1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2221 OF 2010 (Ku. Vijaya M. Ramteke vs. Union of India 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 : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 9, 2011 Heard Shri Phadnis, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Lambat, learned Counsel for the respondents. In the present petition, the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to take into consideration the documents submitted by the petitioner in support of her claim for pension and retiral benefits of her father. Shri Lambat, learned Counsel for the respondents, states that name of the father of the petitioner is Maniram Ramteke, which was recorded 2 in his service book as well as death certificate. It is submitted that the respondents have conducted enquiry in this regard and found that name of the father of the petitioner is not Manohar, but Maniram and, therefore, on this ground, the claim of the petitioner for grant of pension and retiral benefits came to be refused. We have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. It is open for the petitioner to approach the respondents as and when documentary evidence other than the one submitted, which has a better probative value, is available in order to demonstrate that name of the father of the petitioner was Manohar. Similarly, it will be open for the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law. With these observations, the petition is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj