Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU
SANJAY DHAR
Subash Raina – Appellant
Versus
State Of J&K – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY DHAR, J.
01. The petitioner, through the medium of the present petition, has challenged Order No. CEO/K/2895-2901 dated 30.06.1988 issued by respondents No. 4 and 5 whereby services of the petitioners have been discontinued w.e.f., 01.07.1988. A direction commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service has also been sought. Besides this, the petitioner has also challenged the vires of Section 14(2) of the J&K Shri Mata Vaishno Devi Shrine Act, 1986.
02. As per case of the petitioner, he was appointed as Pujari at Darbar of respondent No. 1 on 27.09.1986 by respondent No. 4 on a consolidated salary of Rs. 700/- per month. It has been submitted that at the time when the petitioner was employed in the Darbar, he was a student and he had left his studies. It has been submitted that in terms of impugned order dated 30.06.1988 (supra), his services have been discontinued thereby ruining the career of the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner was given to understand that his employment is permanent in nature. It is being submitted that the petitioner discharged his duties with devotion and honestly but without any fault on his part, his ser
Writs cannot be issued against private entities as they do not perform public duties, reaffirming the limits of Article 12 applicability.
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a private employer for contractual termination unless it involves a public law element.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of a public law element in the termination of employment renders a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India no....
The Army Welfare Education Society is not a 'State' under Article 12, and the doctrine of legitimate expectation does not apply to private employment disputes.
Writ petition dismissed for 21-year delay, lack of locus standi, and disputed facts unfit for Article 226 jurisdiction.
The SGPC's Service Rules are statutory, making writ petitions against it maintainable; benefits can be withheld pending inquiry only if procedural compliance ensures no prejudice occurs.
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
