A writ petition cannot be maintained against a public undertaking in respect of a claim that arose against the private company before the acquisition of its shares by the Central Government.

The petitioner who was originally an employee of Assam Oil Company continued to remain service even after the Assam Oil Company was taken by Oil India Ltd and the petitioner joined the service of the respondent no. 2 Oil India Ltd. with effect from January, 1962 on his service transferred in that company on condition that the terms and conditions would not be less favourable and service under both the companies would be treated as continuous for retirement, provident fund, leave and other service benefits. In 1972 the petitioner was promoted as Senior Mechanical Engineer.

2. By a letter dated 5th March 1981 addressed to the Resident Chief Executive, Oil India Ltd., Duliajan, the petitioner communicated his intention to terminate his service agreement with the company with effect from 3rd June 1981 and gave notice of such termination. It was, inter olia, stated in the said letter that the petitioner was entitled to early pension as provided in rule 6 of the Pension Fund Rules, since he had completed more than 21 years of continuous service with the company and its associated company and had also attained the qualifying age, It was also pointed out by the petitioner that he had executed a bond dated 20th December 1976 of Rs, 40,000/- in favour of the company in connection with his training abroad whereunder the petitioner was required to serve the company upto 1st March 1982. Since the petitioner intended to leave the service of the company for reasons beyond his control and as stated in the above-mentioned letter dated 5th March 1981, the petitioner requested the said Resident Chief Executive to waive this requirement of further service with the company upto 1st March 1982 in terms of the bond dated 20th December 1978 executed by the petitioner for Rs, 40,000/- in connection with the training abroad and offered to pay the proportionate part of the said slim of Rs. 40.000j- in respect of the remaining period 10 the extent of Rs. 10,000/-.

3. In the above letter dated 5th March, 1981 the petitioner wrote lathe Resident Chief Executive of Oil India Ltd, seeking relense from service with effect from 3rd. June, 1981 on the ground of (a) prolonged suffering of the petitioner's wife from Bronchial Asthma which was found incurable even after treatment at the place of posting and of her places including Calcutta, (b) absence of educational facilities at Duliajan which compelled the petitioner to send his son and daughter to Madras and Calcutta respectively, thereby requiring the petitioner to maintain three establishments.(c) advice of doctors to keep the petitioner's wife in a dry place away from the humid climate of Assam.

4. By a letter dated 13 March, 1981. the said Resident Chief Executive replied to the petitioner's letter purporting to contend that under the Company's rules, the petitioner was not, entitled to pension as of right and• a special case has to be made out to the satisfaction of the company in order to obtain early pension under the rules. It was further stated that the company had duly considered the petitioner's request for early retirement on its merit and after taking all relevant aspects into consideration the company regretted its inability to accede to the petitioner's request for early retirement pension. It was further stated that the company was not satisfied that the petitioner has been able to make a special case to obtain early pension under the rules. As regards the request made by the petitioner for waiving the requirement of his serving the company in terms of the above mentioned bond, it was stat d in the said letter that the petitioner would have to pay the company the sum of Rs. 40,000 in full as no pro-rota adjustment is allowed under the said bond.

5. By a letter dated 27th March, 1981, addressed to the said Resident Chief Executive, the petitioner protested ag:1inst the purported decision that early pension could not be granted to him as also against the purported contention that the petitione