VIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA versus U.P. RAJYA KARMACHARI KALYAN NIGAM AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 304 · Decided: 23-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VIRENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA 
v. 
U.P. RAJYA KARMACHARI KALYAN NIGAM AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 23, 2004 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 12 and 226- 'State '-Definition-
Whether covers a C01poration registered under Societies Registration Act-
Administrative and functional control of and full financial support to the 
C Corporation by the State-Held by High Court not covered under definition 
of State-On appeal, held : The Corporation is covered as an agency and 
instrumentality of the State in the definition of 'State '-Hence amenable 
to writ jurisdiction-The relief against the bodies covered by the definition 
'state' would be based on the structure of the society and its financial 
D capability and viability-Societies Registration Act, 1860-Service Law. 
E 
The services of the appellant, an employee of the respondent-
Corporation was terminated. In his Writ Petition before High Court 
challenging the termination, Corporation raised preliminary objection 
as to maintainability of the Petition on the ground that the Corporation 
did not fall within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the 
Constitution of India. High Court dismissed the petition as not 
maintainable. Hence the present appeal. 
The objects and the provisions in the memorandum and rules of 
F the Corporation show administrative control of the Corporation is 
vested in the Executive Officers representing different departments of 
the State. There is total financial support to the Corporation by the State 
and that the functional control of the Corporation was with the State 
as the Executive Officers of the State were the ex officio members and 
office bearers of the Corporation. 
G 
The question for determination in the present appeal was whether 
the respondent-Corporation, a so~iety registered under Societies 
Registration Act, 1860 and not created by any Statute, is an 
'instrumentality' or 'agency' of the State and can claim the status of 
H 'State' as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and is thus 
304 
( 
V.K. SRIVASTAVA v. U.P. RAJYA KARMACHARI KAL YAN NIGAM 305 
amenable to jurisdiction u/s. 226 of the Constitution. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. In view of administrative, financial and functional 
control of the Corporation being with the State, the Corporation is an 
'instrumentality and agency of the State'. The control of the State is not 
A 
B 
only 'regulatory' but it is 'deep and pervasive'. The Corporation is 
formed with the object of catering to the needs of the Government 
employees for supplementing their salaries and other perks. The top 
executives of the Government department ex officio are members and 
office bearers of the Corporation. The Corporation is fully supported C 
financially and administratively by the State and its authorities. Even 
day-to-day functioning _of the Corporation is watched, supervised and 
controlled by the various departmental authorities of the State 
"' 
particularly the Department of Food and Civil Supplies. The Corporation 
being an 'agency and instrumentality of the State' is covered by the D 
definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. It is, therefore, 
amenable to the Writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 
of the Constitution. [318-C-D-E-F] 
Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, [2002] 
s sec 111, ronowed. 
E 
2. Even though a body, entity or Corporation is held to be a 'State' 
within the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution what relief to the 
aggrieved person or employee of such a body or entity is to be granted is 
a subject matter in each case for the Court to determine on the basis of the F 
structure of that society and also its financial capability and viability. The 
subject of denial or grant of relief partially or fully has to be decided in 
each particular case by the Court dealing with the grievances brought by 
an aggrieved person against the bodies covered by the definition of 'State' 
under Article 12 of the Constitution. [318-F-G-H) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5047 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.9.99 of the Allahabad High 
G 
Court in S.A. No. 60 (SB) of 1995. 
H 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] Sl::J.PP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
Mrs. Shobha Dikshit and Pradeep Misra for the Appellant. 
Aarohi Bhalla, Mrs. Sujatha Kurdukar and Mahabir Singh for the 
Respondents. 
B 
The Judgment of the Court was deliver
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.