1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6429 OF 2007 Smt. Shakuntala w/o Yeshwant Kolte, Age: 55 years, Occ: Household., R/o. Ganesh Ghat, Paithan, Tq. Paithan, Dist.Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Union of India; through its Under Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs Loknayak Bhavan, Khan Market, New Delhi & Anr. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. S.D. Kotkar, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Union of India. Shri. R.P. Phatke, A.G.P. for respondent No.2. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 8TH JULY, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner prayed for direction to 2 respondent No.1 to decide her pension claim. Affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of respondent No.1. The deponent has contended in Para-14 as under. "14. That the contents of para 6 (wrongly numbered, it should be para 7) of the Writ Petition are denied as the claim of the petitioner's husband has been considered and rejected vide letter dated 24.1.1995 since he has not produced any evidence in support of his claim. No representation dated 12.10.2007 has been received in this Ministry." 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not received such communication. 4. We have perused Exhibit-F annexed to the petition. In the light of that, we find that decision on merits was taken by respondent No.1 3 and communicated accordingly. In case, such decision was taken then same be communicated to the petitioner. In case, decision is not arrived at by passing reasoned order, then we direct respondent No. 1 to take decision within 12 weeks from the receipt of this order and communicate the same to the petitioner. In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner may resort to alternative appropriate remedy as permissible in law. Writ Petition is disposed of. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/JUL10/wp6429.07