IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:-

The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad

And

The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas

F.M.A. 1161 of 2024

(ASSIGNED)

Harapriya Puri

Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

For the Appellant : Mr. Ujjal Ray. Adv.,

Mr. Prabhat Kr. Srivastava, Adv.,

Ms. Ankita Singh, Adv.,

Mr. Om Srivastava, Adv.

For the Respondent : Mr. Shiv Shankar Banerjee, Adv.,

Nos 2 to 5 Ms. Madhurima Halder, Adv.,

Mr. Abhishek Chakraborty, Adv.

Judgment on : December 11, 2025.

Madhuresh Prasad, J.:

th

1. The present appeal arises out of an order dated 10 June, 2024 passed in WPA

No. 8096 of 2023 whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the present

appellant was dismissed with cost Rs.10,000/-

2. The writ petition was filed seeking issuance of direction upon the respondent to

disburse death benefits of the writ petitioner’s husband, claim quantified at Rs.94,62,972/-. The writ petitioner’s husband was an employee of the Institute

for Steel Development and Growth (“INSDAG” for short). The claim, however, was raised to be due as per service rules of the Steel Authority of India (Employees Family Benefit Scheme).

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the respondent no.2 (INSDAG) was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the respondent no.2 is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court since it is funded and controlled by the Ministry of Steel, Government of India. In the present appeal additional evidence was brought on record by way of an application, to which the respondents have chosen not to file any reply. The learned Advocate for the appellant has referred to the material placed on record by way of additional st evidence, including an e-mail dated 1 September, 2022, wherein the respondent no.2 has intimated his colleagues in the organization regarding coming into force of the Human Resources Manual for Institute for Steel Development and Growth. The Manual is stated to contain the service conditions, employees’ compensation and the CDA rules wShAicILh/ CwMaOs rtuol esc owmilel noin ltoon geefrf eacptp lfyr otom t h0e1 in.0s9ti.t2u0t2e2”.. This communication states “

st

5. It was thus, submitted that prior to the e-mail dated 1 September, 2022 the said (SAIL/CMO) rules and service conditions were applicable to the writ petitioner’s husband. The learned Advocate has also drawn attention of the Court towards a th letter dated 29 May, 2023 from the under secretary to the Government of India to the Director General of the respondent no.2, to submit that the same manifests the Ministry’s control over respondent no.2. These two documents according to the Advocate for the appellant was noCta cpotnasiind eSruerde sbhy Ntaheth D Jehlah iv H. Iinghst iCtouuter tf oin WSte.Pe(lC D) e5v6e1l7o pomf 2e0n1t 2a, nind tGhreo mwathtt earn odf Ors 2015 SCC Online Del

13166 ., reported in . Therefore, reliance placedC bayp tthaein l eSaurnreedsh S iNngalteh J uJhdgae osunp dreacision of the Delhi High Court in the case of ( ) cannot be sustained. From the two documents placed on record by way of additional evidence the appellants have shown all pervasive control of the Ministry of Steel, Government of India over the respondent no.2. Thus seen, even if respondent no.2 is not performing any sovereign/government/public function the service matter of its employees would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction under Article

226.

Captain

6. IStu irse sahls oN astuhb mJhiattesdu pthraat the Delhi High Court decision in the case of ( ) was rendered considering an issue whether INSDAG is “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

st

7. The learned Advocate has also laid emphasis on the communication dated 21 April, 2021 from the respondent no.2 to the present petitioner, wherein the gratuity has been paid to the petitioner as per SAIL circular, thereby submitting th