2023 Supreme(Del) 6032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Anil Kumar Anand - Appellant
Versus
Union of India - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6042 of 2018 & CM APPL. 23439 of 2018
Decided On : 15-12-2023
Advocates appeared:
Petitioner in-person.
Mr.Rajiv Kapur and Mr.Akshit Kapur, Advocates for R-4/SB.
Mr.Vikram Jetly, CGSC with Ms.Shreya Jetly, Advocates for R-1/UOI W.P.(C) 6042/2018 & CM APPL. 23439/2018, W.P.(C) 5283/2016, CM APPL. 43992/2017 & CM APPL. 45909/2018, W.P.(C) 950/2020, W.P.(C) 2564/2020.
Mr.Sanjay K.Yadav, Advocate for Bank of Baroda in W.P.(C) 6042/2018 & CM APPL. 23439/2018, W.P.(C) 5283/2016, CM APPL. 43992/2017 & CM APPL. 45909/2018, W.P.(C) 950/2020, W.P.(C) 2564/2020.
Mr.Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for UTI in W.P.(C) 6042/2018 & CM APPL. 23439/2018, W.P.(C) 5283/2016, CM APPL. 43992/2017 & CM APPL. 45909/2018.
Mr.Rakesh Kumar, CGSC with Mr.Sunil, Advocate for R-1/UOI in W.P.(C) 7114/2015, CM APPL. 5893/2018 & CM APPL. 41211/2019.
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Mr.H.K.Naik and Mr.Ajay Amrit Raj, Advocates for R- 2, 3 and 5 in W.P.(C) 7114/2015, CM APPL. 5893/2018 & CM APPL. 41211/2019.
Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Mr.H.K.Naik and Mr.Ajay Amrit Raj, Advocates for UTI in W.P.(C) 950/2020, W.P.(C) 2564/2020, W.P.(C) 965/2020, CM APPL. 3075/2020, CM APPL. 43896/2021 & CM APPL. 7903/2022.
Mr.Rajesh K.Gautam, Mr.Anant Gautam, Mr.Sumit Sharma, Ms.Anani Achumi, Mr.Dinesh Sharma and Ms.Shivani Sagar, Advocates for PNB in W.P.(C) 5283/2016, CM APPL. 43992/2017 & CM APPL. 45909/2018, W.P.(C) 965/2020, CM APPL. 3075/2020, CM APPL. 43896/2021 & CM APPL. 7903/2022.
Mr.Vijay Joshi, CGSC for R-1/UOI in W.P.(C) 965/2020, CM APPL. 3075/2020, CM APPL. 43896/2021 & CM APPL. 7903/2022
Mr.Rajnish K.Jha, Advocate for Bank of Baroda in W.P.(C) 965/2020, CM APPL. 3075/2020, CM APPL. 43896/2021 & CM APPL. 7903/2022.
Writ petitions against UTI AMC are not maintainable as it does not qualify as 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution post-disinvestment.
Headnote:(A) Unit Trust of India (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 2002 - Section 6 - Writ petitions challenging denial of promotion, dismissal from service, and withholding of pension - Court held that UTI AMC is not a State or authority under Article 12 of the Constitution, hence writs not maintainable - The petitioner was statutorily transferred to UTI AMC, but it does not fulfill the criteria of 'State' post-disinvestment. (Paras 78-80)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a former employee of UTI, filed multiple writ petitions alleging wrongful denial of promotions, dismissal, and withholding of pension after UTI's disinvestment, claiming violations of service rights and natural justice.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that UTI AMC, being a private entity post-disinvestment, is not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The grievances of the petitioner must be addressed through appropriate legal forums.
Issues: Whether UTI AMC falls under the definition of 'State' or 'other authority' under Article 12 of the Constitution, and the maintainability of the writ petitions against UTI AMC post-disinvestment.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that UTI AMC does not qualify as a State or authority under Article 12, and thus, the writ petitions challenging its actions are not maintainable.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed on grounds of non-maintainability.
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The instant batch of writ petitions, details of which have been tabulated below have been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the reliefs as follows:
| S. NO. | CASE NO. | RELIEF SOUGHT | 1 | W.P. (C) 7114/ 2015 | a. issue a writ of mandamus or cerciorary or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the report of the review DPC dated January 09, 2008.
b. issue a writ of mandamus or cerciorary or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to promote the petitioner to Grade 'C in Scale-III, with retrospective effect from January 2, 1995 for the panel year 1994-95 and to consider the petitioner for further promotions to higher Grades, with retrospective effect, as per the Promotion Policy and instructions issued by the Government of India and to give all the consequential benefits with due seniority.
c. issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to treat the petitioner as deemed to have been promoted to Grade 'C. in Scale-III, with retrospective effect from January 2, 1995 and to consider the petitioner for further promotions to higher Grades with retrospective effect up to the 'Executive Director' level in Scale-VII, as per the Promotion Policy and the instructions issued by the Central Government of India, through its O.M. No. 38012/6/83-East(SCT) dated 01-11-1990 and the O.M. No. 36012/18/95-Esst(Res.) Pt:II, dated the 13th August, 1997 and to give all the consequential benefits to the petitioner with due Seniority.
d. issue a writ of mandamus or cerciorary or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent to consider and promote the petitioner and include petitioner's name in appropriate select lists (as assailed in this writ petition), for his promotion to Grade 'D' in Scale-IV, Grade 'E' in Scale-V, Grade `F' in scale-VI and to the 'Executive Director' (ED) Grade in Scale-VII, with retrospective effect, from the date, the other officers junior to the petitioner, have been promoted to such higher Grades, as per the instructions issued by the Central Government of India, through its O.M. No. 38012/6/83-East(SCT) dated 01-11-1990 and the O.M. No. 36012/18/95- Esst(Res.) Pt:II, dated the 13th August, 1997 and the judgment dated January 9, 2015 pronounced by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Civil Appeal no. 209 of 2015, in the matter of Chairman & Managing Director of Central Bank of India & Ors. Versus Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare Association and Ors. and to give all the consequential benefits since January 2, 1995 with due seniority to the petitioner.
e. issue a writ of mandamus or cerciorary or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to issue appropriate Office Order/s to restore and fix the Seniority of the petitioner equivalent to Grades `F' at `President'/`Group President' level and to consider the petitioner for promotion and elevation to the `Executive Director' Grade in Scale-VII.
f. issue a writ of mandamus or cerciorary or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 160 respondents for granting parity of pay to the petitioner with retrospective effect and to fix the emoluments of the petitioner as are being paid to Mr. Amandeep S Chopra, Mr. Imtaiyazur Rahman, Mr. Priya Ranjan, Mr Sanjay Dongre, Ms. Swati Kulkarni, Mr. Debashish Mohanty, Mr Linga Pandlan S., Mr. Surajit Saha, Mr. Vivek Maheshwari and to other officers, who were junior to the petitioner.
g. issue a writ of mandamus or cerciorary or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents for payment of arrears of pay to the petitioner, being the difference of the total emoluments, as have been paid after January 2, 1995 to Mr. Amandeep S Chopra, Mr. Imtaiyazur Rahman, Mr. Anoop Bhasker, Mr. Jaideep Bhattacharya, Mr. Mr. Priya Ranjan, Mr Sanjay Dongre, Ms. Swati Kulkarni, Mr. Debashish Mohanty, Mr Linga Pandian S., Mr. Surajit Saha,Mr. V
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
