1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION No. 460/2010. Baburao Kisanrao Tayade -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. _______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri R.R. Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A..D. Sonak, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1,4, & 5. Shri S.U. Bhoyar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2&3. CORAM : S.A. BOBDE AND S.B. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : 20.04.2011. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Originally the petitioner has prayed for release of pension, gratuity and provident fund to him. However, it is not in dispute that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the amount was paid to him. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner does not press the grievance regarding commutation and one increment. Thus, the only question is - Whether the 2 petitioner is entitled to interest on the delayed payment of pension, provident fund and gratuity ? Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel for petitioner submits that, the petitioner has retired on 31.01.2008 and the management could not have delayed the payment of pension after a period of 6 months of the date of retirement. According to the petitioner, he was entitled to the interest on delayed payment w.e.f. 01.08.2008 till the date of payment. Shri Bhoyar, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2 and 3 states that the petitioner himself is responsible for causing the delay in processing his case papers for pension, gratuity and provident fund. The learned Counsel relies on a letter dated 09.07.2009 at Annexure-R-5, at the end of which it appears that the petitioner has stated that he has submitted necessary proposal on this date. The petitioner also appears to have signed the said document. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that the petitioner was forced to sign this document. Infact 3 the papers were delayed because the petitioner did not comply with the illegitimate demand of money made in the matter. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel further states that a police complaint has also been filed. In these circumstances, it is obvious that certain disputed questions of facts arise in the matter, particularly on whose count there is delay in releasing the said amount. We, therefore do not consider it fit to entertain this petition on the said disputed questions. Shri Deshpande, the learned Counsel, however, seeks leave to withdraw the Writ Petition with liberty to file Civil Suit. Allowed to withdraw with liberty as sought for. In view of above, Civil Application No.2240/2010 does not survive and is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd