SATINDER KUMAR YADAV Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have challenged the VRS scheme floated by respondent no. 3/hotel Scope Vista Pvt. Ltd. It is also alleged that respondent no. 3 had forced them to accept the VRS Scheme contrary to their wishes in 2003. Admittedly respondent no. 3 is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable against them. The petitioners are however at liberty to challenge the action/vrs of the respondent no. 3 in accordance with law before a civil court or another appropriate forum having jurisdiction.

(2.) PRAYER clause c in the writ petition is for direction to the respondent no. 3 to comply with the sale purchase agreement and direct the said respondent to make payment of salary for 10 months. If there was any violation of a contractual clause, which has given any right to the petitioners to claim any amount from the respondent no. 3, the petitioners will have to invoke jurisdiction of a civil court or appropriate forum against the respondent no. 3. Writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent No. 3.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in the case of All India ITDC Workers' Union Vs. ITDC and ors. reported in (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 66 has held that employees of a government company do not have any vested right to continue to enjoy status of an employee of an instrumentality of the State. It has been further held that government employees have no absolute right under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and the Government can abolish the post itself.