V.M. Kanade, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondent waives service. By consent of parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. State of Maharashtra has challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (“MAT”) in O.A. No. 909 of 2013. The impugned order was passed on 13/06/2014. Petition was filed on 15/12/2014. However, for six months, no application seeking stay of the order was moved, till the Respondent, after waiting for 10 years to receive his pension, was constrained to take out contempt proceedings. The day on which the contempt petition was filed before the MAT, on the same day, an application was moved seeking stay of the impugned order before this Court.

3. We have heard the learned AGP appearing for the Petitioners/State and Mr. Pitale, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

4. Petitioner State of Maharashtra is aggrieved by the directions given by MAT, directing the State of Maharashtra to pay pension to Respondent after setting aside the impugned order, in terms of prayer clauses 9(A), (B) and (C) and also by passing consequential order i.e. accepting the lengths of services of the Respondent who