Om Prakash Lakhina v. UOI & Ors.

1. By way of this writ petition, filed in the year 2006, the petitioner seeks relief against an order dated 11.11.2005, dismissing him from service. The order was passed by respondent No. 2 - UTI Asset Management Company (P) Ltd.

2. The petition was filed on the premise that the respondent – Company was “presently regulated by the four PSU entities LIC Of India, Bank Of Baroda, Punjab National Bank, State Bank Of India and is under the pervasive control” of Union of India [“UOI”]1.

3. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 2 has filed additional affidavits dated 06.03.2024 and 05.08.2024, contesting the maintainability of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in respect of a service dispute against it. It is stated therein that respondent No. 2 is professionally managed by its Board of Directors, and does not function under the financial or administrative control of UOI in any manner. Its shares are listed, and 30.75% are owned by the public.

4. Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2, relies upon a judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Anand v. Union of India and others[1], and connected matters[2], which has been upheld by the Division Bench in Anil Kumar Anand v. Union of India and Others[3], which concern the very same respondent– company. Copies of the said judgments have also been placed on record.

5. The judgment of the coordinate Bench deals with six writ petitions filed by an employee of respondent No. 2 herein. After tracing the factual developments with regard to disinvestment in the shares of respondent No. 2, the Court came to a conclusion that the writ petitions were not maintainable. The petitioner therein was granted liberty to take recourse to alternative remedies, and to seek exclusion of the period spent in pursuing the writ petitions for the purposes of limitation.

6. The petitioner therein approached the Division Bench against the aforesaid judgments, but his appeals were dismissed by judgment dated 09.04.2024.

7. Mr. Sonal Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, accepts that these judgments concern the very same employer against whom the present writ petition has been filed, however, he submits that the Court Paragraph No. 2 of writ petition.

has not considered the fact that the respondent-company was amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the Court when the writ petition was filed.

8. I am unable to accept this contention. It may be noted at the outset that, quite apart from the fact that the aforesaid judgements are binding upon me, the Coordinate Bench did allude to “…the status of employees after a body which was previously amenable to the writ jurisdiction, but due to disinvestment, such body is no longer falling within the meaning of State…”4.

9. This issue is also squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in R.S. Madireddy v. Union of India[5], which states as follows:

38. The question of issuing a writ would only arise when the writ petition is being decided. Thus, the issue about exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would arise only on the date when the writ petitions were taken up for consideration and decision. The respondent No. 3(AIL)employer was a government entity on the date of filing of the writ petitions, which came to be decided after a significant delay by which time, the company had been disinvested and taken over by a private player. Since, respondent No. 3 employer had been disinvested and had assumed the character of a private entity not performing any public function, the High Court could not have exercised the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to issue a writ to such private entity. The learned Division Bench has taken care to protect the rights of the appellants to seek remedy and thus, it cannot be said that the appellants have been non-suited in the case. It is only that the appellants would have to approach another forum for seeking their remedy. Thus, the question No. 2 is decided against the appellants.

39. By no stretch of imagination, the delay in disposal of the writ petitions could have been a ground to continue with and maintain the writ petitions because the forum that is the High Court where the writ petitions were instituted could not have issued a writ to the private respondent which had changed hands in the intervening period. Hence, the question No. 3 is also decided against the appellants.”6

10. Mr. Singh relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Beg Raj Singh v. State of U.P[7] in support of his contention that the petitioner’s rights crystalises upon filing of the writ petition. However, the later judgment in R.S. Madireddy[8], considers the judgment in Beg Raj Singh[9], and comes to the conclusion established above. That view must therefore be followed10.

11. For the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition is not Emphasis supplied.