1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7994 OF 2009 Smt. Ushabai w/o Trimbak Handal, R/o- House No.E-72, in front of Maroti Mandir, N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Director of Education (Secondary), Directorate of Education, Maharashtra State, Central Building, Pune-1, 3) The Divisional Deputy Director of Education, Pune Division, Pune. 4) Treasury/Additional Treasury Officer, District-Ahmednagar, 5) The Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar, 6) The Head Master, Vivekanand Vidya Mandir, Pathardi, Tq-Pathardi, Dist-Ahmednagar. 2 7) Shri. Trimbak Kisan Handal, R/o-Pathardi, Tq-Pathardi, Dist-Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.V.G. Salgare Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Shri.N.K. Kakade Advocate for Respondent No.6. Shri.N.V. Gaware Advocate for Respondent No.7. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATE : 19TH NOVEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner claims to be wife of the Respondent No.7. It is contended that under the judicial orders the Petitioner is directed to be paid amount of maintenance. The Respondent No.7 is retired assistant teacher. The grievance of the Petitioner is that inspite of the mandatory Rules 3 of M.C.S.R., the Respondent No.7 is not nominating the Petitioner for getting family pension benefits. 3. In the present proceedings, we would not consider the issue in respect of payment or non payment of amount towards maintenance by Respondent No.7 in favour of the Petitioner. 4. As regards the issue of nomination is concerned, it is for the Respondent No.7 to nominate a person in accordance with the M.C.S.R. Rules and Regulations. The Petitioner is claiming to be wife of Respondent No.7 and probably want to exert her right as legal heir to the service benefits of the Respondent No.7, as a nominee. In view of the fact that the Respondent No.7 is stated to be alive, at this stage, we do not find that the issue in respect of nomination is required to be dealt with in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court by directing Respondent No.5- Education Officer to 4 direct the Respondent No.7 to nominate the Petitioner by giving first preference for the benefit of family pension. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/NOV10/wp7994.09