1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1030 OF 1998 Sumanbai d/o Damodharrao Kurdukar, since deceased, through legal representative Raghvendra s/o Shripatrao Joshi, age: 50 years, Occ: Business, R/o `Apurva’, B-10, Indraprastha Enclave, Jyoti Nagar, Aurangabad, Tq. and District Aurangabad. Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Urban and Rural Development Department and School Education Department, Mantralaya, Maharashtra State, Mumbai-32. 2 Zilla Parishad, Latur, through its Chief Executive Officer, Latur. 3 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Latur. 4 Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Latur. 5 Accountant General-II, Near General Post Office, Nagpur. 6 Smt.R.H.Pandit, Desk Officer, Rural Development and 2 Water Conservation Division, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. Respondents Mr.V.V.Dhage, advocate for the applicant. Mr.K.B.Choudhary, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 5. Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for Respondents No.2 & 3. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI AND S.V.GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 8 th July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai, J.): 1 The petitioner filed present petition seeking directions to the Respondents No.1 to 4 and 6 to fix pay of the petitioner by taking into consideration her application dated 31 st March 1989 regarding her option to continue her existing scale for the purpose of pension admissible to her. 2 Under the relevant Government Resolution, for availing the benefit, an employee was required to give his option by 31 st March 1989. According to the petitioner, said option is given on that day. However, this fact is disputed by Respondent-Zilla Parishad as well as State Government. According to them, the option is given in 1993 i.e. much after the cut off date. 3 In that view of the matter, since petition involves disputed question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in the extraordinary jurisdiction, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. 4 In any case, pensionary benefits are only payable to the 3 employee and legal heirs do not get any right to the pension. In that view of the matter also, no case is made out for interference. 5 Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE ******* adb/wp103098