1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.614 OF 2009 1. Shri Tarachand s/o Jagannath Pardeshi, age 64 yrs, occ. Nil, R/o Guruwar Peth, Ambajogai 2. Shri Venkat s/o Vishwanath Chavan, age 66 yrs, occ.Nil, R/o Nandgao, Tq. Ambajogai 3. Shri Ratan s/o Kishan Bharati, age 66 yrs, occ.Nil, R/o Bharaj, Tq. Ambajogai 4. Shri Prabhakar s/o Nilkanthrao Autade, age 63 yrs., occ.Nil, R/o Selu, Tq. Ambajogai 5. Shri Shrirang Govindrao Pathade, age : 67 years, occ.Nil, R/o Warwati, Tq. Ambajogai 6. Shri Baliram Nivrutti Lomte, Age : 70 yrs., Occ.Nil, R/o Khadakpura, Ambajogai 7. Shri Shaikh Ismail Sheikh Papamiya, age : 65 yrs, occ.Nil, R/o Bardapur, Tq. Ambajogai 8. Shri Sahebrao s/o Gopalrao Kendre, age Kendrewadi, Tq. Ambajogai, All Dist. Beed ..PETITIONERS VERSUS 2 1. The State of Maharashtra, Thro Its Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. Beed Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha, Beed thro Its Chief Executive Officer, R/o Jalna road, Beed 3. Collector, Beed ..RESPONDENTS Mr Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for petitioners; Mr K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent no.1. CORAM: P.V. HARDAS AND R.K.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 16th JUNE, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER P.V. HARDAS, J.] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. A prayer is made in this petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent no.2 Chief Executive Officer, Beed Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha, Beed to pay the amount of difference of gratuity along with interest as per the order dated 3.2.2007 issued by the competent authority/Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Latur, to the petitioners. The petitioners have also prayed for directing respondent no.2 – Chief Executive Officer to pay costs of this petition which the petitioners quantify at Rs. 3 50,000/-. 3. During the course of arguments, Mr Bhavthankar, learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that pursuant to the order dated 3.2.2007 passed by the competent authority – Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Latur, necessary recovery certificates have been obtained and have been tendered to the Collector i.e. Respondent no.3 for recovering the amount from respondent no.2 in accordance with law. It also appears that pursuant to the notice issued by this Court, respondents no.2 & 3 though they are served are not represented by any Counsel. Shri Bhavthankar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, urged before us to direct the Collector to effect the recovery pursuant to the recovery certificates within certain stipulated period. In the light of the limited nature of the relief which the petitioners now seek i.e. Of directing the Collector to recover the amount within a stipulated period and no substantive relief is prayed for against respondent no.2 as per prayer clauses (B) and (C), we deem it appropriate to decide this petition though respondents no.2 & 3 have not been issued with notice of final disposal of this petition. 4. Undisputedly the recovery certificates, though submitted by the petitioners have not been acted upon by the Collector inasmuch as the Collector has not taken any effective steps for recovering the said amount from respondent no.2. The claim of the petitioners has been adjudicated and an order thereof 4 has been passed on 3.2.2007 by the competent authority. We, therefore, direct the respondent no.3 – Collector to effect recovery pursuant to the recovery certificates submitted by the petitioners within eight weeks from today, in accordance with law. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J ] [ P.V. HARDAS, J ] //Authenticated copy// (A.M. Joshi), Pvt. Secretary to Honourable Judge