1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3548/2007 ( Smt. Pushpalata Ramesh Ajnikar -VERSUS- State of Maharashtra and others ) 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 AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : SEPTEMBER 01, 2009. Heard Shri S.P. Palshikar, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri G.G. Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent no.3. Petitioner joined her services as Assistant Teacher in 1972 and the school in which she was working came to be de-recognized in 2001. Thereafter, though she made some efforts, according to her she was not absorbed in any other School and reached the age of superannuation i.e. 58 years in October, 2006. This petition thereafter has been filed in July, 2007 claiming pensionary benefits and other retiremental benefits. The respondent no.2 – Deputy Director has on 25.08.2009 filed reply and has placed reliance upon Rule 81 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. Said Authority has stated that sub-clause [a] of Rule 81 is applicable to the petitioner, and hence her entitlement to compensation pension or gratuity can be considered, as she was not absorbed in any other institution after de- 2 recognition. It is also pointed out that as papers of petitioner were never forwarded to the respondent no.2, the respondent no.2 could not take any decision in the matter. Shri Palshikar, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that as petitioner had put in about 29 years of service till 2009, she is entitled to normal pension and there is no question of paying any compensation pension or gratuity to her. Learned A.G.P. states that as she did not worked from 2001 to 2006, i.e. till her superannuation, the superannuation pension cannot be paid to her. Shri Mishra, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 Education Officer is supporting the arguments of learned A.G.P. In the present circumstances, we find that the respondent no.2 has shown his readiness and willingness to entitlement of petitioner to pensionary benefits, hence instead of keeping the matter pending here we feel it appropriate to direct the respondent no.2 to consider the eligibility and entitlement of petitioner to normal or superannuation or any other type of pension, within the framework of the Pension Rules, after going through her case papers. The respondent no.4 Management is directed to forward the retirement papers to the respondent no.2 through the respondent no.3, within a period of four weeks from today. After receipt of those papers, the respondent no. 2 to hear the petitioner and take appropriate decision in accordance with law, as early as possible and in any case by 31.12.2009. If the petitioner is found entitled to any type of pension or other retiremental benefits, the same shall be 3 made over to her by 31.03.2010. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the determination of her rights by the respondent no.2, she shall be free to challenge the same before the Competent Authority and acceptance of benefits as determined by the respondent shall not prejudice her rights. With these observations, Writ Petition is disposed of, with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.