JUDGMENT V. N. Khare, J. - In these two writ petitions common questions are involved and as such we propose to decide them by a common judgment. 2. Petitioner in writ petition No. 10368 of 1979 has challenged the letter dated 8-10-1976 by which he was informed that he had been categorised as Inspector Grade I by the Categorisation Committee in terms of General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Development Staff) Scheme, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as Development Staff Scheme of 1976). Petitioner in writ petition No. 10017 of 1979 has challenged letters dated 28-11-1979, 9-5-1978, 11-7-1979 and 28-3-1979. Both the petitioners have further prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to recategorise them under General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Officers) Scheme, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Officers Scheme of 1975). 3. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the respondent New India Assurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company) is neither "other authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution nor is it statutory corporation and therefore, not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. 4. We need not make elaborate enquiry in this matter as the Supreme Court in its several decisions has thrown sufficient light for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of the State. [See Sukhdev v. Bhagatram AIR 1975 SC 1331 , R. D. Shetty v. International AIR Port Authority of India AIR 1979 SC 1628 , U. P. Warehousing Corporation v. Vijai Narain AIR 1980 SC 840 , Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India AIR 1981 SC 212 and Ajai Hasia v. Khalid Mujih Sehravardi AIR 1981 SC 487 ]. In Ajai Hasia's case the Supreme Court was considering as to whether the Regional Engineering College, Srinagar is an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court after considering earlier cases laid down six tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be "other authority" within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution: (1) "One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government. (2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with Governmental character. (3) It may also he a relevant factor...... whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. (4) Existence of deep and pervasive State Control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality. (5) If the functions of the Corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the Corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. (6) Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a Corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference of the Corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government." 5. We proceed to consider the character and status of:respondent company in the light of the tests laid down by Supreme Court. 6. The object of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was to provide for the acquisition and transfer of shares of Indian Insurance Companies and undertakings of other existing insurers in order to serve better the needs of the economy by securing the development of :general insurance business in the best interests of the community and to ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth to the common detriment, for the regulation and control of such business and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Section 4 of the Act provides that on the appointed day all the shares in the capital of every Indian Insurance Company shall, by virtue of this Act, stand transferred to and vested in the Central Government free of all trusts, liabilities and encumbrances affecting them. Section 5 of the Act lays down that on the appointed day, the undertaking of every existing insurer who is not an Indian Insurance Company shall stand transferred to and vested in the Central Government and the Central Government shall immediately thereafter provide, by notification, for the transfer to and vesting in such Indian Insurance Company, as it may specify in the notification, of that undertaking. Section 7 of the Act provides that every whole-time officer or other employee of an existing insurer other than an Indian Insurance Company who was employed by that insurer wholly or mainly in connection with his general insurance business immediately before the appointed day shall, on the appointed day, become an officer or other employee, as the case may he, of the Indian Insurance Company. Section 9 of the Act provides that as soon as may he after the commencement of this Act, the Central Government shall form a Government company in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, to he known as the General Insurance Corporation of India for the purpose of superintending, controlling and carrying on the business of general insurance. Section 10 of the Act states that all the shares in the capital of every Indian Insurance Company which stand transferred to and vested in the Central Government by virtue of Section 4 shall, immediately after such vesting, stand transferred to and vested in the Corporation and every Indian Insurance Company shall forthwith give effect to such transfer of shares and rectify its register of members by including therein the Corporation as the holder of such shares. 7. Sub-section (1) of Section 16 of the Act provides that the Central Government may by notification frame one or more schemes for efficient carrying on of general insurance business. Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Act provides that only four companies shall remain. Sub-section (6) of Section 16 of the Act provides that Central Government can amend or vary the scheme so framed. Under sub-section (7) of S. 16 of the Act the scheme so framed would supersede law, agreement or other instrument including article of the association. Section 17 of the Act provides that the scheme so framed shall he laid before the Parliament. Section 19 of the Act provides functions of acquiring companies. Section 23 of the Act provides powers of the Central Government to issue directions. Under Section 24 of the Act acquiring companies including the respondent company have the exclusive privilege of carrying on general insurance business. Under Section 31 of the Act the officers and employees of the company are deemed to he public servant for the purpose of Chapt. IX of the Penal Code. Under Section 24 of the Act acquiring companies including the respondent company have the exclusive privilege of carrying on general insurance business. Under Section 31 of the Act the officers and employees of the company are deemed to he public servant for the purpose of Chapt. IX of the Penal Code. Under Section 32 of the Act every officer of the Central Government and every officer or other employees of the Corporation and of any acquiring company shall he indemnified by the Central Government or the Corporation or the acquiring company, as the case may be, against all losses and expenses incurred by him in, or in relation to, the discharge of his duties under this Act except such as have been caused by his own wilful act or default. Under Section 33 of the Act the laws relating to winding up do not apply to the company. Section 38 of the Act protects from suits and prosecution. Section 39 of the Act gives rule making power to the Central Government. 