Delhi High Court
Vimlesh vs Union Of India And Others on 21 November, 2024
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~66
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 21.11.2024
+ W.P.(C) 16161/2024
VIMLESH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. M. Padhi, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Vatsal Joshi, SPC with Mr.
Hussain Adil Taqvi, Adv. and
Major Anish Muralidhar.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 67895/2024
1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. Application stands disposed of
W.P.(C) 16161/2024, CM APPL. 67894/2024
3. This petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for a
direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner to the post of
Billing Clerk-cum-Cashier at the Unit Run Canteen (in short, „URC‟)
situated at the Integrated Headquarter (IHQ) of Ministry of Defence
(Army) Camp, Shanker Vihar, Rao Tula Ram Marg, New Delhi.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4, who appears
on advance notice, submits that the URC is not "State" within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the
present writ petition is not maintainable. In support of his plea, he
places reliance on the Judgment of the High Court of Kerala in Jaya
Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 933,
wherein placing reliance on the judgments of this Court in Sombir
Singh v. Union of India, 2014 SCC OnLine Del 2769, and Layak
Ram v. Quarter Master General & Ors., 1999 SCC OnLine Del 531,
the High Court of Kerala held as under:-
"28. To summarise, it can be safely inferred
that URC is not a state or authority with the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India. The canteen is not the creation of any
statute or legislature. The Ministry of Defence
has nothing to do with the canteen or its
employees. The funds of the URCs are not
provided by the Consolidated Fund of India,
and they are from the Regimental non-public
fund or by loans from the CSD departments.
There is no pervasive control by the
Government in the running of a canteen. As
per the documents produced through the
counter affidavit, it can be seen that the
canteen is a private establishment that
provides necessary items such as groceries at
a cheaper rate to the army personnel, retired
as well as widows. The salaries are paid from
the profit earned from the sales.
29. In view of the discussions made above, I
am of the firm opinion that the writ petitions
are not maintainable as URC does not come
under the definition of State under Article 12
of the Constitution of India, and therefore the
writ petitions are dismissed as not
maintainable. However, liberty is given to the
petitioners to move to the appropriate forum
for redressal of their grievance, if so advised."
5. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that given
the difference of opinion in the Judgments of the Supreme Court in R.
R. Pillai (Dead) through LRs vs. Commanding Officer HQ, SAC (U)
& Ors., (2009) 13 SCC 311 and Union of India vs. Mohd. Aslam,
(2001) 1 SCC 720, the issue has been referred to the larger Bench of
the Supreme Court, we are of the view that we are bound by the
judgments of our own Court, which have been referred to
hereinabove, and which have consistently held that the URCs are not
"State" or an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. Consequently, we hold that the present petition
is not maintainable.
6. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed along with the pending
application with liberty to the petitioner to avail of remedies in
accordance with law.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
SHALINDER KAUR, J
NOVEMBER 21, 2024/ss/sk/SJ
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
