petitions. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Additional Govt. Pleader, for the respondent No. 1 in all the three petitions. Mr. D.R. Kale Patil, advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 3 in all the three petitions. Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, advocate for the respondent No. 4 in all the three petitions. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 27th July, 2010] ( 2 ) PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and learned Additional Govt. Pleader. 2. The petitions are being disposed of at the stage of admission itself in view of certain admitted fact situation. 3. The reply-affidavit of the respondents No. 2 and 3 would make amply clear that the petitioners were employees of the respondents No. 2 and 3. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners have retired from the service. The respondents No. 2 and 3, in fact, categorically stated that the due amount is payable. The following statement is made in paragraph No. 2 of the reply-affidavit of the respondents No. 2 and 3. “I say and submit that, the statement at page No. 21 of the petition relied by petitioner is the factual aspects and said amount is due amount towards sugar factory, but because of the financial problem, respondent is not in position to pay the said dues. That, there is very huge loan amount towards factory by Maharashtra State ( 3 ) Co-operative Bank Ltd. Therefore, respondent is unable to pay the arrears to the petitioner.” 4. Indeed, the petitioners were unnecessarily required to run from pillar to post. They have not been paid the due amounts, which they should have received on superannuation. They had filed joint petition on earlier occasion which was required to be split up because of the direction of the learned Single Judge. They have lost much time in litigation. The petitioners are old aged pensioners and must get their dues within a reasonable period. 5. Considering foregoing reasons, the petitions are allowed. The respondents No. 2 and 3 are directed to pay the amounts which are found due and payable to the petitioners, after deducting the amounts which are already paid to the petitioners prior to their superannuation or thereafter. The petitioners and the respondents No. 2 and 3 may verify the due amounts from the office record available with the Sugar Factory, which is now in the possession of the respondent No. 4 and the respondent No. 4 shall allow such verification of the record. If the amount is not paid within six (6) months hereafter, the respondent No. 4 will be liable to pay such ( 4 ) amount to the petitioners from the amount which is being deposited to the Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank towards the rent. All three petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/wp589-10-group