Bombay High Court
SAKINA KHANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The Court declined to entertain the writ petitions and directed the petitioners to approach the Deputy Director of Education before any writ can be issued.
Summary
Petitioners Sakina Khan and Papinder Kaur filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking mandamus directing the respondents to deposit salary arrears and pay Employees Provident Fund contributions with interest. The Court observed that the petitioners had not first approached the respondents or the appropriate authority for the relief claimed. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the petitions at this stage. The petitioners were directed to make a representation to the Deputy Director of Education, Aurangabad, within two weeks, and the Deputy Director was ordered to decide the matter within eight weeks after hearing all parties. With these directions, the writ petitions were disposed, leaving the parties' contentions open for future consideration.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued when the petitioners have not first approached the respondents or the appropriate authority for the relief claimed
- Whether the Court should entertain the writ petitions at the preliminary stage without a prior representation to the concerned authority
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 227
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- salary arrears
- Employees Provident Fund
- procedural requirement
- representation
- Article 226
- Article 227
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9335-DB
{1} 39-wp-1829-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1829 OF 2021
Sakina Khan ….Petitioner
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others ..Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1948 OF 2021
Papinder Kaur .....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others .....Respondents
…..
Mr. Amol Kakade, Advocate for the Petitioners
Mr. A.V. Lavte, AGP for State
Mr. P.S. Dighe, Advocate for respondent No. 3
.......
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 04th MARCH, 2026
ORDER :
1. By these petitions filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, petitioners seek following reliefs:
“B) That by issuing writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or directions in like nature, the
respondents management i.e. respondent No. 3 and 4
may kindly be directed to deposit the amount in this
{2} 39-wp-1829-2021
Hon’ble Court being arrears of salary due and payable
to the petitioners consequent upon acceptance of
revised pay structure due and payable to the
petitioner and upon failure of respondent no. 3 and 4
to either pay directly to the petitioner or to deposit in
this Hon’ble Court along with interest.
C) That by issuing writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or directions in like nature,
respondents authorities may kindly be directed to pay
the contributions of Employees Provident fund from
the date of actual Contribution till 1995 with interest.”
2. Since the petitioners have not approached the
respondents/authorities for seeking reliefs claimed in the petition, we
are not inclined to entertain the petition at this stage.
3. Petitioners are at liberty to make representation to the Deputy
Director of Education, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad within two
weeks from today. On receipt of such representation, Deputy Director
of Education, Aurangabad shall take decision on the same within eight
weeks from the date of receipt of the representation, after giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, management as well as
Education Officer.
{3} 39-wp-1829-2021
3. With these directions, writ petitions are disposed of.
4. All the contentions of respective parties are kept open.
(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
Bhagyawant Punde
Checking your session…