Bombay High Court

CA/10849/2024 of BHANUPRIYA FAKIRCHAND KAKDE AND ANR Vs Anuradha Avinash Gak The Commissioner of Education on 8 October 2026

Cites 0, Cited by 0

. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 903 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11336 OF 2026 IN CP/740/2024 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11337 OF 2026 IN CP/741/2024 WITH CONT. PETITION NO. 741 OF 2024 IN CA/14324/2023 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10850 OF 2024 IN CP/740/2024 WITH

903 ca 11336-26 .

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

903 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11336 OF 2026

IN CP/740/2024

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11337 OF 2026

IN CP/741/2024

WITH

CONT. PETITION NO. 741 OF 2024

IN CA/14324/2023

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10850 OF 2024

IN CP/740/2024

WITH

CONT. PETITION NO. 740 OF 2024

IN WP/640/2024

WITH

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10849 OF 2024

IN CP/741/2024

KAVITA PARAS GUPTA AND ORS

VERSUS

ANURADHA AVINASH OAK AND ANOTHER

...

Mr. Aditya Lokhande h/f Tope Sambhaji Subhashrao, Advocate for Applicant Mr. N. B. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. A. V. Sakolkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2

….

CORAM

:

SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &

VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

Date

:

08/10/2026

VS Maind/

Page|1

2026:BHC-AUG:48262-DB

903 ca 11336-26 .

PER COURT :

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

1. Heard.

2. Though the learned counsel holding for Mr. Tope, resisted the petitions on the ground that back wages have not been paid to the petitioners, he fairly admits that the petitioners have already been reinstated and are receiving regular salaries.

3. On perusal of the record, it appears that there is no direction in the order under contempt that petitioners should be paid back wages. We have already observed that the reinstatement orders of all the petitioners are on record. In view of the above, we deem it appropriate to dispose of these petitions.

4. Now subsequently the writ petitions are also finally decided and disposed of. Petitioners are at liberty to follow any recourse, if any, provided while disposing of the petitions, for recovery of back wages.

5. In view of above, contempt petitions as well as pending civil applications, stand disposed of.

[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE] JUDGE JUDGE VS Maind/ Page|2

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead