Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Sushil Chandra – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 7169 of 2024
Decided On : 06-08-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petition challenging termination of service - The petitioner, an Assistant Workshop Superintendent, claimed wrongful termination but was found to have resigned voluntarily, with all dues paid - The court held that the writ petition was not maintainable as the service contract was private and not governed by statutory provisions. (Paras 8, 13, 16)
(B) Public Law Element - The court emphasized that for a writ petition under Article 226 to be maintainable, the action must involve a public law element, which was absent in this case. (Paras 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged his termination from the Raj Kumar Goel Institute of Technology, claiming he was wrongfully dismissed, while the institution asserted he had resigned and received all dues.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned and received all payments, thus the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues: The main issues were whether the termination was valid and if the writ petition was maintainable under Article 226 given the nature of the employment contract.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner's employment was governed by a private contract, and thus not subject to judicial review under Article 226, as there was no public law element involved.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Rai - the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Saurabh, the learned Standing Counsel representing the opposite party no. 1 - the State of U.P., Sri Rohit Pandey - the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 - Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh and Sri. Diptiman Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3 - Raj Kumar Goel Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad.
2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged validity of termination of his service as Assistant Workshop Superintendent, Department of Mechanical Engineering in Raj Kumar Goel Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad.
3. It has been pleaded in the Writ Petition that the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Workshop Superintendent in the Department of Mechanical Engineering by means of an appointment order dated 23.08.2007. He worked on the aforesaid post till 30.06.2021, on which date he was removed from service by an oral order. The petitioner has stated in the Writ Petition that the institution has given three months salary to him amounting to Rs.1,23,883/-.
4. The petitioner has further stated in the Writ Petition that he approached the Director of the Institute for his reinstatement in service but the Director did not pay any heed to his requests. However, no document has been annexed in support of this contention.
5. On 08.05.2024, this Court had passed an order directing the Director, Raj Kumar Goel Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad to produce the order terminating the petitioner’s services, along with his personal affidavit. On 27.05.2024, the Director, Raj Kumar Goel Institute of Technology, Ghaziabad had filed his personal affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner had submitted his resignation from the post of Workshop Superintendent on 14.07.2021 and he had requested that his entire arrears of salary and gratuity etc. be paid within the month of July, 2021. By another letter dated 14.07.2022, he had demanded experience certificate. The petitioner’s resignation was accepted on the same day. The petitioner was paid his dues through five cheques for different amounts (1) Rs.45,022/-, (2) Rs.6,753/-, (3) Rs.6,753/-, (4) Rs.45,022/- and (5) Rs.20,333/- totaling to Rs. Rs.1,23,883/- on 30.07.2021, which were received by the petitioner on the same date. On 18.08.2022, another cheque for Rs.1,71,188/- was given to the petitioner as full and final payment towards his gratuity. On 18.08.2022, the petitioner had given an affidavit stating that he had received all his dues and he had no claims left against the institute.
6. After filing of a personal affidavit of the Director of the college bringing on record the aforesaid facts which have not been disclosed in the writ petition, the petitioner has filed an application for amendment of the writ petition seeking to incorporate a payer for quashing of his resignation letter dated 14.07.2021 alleging that the resignation letter is forged and fabricated and that he has not received any amount of gratuity, and that he has received some amount towards the salary and arrears of salary only.
7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties did not oppose the amendment application filed by the petitioner and, accordingly, the amendment application has been allowed. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties said that no counter affidavit was required in the case.
8. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner was working in a private college under a private contract of service and his services are not governed by any statutory provision. Therefore, the writ petition filed in respect of termination of service under a private non-statutory contract would not be maintainable. The second submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the petitioner has not been terminated and he had him
Writ petitions under Article 226 are not maintainable for private employment disputes lacking public law elements.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority's power to terminate services under Rule 15(ii) of the Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appe....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a private unaided minority institution for service dis....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the petitioner, as an employee of a school with a public element in imparting education, was entitled to avail the remedy under Article 226 of....
The court confirmed that contractual employment not involving State functionaries does not fall within the purview of Article 12, thus impacting the maintainability of writ petitions under Article 22....
A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable against a private employer for contractual termination unless it involves a public law element.
Termination by a private company without inquiry or hearing is not maintainable under Article 226 since the employment relationship is contractual, not public law.
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....
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
