CAV JUDGMENT

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

1. The Division Bench of this Court, under Rule 5 of the Gujarat High Court Rules, 1993, has referred the following question of law to the Larger Bench:

“Whether the respondent – Institute for Plasma Research can be said to be a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India?”

The above question of law emanates from the decision of the Division Bench judgment dated 04.04.2025 in the case of Himanshu Dineshchandra Parekh vs. Institute for Plasma Research and Ors, reported in 2025 (2) GLH 585, wherein it is held that the Institute for Plasma Research (IPR) is not a “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

2. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Pandya, appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the appellant, serving as a Scientific Officer under respondent No.1-Institute for Plasma Research (IPR), 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, which is the subject matter of the captioned Appeal.

3. It is submitted that the Division