VIKRAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 1/11/2024 issued by respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been directed to be superannuated at the age of 58 years with effect from 31/1/2025.

(2.) Counsel for State raises preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondent No.4 which is a private company. The petitioner was a Workman and is challenging his superannuation.

(3.) Counsel for petitioner submits that the respondent No.4 is controlled by the respondent No.1 and since the fundamental right of the petitioner regarding 'livelihood' is violated, therefore, writ petition is maintainable under; Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Vs. State of UP (2023) 4 SCC 1 and the judgment passed in the case of Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2005) 4 SCC 649.