1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 1266 of 2011 Bhaskar More v. State of Maharashtra and ors -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr S.U. Bhuyar, advocate for petitioner Mr T.R. Kankale, AGP for respdts 1,2 Mr P. S. Patil, Advocate for respondent no.3 Mr Pradeep Mahalle, Advocate for respdt 4 Coram: B. P. Dharmadhikari & A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated: 19th September 2011 1. Petitioner has superannuated in 2006 and his pension is still not settled. Mr Bhuyar, learned counsel for petitioner points out that by communication dated 11.10.2010 the Education Officer (Secondary) has cautioned respondent no. 3-management that it would its responsibility to pay interest on delayed payment of pension. Mr Mahalle appearing for respondent no. 4 has pointed out that petitioner was placed under suspension in 2003 because of anti-corruption matter against him and he is superannuated in 2006. The then management through the then Head Master had forwarded some proposal and that proposal was rejected by the Education department. That proposal was never made available by the Department or then by petitioner to present encumbent and hence, appropriate steps could not be taken. According to him, 2 as entitlement of petitioner to receive pension and other retirement benefits is not in dispute, respondent no. 4 is ready and willing to forward a new proposal if it is so directed by this Court. He, however, disputes liability of interest about delayed payment of the same to the petitioner. 2. In these circumstances, without going into merits of the matter, we direct respondent no. 4 to forward appropriate proposal afresh about leave encashment and commuted value of pension receivable by the petitioner. This action shall not prejudice any of the legal rights and contentions of respondent no. 4 in the matter. The proposal shall be processed by respondent no. 2 and forwarded to respondent no. 5 thereafter. Respondent no. 5 shall then take appropriate decision on it. Respondent no. 4 shall submit proposal to respondent no. 2 within a period of four weeks from today. Respondent no. 2 shall examine it and forward the same to respondent no. 5 within a period of two weeks thereafter. Respondent no. 5 shall take appropriate decision within a period of six weeks from the receipt of proposal through respondent no. 2. Petitioner shall extend best possible cooperation to respondent no. 3 and respondent no. 4 and for that purpose visit the office of respondent no. 4 on 3rd October 2011. 3. With the above observations and directions, petition stands disposed of. Judge Judge 3 joshi