SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(MP) 53

VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
Vikram Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Jagdish Baheti for petitioner; Ms. Pranjali Yajurvedi, Panel Lawyer, for respondent No. 2.

ORDER

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1.11.2024 issued by respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been directed to be superannuated at the age of 58 years with effect from 31.1.2025.

2. Counsel for State raises preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondent No.4 which is a private company. The petitioner was a Workman and is challenging his superannuation.

3. Counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 is controlled by the respondent No.1 and since the fundamental right of the petitioner regarding 'livelihood' is violated, therefore, writ petition is maintainable under; Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the apex Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore v. State of UP (2023) 4 SCC 1 and the judgment passed in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding the retirement before the age of superannuation as against the rule 14-A of M.P. Industrial Employment Standing Orders. Counsel for petitioner submits that as per the rule 14-A

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top