ANIL KUMAR ANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent seek to assail the common order dtd. 15/12/2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of six connected writ petitions preferred by the appellant. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petitions by holding that the respondent/Unit Trust of India Asset Management Company Ltd (hereinafter referred as 'UTI AMC') was not amenable to writ jurisdiction as it was a limited company having no governmental control.

(2.) The appellant, who appears in person, submits that the impugned order is wholly perverse as the learned Single Judge has proceeded on a presumption that he was employed with UTI AMC, which presumption, he contends, was incorrect as he had in his additional affidavit categorically stated that he was not an employee of UTI AMC but of Unit Trust of India (UTI). Furthermore, the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that even if the writ petitions were found to be not maintainable against UTI AMC, it needs to be noted that as many as eight other respondents were arrayed in the writ petitions. His contention being that the writ petitions were maintainable against the other respondents, which aspect the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Shishodia, learned senior counsel for the respondent UTI AMC, who appears on advance notice, supports the impugned order and submits that it has always been the stand of the appellant himself that he was an employee of UTI AMC. In support of this plea, he hands over copies of one of the writ petitions, being WP(C) 7119/2015, filed by the appellant, wherein he had sought quashing of the recommendation of the review DPC held on 9/1/2008 and had, consequently, prayed that he be promoted to Grade 'C' in Scale III with retrospective effect from 2/1/1995 as also to consider him for further promotions to the higher grades, with retrospective effect, upto the 'Executive Director' level in Scale VII. By drawing our attention to paragraphs 55, 122 and 147 thereof, he contends that once the appellant himself had averred in his writ petition that he had been working with the UTI AMC, he cannot now take a different stand and claim that he was an employee of UTI. Furthermore, he hands over copies of the salary slips of the appellant for the months of May 2016 and March 2018 which also show that he was drawing his salary from UTI AMC. He, therefore, contends that there is no infirmity with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who, after taking into consideration the admitted position that the shareholding of the Government of India in UTI AMC was less than 51% at that stage, opined that no writ petition was maintainable against UTI AMC and has consequently relegated the appellant to seek appropriate remedies as per law. Copies of W.P.(C)7114/2015 and of the appellant's salary slips for May 2016 and March 2018, handed over in Court, are taken on record.