Prof (Dr) Ram Pal Singh vs State of Jharkhad Thru. Secy. Deptt. Labour Govt. Jharkhand Ranchi and 2 Others

Mrs. Radhika Singh and Mr. Vedant Bhargava, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Full Bench of this Court rendered in Writ-A No.63708 of 2014, Roychan Abraham Vs. State of U.P. and others and has drawn attention of this Court towards the answer to the reference given by the Full Bench in paragraphs 64 and 65 of the judgment, which are extracted as under:-

¶12

"64. Question (i): Private Institutions imparting education to students from the age of six years onwards, including higher education, perform public duty primarily a State function, therefore are amenable to judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶13

Question (ii): The broad principle of law which has been formulated in the judgement of the Full Bench in M.K. Gandhi and Division Bench in Anjani Kr. Srivastava is confined to the facts obtaining therein and is not an authority on the proposition of law that private educational institutions do not render public function and, therefore, are not amenable to judicial review of the High Court. The judgements do not require to be revisited."

¶14

Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the Full Bench has held that private institutions imparting education to students from the age of six years onwards, including higher education, perform public duty, which is

¶15

WRIA No. 15054 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

primarily a State function, therefore, are amendable to judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. She further submitted that the petitioner has approached this Court for payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, which is applicable to the respondent institution. She submitted that in this view of the matter, the present writ petition is maintainable.

¶18

This Court has considered aforesaid submissions and as the Full Bench of this Court has settled the identical controversy, which covers the field, thus, present petition is maintainable.

¶19

Let notice be issued to the respondent nos. 2 & 3 returnable at an early date.

¶20

Steps be taken within one week.

¶21

List this matter in the week commencing 9.2.2026.

¶22

In the meantime, the respondents shall file counter affidavit.

¶23

It is further provided that if any claim, raised by way of representation is pending, the same shall be considered by the respondents, in the meantime.

¶24

(Shree Prakash Singh,J.)

¶25

January 8, 2026

¶26

Ram Murti

¶27

Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prof (Dr) Ram Pal Singh v. State of Jharkhad Thru. Secy. Deptt. Labour Govt. Jharkhand Ranchi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prof (Dr) Ram Pal Singh v. State of Jharkhad Thru. Secy. Deptt. Labour Govt. Jharkhand Ranchi and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mukesh Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Abhishek Verma @ Ranu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Shiv Ram Singh and Another vs Vice Chancellor Acharya Narendra Dev University of Agricultur/Technology Ayodhya

Shivam vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Anuj Kumar Srivastava and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Shafiq Ahmad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another