Dismissed

Jitendra Chandel v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2018WRIA/5623/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition seeking enforcement of a contract of service against a private company. The court held that a writ under Article 226 is not maintainable against a private entity, even when it is the employer of the petitioner, relying on precedents regarding Article 12. The petitioner was directed to seek other legal remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable; petitioner directed to seek other remedies.

Jitendra Chandel Vs State of Up and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 37 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5623 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jitendra Chandel Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others

¶2

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikram Singh Shrivastava,Sangam Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶5

It is not in dispute inter se parties that pursuant to an agreement between the State authority and fifth respondent i.e. Rama Infotech Pvt. Ltd. (a private Company), it was agreed that certain services shall be outsourced and in view thereof requisite staff was to be provided by the Company to the office of the Chief Medical Officer. By impugned order dated 14 November 2017, the Chief Medical Officer, Lalitpur informed the Company that petitioner and one another employee supplied by the Company were indulging in irregularities thereby causing loss to the department. Consequently, the services of the petitioner was dispensed with by the Company.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel at the outset submits that the fifth respondent is a private Company and not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, therefore, writ petition against fifth respondent to enforce contract of service, is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of his submission reliance has been placed on the decisions rendered in the case of Anand Kumar Gupta and others vs. State of U. P. and others passed in Writ A No.48976 of 2017 along with connected matter decided on 31 October 2017 and in the case of Satish Kumar and others Vs. Union of India and others passed in Writ A No.47580 of 2015 along with connected matters decided on 14 March 2016.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that he is an employee of the fifth respondent, a private Company and his services has been terminated by the Company on the recommendation of the Chief Medical Officer, Lalitpur.

¶8

In the circumstances, in my opinion, writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶9

However, dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude petitioner from seeking remedy, if any, available under law.

¶10

Order Date :- 22.2.2018 Manish Himwan

Jitendra Chandel v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Chandel v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Brahma Deo Singh Vs D.D.C.and Others

Ram Deo Sahai Vs D.D.C.and Others

Smt. Bari Bahu Vs D.D.C.and Others

aavesh kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 others

Tej Prakash Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Pal Singh Vs State of U.P.