wp1925.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1925 OF 2009 Smt. Zarina Begum Ubed Makrani, Age-55 years, Occu: Household Resident of-Patoda, Tq-Patoda, Dist-Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department, Mantralaya Extension Bhavan, Mumbai-400 032, 2) The Deputy Director of Vocational Education & Training, Regional Office, at Aurangabad, 3) The Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Patoda, Tq-Patoda, Dist-Beed, 4) Accountant General, Accountant General Office, A&E-II Maharashtra State, Nagpur. ...RESPONDENTS. wp1925.09 2 ... Ms. A.N. Ansari Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 14TH DECEMBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. In the facts of the case, the Petitioner submits that prayer clause (E) in the Original Application was not considered by discussing facts of the case, by the Tribunal. Prayer clause (E) in the Original Application wp1925.09 3 reads as under:- "(E) The respondents may kindly be directed the benefits of pay scale which is admissible after 12 and 24 years service may be given to the husband of the applicant by fixing pay scale accordance to the rules." 3. We find that in the facts of the case, there was no proper material placed before the Tribunal to consider prayer clause (E). Though the Tribunal rejected the prayer clause (E), in the facts of the case, the Petitioner is entitled to file comprehensive representation before the employer of her deceased husband, in respect of prayer clause (E) in the Original Application. 4. In case such a representation is filed, addressed to the Respondent - employer, within four weeks from today, we direct the Respondent - wp1925.09 4 employer to consider entire record, hear the necessary parties and pass brief reasoned order within THREE MONTHS from the date of receipt of representation and communicate the same to the Petitioner. On rest of the issues, we do not find that the Tribunal has committed any error in considering the case of the Petitioner. 5. The order rejecting prayer clause (E) by the Tribunal, is set aside. 6. Rule is made partly absolute on the terms indicated above. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/DEC11