IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1148 of 2025 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/1261/2023 With CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2025 In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1148 of 2025 =============================================

DR. INDRANIL BANDYOPADHYAY Versus INSTITUTE FOR PLASMA RESEARCH & ORS.

=============================================

Appearance:

MR ASIM PANDYA, SENIOR ADVOCATE with MR.ALOK M THAKKAR(6510) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6 MR MUNJAAL M BHATT(8283) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4 =============================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE L. S. PIRZADA Date : 13/10/2025

ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge, rejecting the captioned writ petition being Special Civil Application No.1261 of 2023 along with other matters. The allied Letters Patent Appeals are also listed along with the present appeal. However, since we are inclined to refer the issue raised in the Letters Patent Appeals to the Larger Bench, we are passing the order in the present appeal only.

2. The learned Single Judge, while placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1366 of 2024 by the Coordinate Bench in the case of Himanshu Dineshchandra Parekh vs. Institute for Plasma Research and Others, has held that the respondent No.1 – Institute is not a “State” within the meaning of Article

12 of the Constitution of India.

3. The present appellant, who is serving as a Scientific Officer under the respondent No.1-Institute for Plasma Research, seeks relief relating to recovery and re-fixation of pay on the basis of an audit objection and has assailed the decision of re-fixation of pay and recovery of excess salary.

4. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Pandya, at the outset, has questioned the decision of the Division Bench dated 04.04.2025 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1366 of 2024, holding that the respondent – Institute for Plasma Research is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Division Bench, while considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas vs. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Ors., (2002) 5 S.C.C. 111, along with other decisions, has held that the respondent – Institute is not a “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench has premised its opinion mainly on the bye-laws and funding of the Institute. It is further submitted that the Coordinate Bench held that there was nothing on record to indicate the extent to which the Central Government funds the respondent – Institute, and on the basis of the bye-laws framed by the respondent – Institute, concluded that there was no indication of any regulatory control of the State over the Institute. It is submitted that the Coordinate Bench, after going through the bye-laws, categorically concluded that the functional, financial, and administrative control of the Central Government is not pervasive and, at best, could be said to be regulatory in nature, as the Union or Central Government does not interfere in the day-to-day management of the Institute. Further, he has submitted that the Coordinate Bench was influenced by the fact that since there was no notification issued under Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, notifying the Institute for Plasma Research (IPR) to be a society governed and controlled by the Government, it could not be brought within the purview of the Central Administrative Tribunal. Hence, the Coordinate Bench held that the respondent –

Institute is not a “State.”

5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Pandya has further submitted that the