Bombay High Court
CP/535/2025 of Shyam s/o Baburao Suryawanshi Vs The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary on 14 October 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 953 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 535 OF 2025 IN WP/3790/2021 SHYAM S/O BABURAO SURYAWANSHI VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms.
(1)
953 CP-535.2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
953 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 535 OF 2025
IN WP/3790/2021
SHYAM S/O BABURAO SURYAWANSHI
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Nikita B. Bontalwar, Advocate holding for Mr. O.B.
Boniwad, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr N.B. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Mr. Shreyas Deshpande with Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocates holding for Mr. C.B. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent No.3.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATED : 14 October, 2026
Per Court :
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Learned AGP, by pointing out communication dated 18.04.2024, submits that as per the order under contempt, the caste validity certificate was issued to the petitioner and he was also reinstated. According to the learned AGP, the petitioner is getting regular salary, however, so far as the claim of the petitioner in respect of back wages for the period for which he did not work is concerned, is rejected on the principle of “no work no pay”. In view of the same, nothing survives in this petition and it stands disposed of.
2. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the rejection for granting him salary for the period for which he did not work. (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE) JUDGE JUDGE VD_Dhirde