A writ petition against a private insurance company is not maintainable under Article 226 since the company does not qualify as a State or instrumentality, reflecting solely contractual employment relations.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

The petitioner-N.Darahasa Lahari joined the respondent-Star Union Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Company (SUD Life, for short) as Assistant Vice President on 01.03.2012, after due selection process. He was confirmed in the employment with effect from 11.09.2012. In December, 2012, he was transferred to Visakhapatnam as Area Head. On the ground of consistent under-performance and non-achieving of set targets, he was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 15.04.2015 seeking response. Petitioner submitted his response on 17.04.2015 detailing his achievements even during the period of crisis in the wake of cyclone-hit in Visakhapatnam. He was issued another letter dated 22.04.2015 proposing to take further action on the ground that only 65% of the target was achieved under the petitioner’s leadership. Petitioner submitted his response on 27.04.2015. However, the petitioner tendered his resignation on 29.04.2015, allegedly under pressure, and specifying his last working day would be 28.06.2015. The Regional Head, vide e-mail dated 29.04.2015 communicated to the petitioner that his resignation has been accepted with immediate effect and that he would be relieved from services on 27.06.2015 subject to completion of relieving formalities. Thereafter, on 13.06.2015, the petitioner addressed a letter requesting permission to withdraw his resignation dated 29.04.2015. The petitioner was issued a response e-mail dated 27.06.2015 stating that his resignation was accepted and a reply communicating acceptance of resignation was sent to him on 29.04.2015. Petitioner’s salary for the months of May and June 2015 have not been credited to his account within time, and he has been making representations for release of salary and the respondents have issued Proceedings dated 17.07.2015 stating that Full and Final settlement of accounts is being processed. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he had performed well and achieved targets and his pay was also raised year on year, as can be seen from the pay statements filed as material papers with the writ petition, and that he tendered his resignation under forced circumstances, and later he made a request to permit him to withdraw his resignation, but his request was not acceded to. Petitionerassails the Proceedings dated 29.04.2015 issued by the 2^nd respondent accepting the resignation as illegal and arbitrary, and seeks a direction to the respondents to continue the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits with effect from 28.06.2015.

2. Heard Ms. K. Udaya Sri, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. V. Harish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents-SUD Life. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making submissions on the lines of writ affidavit, would contend that that SUD Life is a joint venture of Bank of India, Union Bank of India and Dai-Ichi Life Insurance Company of Japan, and as on the date of filing the writ petition, the total combined share of the Bank of India and Union Bank of India was around 74%, however, due to efflux of time, the share of Bank of India has come down to 28.96% and that of Union Bank of India to 25.10%, however, in any event, the cumulative share of the two banks is still over 54% which effectively places the Banks holding (and thereby Government’s holding) at majority and therefore the Government has a deep and pervasive control over respondent-joint venture i.e., SUD Life can effectively be called an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution, bringing it within the fold of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court t