(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 490 OF 1998 Ramesh s/o. Tukaram Joshi, Age : 51 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. "Madhurang", Behind L.I.C. Building, Nanded Road, Bhokar, District : Nanded. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Secretary, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, having its Head Office, situated at Prakash Gadh, Bandra (East), Mumbai. 2. Chief Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Zone Office, Shakti Sahakar Building, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Road, Aurangabad. 3. Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Circle Office, Vidyut Bhavan, Hingoli Gate, Nanded. (2) 4. Executive Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Division Office, Vidyut Bhavan, Nanded Road, Bhokar, District : Nanded. 5. Assistant Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Board, Sub-Division Office, Dr. Bhale Building, Bhokar, District : Nanded. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Jayant Chitnis, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.P. Powar, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 5. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 1ST JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to make the payment to the (3) petitioner in pursuance to his resignation dated 5th December 1996. The petitioner has also sought a declaration, that the respondent no.4 has wrongly deducted an amount of Rs. 3,600/- towards the L.T.C. advance and the said amount along with the balance amount of the L.T.C. bill submitted by the petitioner be directed to be paid along with interest. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner fairly concedes, that in so far as the main grievance in the petition, regarding payment of dues of the petitioner is concerned, with the intervention of the learned Counsel for the respondents, the matter is settled and the dues have already been paid. He, however, submits that payment has been made after one and half years after the due date and, therefore, submits that the question of interest still survives in the present matter. 3. We find that since during the pendency of the petition itself, and that too, at an earliest opportunity, the respondents have amicably settled the matter with the petitioner and paid his dues, may be at somewhat belated point of time, we do not propose to consider the matter, in so far as payment of interest is concerned. (4) 4. In that view of the matter, the petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp490