Ramesh Prasad Uniyal vs State & Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 651 UK

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                   AT NAINITAL

                 Special Appeal No. 192 of 2020

Ramesh Prasad Uniyal                           .......Petitioner
                                  -Versus-
State & Ors.                                   .......Respondents

Present:
      Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
      Shubhang Dobhal, the learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Mr. Anil Bisht, the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
      Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and
      4.
                      Date of hearing : 09.03.2022


Coram:       Sri S.K. Mishra, ACJ.
             Sri R.C. Khulbe, J.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court made the following judgment:

Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner does not want to press the amendment application. Hence, amendment application IA No. 11258 of 2021 is dismissed as not pressed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. In this intra-court appeal, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the learned Single Judge, dismissing his writ application as not maintainable vide order dated 18.08.2020, as it is arising out of the service contract. However, it is brought to our notice that in the recent decided case i.e. Ramakrishna Mission & Anr. Vs. Kago Kunya & ors., in Civil Appeal No. 2394 of 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

"33. Thus, contracts of a purely private nature would not be subject to writ jurisdiction merely by reason of the fact that the structured by statutory provisions. The only exception to this principle arises in a situation where the contract of service is governed or regulated by a statutory provision.

Hence, for instance, in K K Saksena (supra) this Court held that when an employee is a workman governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it constitutes an exception to the general principle that a contract of personal service is not capable of being specifically enforced or performed.

4. It is not disputed at this stage that respondent no. 3 is fully funded by the State of Uttarakhand, and, is, therefore, instrumentality of the State. Hence, it is covered under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, and a writ application is maintainable regarding the service, recruitment, employment, conditions of services etc., and also guided by the Rules prepared by the respondent.

5. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that a writ is maintainable against the respondents by the petitioner for the service contract. Thus, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge committed error in holding that writ application is not maintainable.

6. Accordingly, we hold that writ application is maintainable and it should be decided on merit. Hence, we remanded the matter to the Court of the learned Single Judge.

7. Accordingly, this intra-court appeal stands disposed of. The counsel for the petitioner shall make reference before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court who shall do the needful for listing the case before the learned Single Judge after remand.

(Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, J.) (Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ.)

PV