NAZIR AHMAD PIR Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, J&K HANDICRAFTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER after suspension has not been given suspension allowance He was suspended by an order dated 14 -7 -1982 by the Secretary to the respondent No 1. Petitioner seeks a writ for issuing a direction to the respondents for paying him the suspension allowance.

(2.) RESPONDENTS have field the affidavit. In their objectioner have stated that the writ was not maintainable against them, as it was based on service rules of the Company. It is also stated that petitioner was asked to remain attached with a particular office and he did not present himself there, therefore he was not entitled to any suspension allowance. He is said to have not produced the certificate to the effect that he was not engaged in any trade or profession during the period of suspension. Therefore unless he produced that, his case could not be considered.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. A. K. Malik has vehemently argued that service rules of the Company are not justiciable through a medium of writ Petition. He has stated that respondent though a Corporation is amenable to writ jurisdiction only in respect of the matters where a citizens rights under Chapter III and IV are sought to be protected. ln respect of other matters respondent though an authority under the State will not be amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. This argument is based on the observations of the Supreme Court in Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib reported in A 1 R 1981 S. C. 487. This Court also had taken the same view in respect of Jammu and Kashmir Bank employees case and in respect of Jammu and Kashmir Industries employees case. So it is to be held that Corporation will be an authority amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court only for the purpose of Chapter III and IV of the Constitution. It would not be an authority for purposes of enforcing of service rules. To this extent Mr. Maliks contention must prevail. But the point is not free from doubt.