JUDGMENT :

Sanjib Banerjee, J.

1. The Writ Petitioners, who are retired Employees of the First Respondent-Company, are in Appeal upon the dismissal of their Writ Petitions.

2. For a start, the very maintainability of the Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution was questioned before the Single Bench. It was submitted on behalf of the First Respondent-Company that such Company did not answer to the description of State or other Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. At any rate, the First Respondent asserts that it is not within the all pervasive control of any Government nor is it substantially or otherwise funded by the Government. Towards such end, the First Respondent-Company relies on a Delhi High Court Judgment reported at Indian Potash Limited and others v. Union of India and others, 2018 (246) DLT 360, wherein it was held that the Company could not be regarded as a Public Authority as defined in Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

3. The grievance of the Appellants is that the contribution made towards their pensionary benefits by the First Respondent-Company had not been made over to them upon their superannuation. The ancillary case that the Appellants run is that the terms of appointment of the Appellants provided that the First Respondent-Company would contribute 15% equivalent of the Appellants' salary throughout the period of the Appellants' service for the ultimate pensionary benefits to be made available to the Appellants upon their retirement. The Appellants claim that by an amendment introduced to the Service Rules governing Employees of the First Respondent-Company, the definition of "pensionable salary" has been introduced and such definition restricts the Pensionary benefits that would be made available to a retiring Employee. The substance of the Appellants' submission is that if the amount equivalent to 15% of an Employee's salary has been contributed every month by the Employer towards a Superannuation Fund, the money that has accrued in such account, complete with the Interest earned, is the property of the concerned Employee and, by no figment of imagination or the quirk of a provision contained in the Service Rules, can a lesser amount be made available to an Employee.

4. By the Judgment and Order impugned, dated July 10, 2013, the Writ Petitions have been dismissed on merits and without conclusively addressing the issue as to the maintainability of the Writ Petitions.

5. The First Respondent-Company submits that since the Writ Petitions have been dismissed, the First Respondent could not prefer any Appeal. The First Respondent also makes out that since the Single Bench has held in favour of the First Respondent on merits, even no Cross-Objection has been filed since no conclusive pronouncement has been made in the Judgment and Order impugned against the First Respondent.

6. As to the issue of maintainability, the Appellants say that there is some material which shows that the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilisers considers the First Respondent-Company to be administratively under the control of the Government. However, apart from a document suggesting so, nothing firmer has been cited. Against this, it is the Judgment of the Delhi High Court which stares the Appellants in their face and records that only 12.6% of the shares of and in the First Respondent-Company are controlled by the Government or entities that may loosely be called the Government and the balance shareholding of the First Respondent-Company is not controlled by the Government or Government entity.

7. In the light of it having been held by the Delhi High Court as far back as in 2017 that the First Respondent-Company was not a Public Authority within the meaning of relevant provision of the Act of 2005, it is difficult to hold, in the wake of the shareholding position of the Company, that the First Respondent-Company is anything but a Private Company not owned or controlled by the Government