(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2793 OF 1999 Prakash s/o. Vasantrao Shinde, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Service, At present working as Dy. Mechanical Engineer in MSRTC, Jalna Division, Jalna, R/o. Jalna. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. [Through the Govt. Pleader, High Court Building at Aurangabad]. 2. The Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Through its Chairman, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, M.V. Bhavan, Central Mumbai - 400 008. 3. The Deputy General Manager [P & IR], Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, M.V. Bhavan, Central Mumbai - 400 008. 4. The Regional Manager, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Aurangabad. (2) 5. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Jalna. .. Respodents. ....................... Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2, 3 and 5 served (Absent). Mr. P.K. Joshi, Advocate, for respondent no.4 (Absent). ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 11TH AUGUST 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) : 1. The petitioner claims that he has completed more than 25 years of service. According to him, though work is taken from the petitioner, during the month of February 1996 and from October 1996 to 1st May 1997, his salary for the said period has not been released. According to the petitioner, though several representations are made to the respondent, to release his (3) salary, but no action is taken by the respondents, authorities, on the said representations. 2. Mr. A.S. Golegaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that for no fault of the petitioner, the petitioner is deprived of the said salary for the period of 6 months and 7 days. The respondents, having extracted the work from the petitioner, they are duty bound to pay salary to the petitioner. 3. The respondents, though served and represented through Advocate, have not filed any affidavit, denying the averments made by the petitioner. As such, on the basis of the principle of non-traverse, the averments made by the petitioner will have to be considered as truthful. 4. In the light of the above, we allow the petition and make the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". However, there shall be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2793