R.S. RAWAT Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was an employee of respondent No. 2 Central Board of Irrigation and Power. Respondent No. 2 in the counter affidavit has taken an objection that the respondent No. 2 is not a State and hence not amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) I have in a bunch of cases with lead case being W.P.(C) 3934/1998 titled as H.S. Rawat vs. Central Board of Irrigation and Power & Ors. decided on 18.09.2013 held that respondent No. 2 Central Board of Irrigation and Power is not a State. The relevant paras of the judgment in the case of H.S. Rawat vs. Central Board of Irrigation and Power & Ors. (supra) are 4,5,6,8 & 9 which read as under :