1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5679 OF 2009. Shamim Bano W/o Habib Khan Pathan, Age 57 years, Occ. Household, R/o C/o Syed Ibrahim Pensioner, Vidyanagar East Post Colony, Beed-431 122 ... Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Maharashtra 2. The Executive Engineer, MSEB at present Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., District Beed, Jalna Road, Beed-431 122. 3. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, For Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Bandra East, Mumbai-400 051. ... Respondents. ... Mrs.A.N.Ansari advocate for the petitioner. Mr.S.K.Kadam, Asstt. Govt.Pleader for the State. Mr.R.R.Mantri, advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. ... 2 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 08.04.2010. 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. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for directing Respondent No.3 to sanction and release the family pension in favour of the petitioners and also prays that suitable compensation may be granted for the delayed payment of pension. 3. This petition brings to the fore the manner in which the Respondents have dealt with the plight of the petitioners. The petitioners herein are widows of one Habibkhan Turab Khan Pathan, who was serving as a Junior Clerk with Respondent No.2 at Beed. Mr.Habibkhan Turab Khan had been appointed on 9.8.1976 and had worked 3 till 29.5.1985. The husband of the petitioners on 30.5.1985 suddenly disappeared and since then his whereabouts were not known. Despite extensive search which was carried out by the relatives of Habibkhan Turab Khan, his whereabouts could not be located. The petitioners thereafter approached the Civil Court for grant of succession certificate and accordingly the succession certificate came to be granted to the petitioners as well as mother of Habibkhan. It appears that in 1993 the Respondents themselves reported the disappearance of Habibkhan to the Police. Despite every effort being made for tracing the whereabouts of Habibkhan, the efforts proved to be futile. On the succession certificate, as pointed out, being granted to the petitioners and to the mother of Habibkhan Turab Khan Pathan, the Respondents had released the GPF amount in favour of the petitioners and mother of Habibkhan Turab Khan on 2.7.2001. The request for grant of family pension came to be refused by the Respondents as the Respondent No.3 by communication dated 3.10.2006 insisted on production of a Medical certificate in respect of 4 the mental state of Habib Khan Turab Khan Pathan in the year 1985 i.e. just prior to his disappearance. 4. According to us, such a request made in the year 2006 for production of a Medical Certificate of the year 1985 is not only harsh but puts the petitioners and the mother of Habib Khan Turab Khan to extreme difficulties in being able to obtain the said certificate. It is difficult to imagine that Respondent No.3 would insist on the production of a medical certificate of the year 1985 i.e. practically after twenty (20) years. Since the G.P.F. amount has already been released to the petitioner and mother of Habib Khan Turab Khan, we do not see any logic in insistence for the production of the medical certificate regarding the mental state of Habib Khan Turab Khan Pathan, in the year 1985. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. We accordingly allow this Writ Petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication and direct the 5 Respondents to forthwith release pension in favour of the petitioners, if the petitioners are otherwise eligible to receive the pension. The pension be paid to the petitioners within four (4) months from today. Failure to pay the pension within the aforesaid period would attract payment of interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from the date when the pension became due and payable to the petitioners. 6. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (P.V.HARDAS,J.) asp/office/wp567909