1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 202 OF 2007 (Abdul Sayeed s/o Abdul Razzaque vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. SEPTEMBER 22, 2008. Heard Shri Deo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deopujari, learned AGP for the respondents. The learned AGP states that on 19.09.2008, vide Stamp No. 10687 of 2008, reply affidavit has been placed on record. The said reply is not tagged along with the petition before me. Shri Deo, learned counsel has, however, made available his copy. Shri Deopujari, learned AGP has invited attention to the communication annexed at Annexure – I to the said affidavit. The said communication is dated 16.09.2008 sent by the Desk Officer to the Director of Education, Pune. The communication mentions that the decision to extend benefits of retirement at the age of 60 years has already been taken on 29.12.2006 and was issued with concurrence of the Finance Department 2 immediately. The communication further states that the Accountant General has to grant sanction, taking into consideration the fact that Contempt Petition is filed. On 11.3.2005 in Writ Petition No. 3470 of 2001, this Court while allowing petition, declared that the petitioner is entitled to all retiral and pensionary benefits by considering his age of retirement to be 60 years and the respondents were directed to fix his pension accordingly. The State Government through its Secretary, Education and Employment Department, Deputy Director of Education, Amravati Division, Amravati and the Director of Education, Maharashtra State, Pune, were amongst the party respondents in that writ petition. It is clear that for more than three years, the benefit has not been extended to the present petitioner. It is also clear that though it is mentioned that the government decision has been issued on 29.12.2006, for about one year and nine months, the decision has not been implemented. I, therefore, find that the contention of learned AGP that Contempt is purged, is only technically correct. The learned AGP has pointed out that this Court on 22.08.2008 has allowed cost of Rs.2,000/- 3 to the petitioner and therefore lenient view should be taken. However, considering the fact that it was a case of retirement benefits, I am not in a position to accept the request. The respondents shall pay to the petitioner interest calculated @ 9% per annum on all the amount of arrears from 29.12.2006 till date. The respondents are also expected to clear the arrears along with interest within a period of three months from today. Contempt Petition is accordingly disposed of. JUDGE *GS.