1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2466/2011 PURUSHOTTAM CHHOTELAL BAJANGGHATE ..VS.. THE EDUCATION OFFICER ( SEC ) 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 P.N. Shende, advocate for petitioner Smt. K.S. Joshi, A G P for respondent no.1 & 4 Shri G.C. Singh, advocate for respondent no.2 & 3 CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. NOVEMBER 11, 2011. Heard. The challenge is to the communication dated 28.12.2010, sent by respondent no.4 pointing out that increments have been notionally drawn and accordingly pension papers have been forwarded. The said office therefore, has sought necessary approval for such fixation, form the Pay- Unit of respondent no.1. Shri Shende, is relying upon the fact that controversy before this court raised by the management in Writ Petition No.5006/2005, was settled amicably and accordingly steps have been taken. He states that School Tribunal had given to petitioner relief of reinstatement with continuity and full back- wages and that order formed subject matter of Writ Petition No.5006/2005. Hence release of notional increment in this situation is not bad. 2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 & 4 has pointed out that the Education Department is not party to that compromise and the services of the petitioner were not approved by the Education Department. According to us in this situation the compromise is not binding upon the Department of Education. Our attention is also brought to the fact that the contempt petition was filed earlier by present petitioner in this respect. However, looking to the fact that the petitioner has been found to be 100% blind by Medical Board, respondent no.1 states that if appropriate papers are received by respondent no.1 from respondents no.2 & 3, the decision in accordance with law shall be taken in a time bound manner. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 & 3 assures that said papers would be forwarded to respondent no.1 within a period of two weeks from today. In this situation without observing anything more on merits, we dispose of petition by directing respondent no.2 & 3 to forward all relevant papers to respondent no.1 within a period of two weeks from today. If such papers are received by the office of respondent no.1, respondent no.1 shall consider those papers in accordance with law within a period of 8 weeks and attempt to finalise the retirement benefits / pension, if payable to the petitioner, in accordance with law within said period. If respondent no.1 finds petitioner entitled to any benefit, papers shall accordingly be forwarded to office of respondent no.4, and respondent no.4 shall then arrange to release those benefits as early as possible and in any case 3 within a further period of three months. With liberty to petitioner to approach again if cause of action thereafter subsists, we dispose of the writ petition. No order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE smp