Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Sangita Ratan Paradhi vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 20 August, 2025

Author: Manish Pitale

Bench: Manish Pitale

                                                978 WP NO. 9049 OF 2025.odt




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 WRIT PETITION NO. 9049 OF 2025

                      SANGITA RATAN PARADHI
                              VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                            AND OTHERS
                                  ...
Mr. S. N. Lale Yelwatkar, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ms. N. B. Kamble, AGP for Respondents/State
Mr. Kuptekar Sachin Vijay, Advocate for Respondent No.7
                                  ...

                    CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
                            Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.

DATE : 20.08.2025 PER COURT :-

1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that this very petitioner had filed writ petition No.12300 of 2022 before this Court and on 05.12.2022, this Court had passed an ad-interim order granting protection from termination of service to the petitioner, further directing that the petitioner shall be paid salary, but increment shall not be paid without the leave of the Court.
2. This petition has been filed praying for direction to respondent Nos.9 and 10 i.e. Management to release salary and back wages of the petitioner along with appropriate interest. According to the petitioner, the said respondents have not complied with the ad-

                                                                  1 of 2
                                           (( 2 ))         978 WP NO. 9049 OF 2025




interim order granted in Writ Petition No.12300 of 2012.
3. In this situation, either the petitioner should have file a contempt petition or a civil application could have been filed in the said writ petition No.12300 of 2022, instead this fresh writ petition has been filed before this Court.
4. On further probing, we find that Writ Petition No.12300 of 2022 has been dismissed due to non removal of office objections. This fact is not divulged in the present petition.
5. On this ground itself, the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate steps in accordance with law for restoration of earlier writ petition and to seek appropriate relief in accordance with law.

[ Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ] [ MANISH PITALE, J. ] HRJadhav 2 of 2