Bombay High CourtWP/185/2016dispossed offdismiss for default

Hariom Sinh Ram Sinh Pawar v. The State Of Maha., Through The Secretary, Dept. Of Urban Devp., Mumbai And Others

2016-04-01Hon'Ble Smt. Justice V.A. Naik,Hon'Ble Shri Justice V.M. Deshpande2 pages

0104wp185.16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.185/2016 Hariom Sinh Ram Sinh Pawar ...Versus...

The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Department of Urban Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 400032 and others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Mohd. Ateeque, Advocate for petitioner Shri A.M. Joshi, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3 Shri Pravin Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent no.4 CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 01.04.2016 By this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent no.4 - Municipal Council to pay the retiral benefits to the petitioner i.e. commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment and other benefits.

Shri Deshmukh, the learned Counsel for the respondent no.4 - Municipal Council states that all the benefits except the benefit in respect of leave encashment and commutation of pension have been paid to the petitioner. It is stated that only an amount of Rs.77,322/- is liable to be paid to the petitioner towards leave encashment and the said amount would be paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks. It is stated that the amount payable to the petitioner towards

0104wp185.16.odt commutation of pension would be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months.

The grievance of the petitioner would stand redressed in view of the statement made by the Counsel for the respondent no.4.

By accepting the statement made by the learned Counsel for the respondent no.4, which would be binding on the respondent no.4, we dispose of the writ petition with no order as to costs.

JUDGE JUDGE Wadkar