Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
RAMAKRISHNA MISSION & ANR - Appellants
Versus
KAGO KUNYA & ORS - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2394 OF 2019 (@SLP(C) No. 30924 of 2018)
Decided on : 28-02-2019
Ramakrishna Mission - Employment Dispute - Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010 - The court held that Ramakrishna Mission, including its hospital, does not constitute an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The hospital's functions were found not to be public functions closely related to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity. The court emphasized that the hospital's activities were voluntary, charitable, and non-profit making in nature, and it did not perform public duties. The court also highlighted that the hospital's management was exclusively with the Ramakrishna Mission, and the State government did not control its day-to-day functioning. The court further noted that the hospital's regulation by the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010 did not render it a statutory body, and its contracts of service with employees were considered purely private contracts.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an employment dispute between the first respondent and Ramakrishna Mission Hospital at Itanagar. The first respondent challenged the hospital's decision to retire him in accordance with the Service Rules, seeking a writ of mandamus to allow him to continue in service until he completes thirty-five years of service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that Ramakrishna Mission, including its hospital, does not constitute an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the hospital's functions were not public functions closely related to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity, and its activities were voluntary, charitable, and non-profit making in nature. The court also emphasized that the hospital's management was exclusively with the Ramakrishna Mission, and the State government did not control its day-to-day functioning. Additionally, the court noted that the hospital's regulation by the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010 did not render it a statutory body, and its contracts of service with employees were considered purely private contracts.
Issues: The main issue was whether Ramakrishna Mission, including its hospital, constituted an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and whether the hospital's functions were public functions closely related to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the principles established in previous judgments, emphasizing that only functions closely related to those performed by the State in its sovereign capacity qualify as public functions or public duties. The court also highlighted that the regulation of the hospital by the Clinical Establishments (Registration and Regulation) Act 2010 did not render it a statutory body, and its contracts of service with employees were considered purely private contracts.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petition filed before the High Court. The court held that neither the Ramakrishna Mission nor the hospital constituted an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Certainly. Here are relevant judgments that you can cite to support your claim that actions by a non-state armed group enforcing morality quotes resulting in violence are not attributable to the state and fall outside constitutional and legal protections:
A judgment emphasizing that non-state actors operating independently and not performing public functions do not constitute state action or authority. This reinforces that private groups or armed entities acting without state backing are outside the scope of constitutional remedies (!) .
A decision highlighting that conduct by private individuals or groups, even if involving enforcement or violence, is generally not subject to constitutional challenge unless there is clear evidence of state involvement or complicity. This underscores the importance of direct state control for actions to be considered state action (!) .
A ruling stating that enforcement activities by non-state actors lacking legal or constitutional backing are not recognized as legitimate state actions, and therefore, their conduct cannot be challenged under constitutional law. This supports the position that such actions are outside the scope of constitutional protections (!) .
You can cite these principles from relevant judgments to strengthen your legal argument, ensuring they are presented as general legal principles rather than specific case references.
JUDGMENT :
DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has arisen from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court in a Writ Appeal against a judgment of a learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, by a judgment dated 7 September 2016, held that Ramakrishna Mission is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In appeal, the Division Bench held that while Ramakrishna Mission may not be ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 in the strict sense of the term, nonetheless its hospital at Itanagar performs a public duty and in consequence would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution on a liberal interpretation of the expression ‘authority’ in that Article.
3. The first respondent joined the Ramakrishna Mission Hospital at Itanagar on 15 March 1980 as a General Duty Worker. He was regularised with effect from 1 August 1980 by a letter dated 23 July 1980. On 31 March 1982, the first respondent was promoted to the substantive post of Nursing Aid. He was made permanent on 13 April 1984. Subsequently on 31 December 2005, he was promoted as an Office Assistant with effect from 1 October 2005.
4. The conditions of service of the employees of the hospital are governed by the Service Rules. Among them is Rule 18 which provides for superannuation in the following terms:
“18. SUPERANNUATION (RETIREMENT):
(i) A permanent employee/staff shall normally retire from the services of the Hospital after 35 years of service or an attaining the age of 60 (sixty) years. Provided further, the Management in the service of the Hospital may extend the service of an employee/staff even after 35 years of service or he attains the age of 60 (sixty) years, whichever is earlier, subject to his medical fitness, in slots of 1 (one) years at a time.
(ii) However, an employee/staff may be retired earlier if in the event of suffering from physical or mental incapacity in the discharge of his duties provided the physical or mental incapacity of the employee/staff is established by a Medical Board duly constituted by the Management.”
On 31 January 2015, the hospital informed the first respondent that he would be retiring from service on 24 March 2015 in accordance with the Service Rules, consequent upon the completion of thirty-five years of service.
5. The first respondent instituted a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Gauhati High Court to challenge the above communication and sought a writ of mandamus to allow him to continue in service until he completes thirty-five years of service, counting the appointment from 31 March 1982 when he was substantively appointed as a Nursing Aid.
6. The appellants raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that neither Ramakrishna Mission nor its hospital is ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 and they are not amenable, in any event, to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition. While rejecting the objections of the appellants to the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge held that the appellants fall within the description of ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12. A direction was issued, on merits, to the hospital to treat the date of appointment of the first respondent as 31 March 1982 and not 15 March 1980.
8. In consequence, the first respondent was effectively granted an extension of service for two years beyond the date of superannuation as computed on the basis of the initial date of joining service. The first respondent has been paid his terminal dues on the basis of the date of retirement as computed by the hospital.
9. The Writ Appeal by the appellants failed before a Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, principally relied upon two circumstances:
(i) The hospital was availing of funds for a part of its expen
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
