1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2519 OF 2006 Smt.Shardabai w/o Shivhari Raut, Age 45 years, Occu.Household, R/o Gurukripa Colony, Datta Nagar, Navgaon College Road, Beed, Taluka and Dist.Beed .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Superintending Engineer & Administrator, Catchment Area Development Authority (CADA), Beed, District Beed 3. The Executive Engineer, Field Channel Lining Division-I, Parli Vaijnath, Dist.Beed 4. The Accountant General, Maharashtra State, Nagpur 5. Smt.Mirabai w/o Shivhari Raut, Age 39 years, Occu.Household, R/o Umapur, Taluka Georai, District Beed .. Respondents Shri D.J.Choudhari, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondents 1 to 4 Shri S.V.Natu, Advocate for respondent No.5 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 20th August 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. In this petition Rule came to be issued by the Court on 11.7.2007. This petition has been filed questioning the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal at its Aurangabad Bench, dated 19.1.2006 in Original Application No.731 of 2005. The original applicant, i.e. respondent No.5 to the petition had filed Original Application No.731 of 2005 praying therein that she was entitled to 50% of the pension from the date of which it was payable. The Tribunal allowed the aforesaid application and accordingly directed the authorities to pay 50% of the pension to the present respondent No.5 from the date on which it was due. The respondent No.5/original applicant before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal who is represented by a Counsel states before us that the original applicant does not press for the relief granted by the Tribunal and in fact has surrendered her right of receiving 50% of the pension in favour of the petitioner to this petition i.e. Smt.Shardabai widow of Shivhari Raut. Learned Counsel for respondent Meerabai, therefore, states that the petition may be allowed. 2. We accordingly allow this petition on the concession made by the respondent to this petition and quash and set aside the order of the Tribunal. 3 3. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/2519.06wp) 4 WRIT PETITION NO.2519 OF 2009 Date of decision : 20th August 2009 For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE P.V. HARDAS THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE A.V. POTDAR 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers } may be allowed to see the judgment? } Yes. 2. To be referred to the Reorter or not? } Yes/No 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment? } No. 4. Whether this case involves a substantial } question of law as to the interpretation } of the Constitution of India, 1950 or } any Order made thereunder? } No. 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the } Civil Judges? } No. 6. Whether the case involves an important } question of law and whether a copy of } the judgment should be sent to Mumbai, } Nagpur and Panaji offices? } No. [ V.V.RASAL] Personal Assistant to the Honourable Judge 5