Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

of the employees of the college and is not responsible for the service conditions or disputes. It is only the expenditure by way of reimbursement of the amount of salaries disbursed to these employees which is approved as grant-in-aid. Despite what the petitioners have alleged, the grants have been released and even for the Academic Year 2013-2014. There is an allegation of undue interference by the petitioners.

¶17

We are clear from this order that at best the State Government has cautioned the petitioners but has never stopped its salary grants. Merely because such a caution or warning has been administered, does not mean that the functioning or working of the college has been disrupted. There is no interference, as is complained. We are, therefore, satisfied that the petition has worked itself out and it is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.

¶18

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶19

Page 2 of 2

Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ayurvidya Prasarak Mandal and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sulbha Tanaji Saste Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Karuna Nanaso Mohite Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Hanumant Kisanrao Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Yajur Tyagi Vs Padmashree Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth

Kumari Chinmayee Rajendra Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Tribal Development and Ors.

Rotary North Radhakishan Fomra Mukhbadhir Vidyalaya Throu Head Master Vs Mrs. Snehalata Lokesh Bansode@ Snehalata Pralhad Meghache and Anr.