- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5286 OF 2004 ... Suhasini R. Kulkarni & ors. ...Petitioners v/s. The Secretary, Public Health Dept.Mantralaya, Bombay and ors. ...Respondents ... Ms.Seema Sarnaik for the Petitioners. Mr.S.M.Garwadkar for Respondent No.3. Mr.A.H.Palekar, AGP for Respondents Nos. 1 & 2. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 26TH MARCH, 2008 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioners, who are employees of the Respondent No.2, challenge the validity of the Government Resolution dated - 2 - 24-3-2004. By that Government Resolution, the Government has declared its policy that it will pay grant-in-aid to the Respondent No.3 for paying salaries to the employees as per the recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission only from 1-4-2004. The Petitioners, who are employees of the Respondent No.3 are in no way affected by that Resolution. It is between the State Government and the Respondent No.3 as to what extent the Government is willing to reimburse the Respondent No.3 in so far as payment of salaries to the Respondent No.3 to its employees Whatever salary the Petitioners may be entitled under the law, they will be entitled to get it. So far as release of grant-in-aid by the Government to the Respondent No.3 is concerned, the Petitioners/employees have no privity of contract. 2. The Petitioners, therefore, do not have locus-standi to challenge the resolution which essentially deals with the rights and liability between the State Government and the Respondent No.3. Petition is, thus, totally misconceived. It is dismissed. Rule discharges. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) - 3 - (V.M.KANADE, J.)