-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5796 OF 2002 Jadhavar Sampat Aba ... Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents Mr. A.M. Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Additional Govt. Pleader, for the State. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for respondent No.5 Mr. Uday P. Warunjikar for respondent No.7. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 17, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged his transfer order by which he was transferred from College of Education to the Secondary School at Ekhatpur. The writ petition was admitted by this Court. 2. During the pendency of this petition, by virtue of the order of a Division Bench dated 29th September, 2003 in Civil Application No. 1646 of 2003, the petitioner was permitted to resume his duty at the transferred place, without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the petition. By virtue of the said order, the petitioner resumed his duties at the transferred place. Now the petitioner has retired from the service. In view thereof, the petition has become infructuous. However, Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the -2- petitioner submitted that for about eight months or so, the petitioner had not resumed at the transferred place as this writ petition was pending and there was an ad-interim order in his favour which ad-interim order could not be implemented by the management as in his place another person was appointed. The Division Bench of this Court in the aforesaid order has clearly mentioned that it is open to the petitioner to claim salary or the intervening period to be treated as a leave period. Mr. Joshi submits that the petitioner has not been given pensionary benefits because of the pendency of this petition and that the petitioner apprehends that the intervening period of about eight months or so may not be treated for the purpose of retirement benefits such as pension, gratuity, etc. In view of the earlier order of the Division Bench in the Civil Application, it is directed that whatever leave which may be at the credit of the petitioner, the same may be sanctioned. Regarding intervening period of about eight months or so, if there is no leave at the credit of the petitioner, the same will be treated as leave without pay and the retirement benefits may be given to the petitioner except for payment of back wages for the said period. Subject to what is stated above, the petition has become infructuous and we order accordingly. Rule is discharged. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.