1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3946 OF 2009 Ganesh s/o Laxmanrao Bhalerao, Age : 47 years, Occu. Pensioner, R/o New Mondha, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department of Town Planning, Mantralaya, Mumabai 2. The Director, Nagarparishad Prashasan Sanchalanalaya, Mumbai 3. The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani 4. The District Collector, Parbhani ..RESPONDENTS Mr Suraj R. Bagal, Advocate for the petitioner; Mr S.V. Kurundkar, Addl.G.P. for respondents no.1, 2 & 4; Mr S.S. Bora, Advocate for respondent no.3. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ DATE : 25th September 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that though the petitioner has prayed for relief of grant of monthly pension, the petitioner is being paid monthly pension. 3. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to release an amount of Rs. 2,22,612/- to the petitioner together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as the aforesaid amount represents the retiral benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to in law. 4. The petitioner herein undisputedly was an employee of the respondent Municipal Council and retired on 28.2.2008 after having worked with the Municipal Council as a Safai Kamgar. According to the petitioner he is entitled for retirement dues of Rs.2,22,612/-. 3 5. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply of respondent no.3 at paragraph 3 it is stated that the petitioner, according to respondent no.3 Municipal Council, is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,88,883/- towards the retiral dues and an amount of Rs.30,000/- has been paid to the petitioner and, therefore, the remainder of the amount i.e. Rs.1,58,883/- would be paid to the petitioner. The affidavit in reply further states that the respondent Municipal Council is going through a lean financial patch and, therefore, is at present unable to pay the said amount and, therefore, time is requested for in order to make the payment to the petitioner. 6. Though the petitioner has claimed an amount of Rs. 2,22,612/-, the respondents have admitted that he is entitled for Rs.1,88,883/-. Thus for the remaining amount we leave the petitioner to avail such remedies as are available in law to the petitioner for resolving this disputed question of fact. Since the respondents have admitted that the petitioner is entitled to be paid an amount of Rs.1,58,883/-, we direct the respondents to pay the aforesaid amount to the petitioner within eight weeks from today together with simple interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date on which the aforesaid amount became due and payable to the petitioner. 4 7. This petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above granting liberty to the petitioner as stated above with no order as to costs. ( A.V. POTDAR ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp3946.09 5