1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 227 OF 2009 Mohan S/o Sambhaji Thorat, Age : 59 Years, Occu. : Retired, R/o Dhotre, Tq. Kopargaon, District Ahmednagar .. .. Petitioner Versus 1. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Ahmednagar Division, Ahmednagar. 2. The Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, (Pension) Sub Regional Office, Plot No. 11, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, M.I.D.C. Satpur, Nashik. .. .. Respondents Shri S. R. Dheple, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri M. K. Goyanka, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri K. B. Chaudhari, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2009. 2 ORAL ORDER [ Per B. R. Gavai, J.] : 1. The claim in the present petition is restricted to a direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the claim of present petitioner for pension. 2. It appears that, there has been delay in finalizing the proposal for making pensionary benifits applicable to the petitioner on account of certain correspondence between respondent No. 1 and 2. 3. It is the contention of the respondent No. 2 that, since the correct calculations were not supplied to respondent No. 2 by the respondent No. 1, pensionary benefits could not be finalized. It is also stated that, earlier communication was also lacking in certain aspects. 4. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we had issued certain orders on earlier occasion and by last order, we have directed the respondent No. 1 and 2 to remain present in this Court. 5. The respondent No. 1 and 2 both are present in the Court. The respondent No. 2 states that, though the latest communication on behalf of respondent No. 1 is not in accordance with the requirement, still the pension case of the petitioner would be finalized. It is further submitted by the respondent No. 2 that, the petitioner's claim would be finalized within a period of two weeks from today. The respondent No. 2 further states that they would also 3 take action against respondent No. 1 for not submitting correct information. 6. In the present case, we are not concerned with the internal disputes between the respondent No. 1 and 2. Since the respondent No. 2 is personally present in the Court and has made categorical statement that the case of petitioner for grant of pensionary benefit would be finalized within a period of two weeks from today, the grievance of the petitioner no more survives. By taking on record the statement made by the respondent No. 2, the writ petition is disposed, in accordance with the statement. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/August 09