1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1497 OF 2009 Smt. Ashabai w/o Dashrath Talekar, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Dhanora, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Executive Director, Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Department Development Corporation, Aurangabad. 3. Superintending Engineer, Jaikawadi Project Circle, Aurangabad. 4. Executive Engineer, Lower Dudhana Project Division Sailu, District Parbhani. 5. Account General, A.G. Office, at Nagpur. ..Respondents ... Mr. B.A. Darak, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 5. Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ... 2 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1498 OF 2009 Smt. Mangal w/o Bhagwan Ghule, Age: 46 years, Occ: Household, R/o. Prashant Nagar, Ambejogai, Dist. Beed .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Principal Secretary, Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Executive Director, Godawari Marathwada Irrigation Department Development Corporation, Aurangabad. 3. Superintending Engineer, Jaikawadi Project Circle, Aurangabad. 4. Executive Engineer, Lower Dudhana Project Division Sailu, District Parbhani. 5. Account General, A.G. Office, at Nagpur. ..Respondents ... Mr. B.A. Darak, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 & 5. Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, Advocate for respondent No. 3. ... 3 CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 11TH JANUARY, 2010 PER COURT : Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, petitions are taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. Heard Counsel for the parties. The principal grievance of the petitioners in those petitions is that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have not forwarded the pension proposal of the petitioners in respect of their deceased husband, to respondent No.1, who is competent to take final decision thereon. The fact that such proposal is pending with respondent Nos. 2 to 4 is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that final authority to take decision on the said proposal is the State Government. 4 3. According to Counsel for respondent No. 3, the petitioners are ineligible to get any pension having regard to the fact that their husband was not holding substantive posts. Even this aspect will have to be considered by the appropriate authority. That cannot be basis to keep the proposal pending in the office of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 4. Considering the above position, we direct respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to process the pension files of the petitioners forthwith and forward the proposal to the State Government for further consideration and final decision. That be done expeditiously and in any case, within two weeks from today. The State Government, after receipt of the proposal from respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall pass final orders thereon at the earliest and in any case, not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt of such proposal. The respondents shall file compliance report in the 5 Registry of this Court. 5. All issues are kept open to be decided by the State Government on its own merit in accordance with law. Accordingly, both the petitions are disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. 6. Rule made absolute in above terms. ( S.S. SHINDE, J. ) ( A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) sut/JAN10/wp1497.09