8. The circumstances that all the shares of the company are transferred and vested in the Central Government free of trust and liabilities, the monopoly of insurance business created in favour of the four companies, the officers and other employees of the company are deemed to he public servants, the officers of Central Government and acquiring companies are indemnified by the Central Government, the protection of action taken in good faith establish the character and status of respondent company as that of instrumentalities of State. 9. Aforesaid circumstances are in addition to other provisions of the Act. Respondent company although registered under the companies Act but its special statuts is due to the scheme framed under Section 16 of the Act. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents relied on M. L. Nohira v. G.I.C., AIR 1979 Punj and Har 183 and Padma Menon v. G. 1. C. (1979) 2 Lab LJ I ; (1980 lab IC 37) (Ker) in support of his objection. These two cases are of no assistance as they do not lay down correct view of law in view of subsequent Supreme Court decisions. 11. We, therefore, hold that New India Assurance Company Limited is instrumentality of State and it is to he treated as "other authorities" within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 12. These two cases are of no assistance as they do not lay down correct view of law in view of subsequent Supreme Court decisions. 11. We, therefore, hold that New India Assurance Company Limited is instrumentality of State and it is to he treated as "other authorities" within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 12. In view of above we overrule the preliminary objection and proceed to decide the cases on merit. 13. The case of the petitioners is that they being officers were denied guarantee as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act in categorising them as Inspector under Development Staff Scheme and in fact they ought to have been categorised under Officer Scheme 1975. Their further case is that the Management Committee had no authority to categorise them as Inspectors Grade I on development side. Petitioners have also alleged violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.3 14. The stand taken by respondents in their counter-affidavit is that petitioners were working on development side and their categorisation by the Management Committee as Inspector, Grade I under the Development Stall Scheme was justified. Their further stand is that the Management committee evolved certain norms for categorisation in Class I Grade but petitioners did not qualify. 15. Petitioner in writ petition No. 10368 of 1979 was originally appointed as Inspector in South India Insurance Company Limited in the year 1964 which was a subsidiary of New India Assurance Company Limited. In the year 1967 petitioner was promoted as Assistant Branch Secretary, Varanasi Branch. While working in '.that capacity the Management of General Insurance Business in India was taken over by the Central Government under the provisions of General Insurance (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1971. By the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972 all the assets and liabilities of all the insurers stood transferred and vested in the Central Government. Under the provisions of Section 16 (1) of the Act the Government notified a scheme known as New India Assurance Company Limited (Merger) Scheme 1973. Under the aforesaid scheme Companies mentioned in Schedule II of the scheme were merged with New India Assurance Company Limited. South India Insurance Company Limited was also included in the said Schedule. Under Section 16 (1) (g) of the Act Central Government framed Officers Scheme 1975 and Development Staff Scheme 1976. Under the aforesaid scheme Companies mentioned in Schedule II of the scheme were merged with New India Assurance Company Limited. South India Insurance Company Limited was also included in the said Schedule. Under Section 16 (1) (g) of the Act Central Government framed Officers Scheme 1975 and Development Staff Scheme 1976. After the merger scheme was published and South India Insurance Company Limited was merged with the New India Assurance Company Limited, the office where the petitioner was working was integrated with New India Assurance Company Limited. By letter dated 8-10-1976 petitioner was informed that he has been provisionally categorised by the categorisation committee as Inspector Grade I under the Development Staff Scheme of 1976. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that petitioner was an officer on the appointed date and as such he had to be absorbed . , an officer and the Management committee had no authority to categorise the petitioner as an Inspector Grade I under the Development Staff Scheme of 1976. Learned counsel for petitioner in support of his argument relied on decision of Kerala High Court, Viswanathan v. Union of India (1980 Ker LN 22). 17. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner involves determination of status of petitioner on the appointed date and the authority of the Management committee to adjudicate the status of the petitioner on development side. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to certain paragraphs of the writ petition and letters annexed therewith in support of his argument that the petitioner was Officer on the appointed date. Learned counsel for the respondents urged that petitioner was working on development side and thus was not entitled to he categorised under the officers Scheme. Learned counsel for respondents brought to our notice Annexure XVIII to the writ petition wherein petitioner stated that in addition to his functions as Inspector he was doing administrative and supervisory work of the Branch as defined in the Code of Conduct and para 28 of the counter-affidavit. 18. Petitioner in pars 3 of the writ petition has stated that in the year 1967 he was promoted as Assistant Branch Secretary Varanasi Branch in South India Insurance Company Limited. The said allegation of petitioner has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. 18. Petitioner in pars 3 of the writ petition has stated that in the year 1967 he was promoted as Assistant Branch Secretary Varanasi Branch in South India Insurance Company Limited. The said allegation of petitioner has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. In para 24 of the counter, affidavit only this much is stated that the contents of para 3 of the writ petition pertain to matter of records, hence need no reply. Although respondent company was in possession of all the records, yet no record has been produced before us to show that the allegation of petitioner in para 3 of the writ petition was incorrect. After the South India Insurance Company Limited was merged with New India Assurance Company Limited the office where the petitioner was working as Assistant Branch Secretary was integrated with New India Assurance Company Limited by letter dated 3-10-1973. In this letter petitioner was addressed as Assistant Branch Secretary. The Manager of New India Assurance Company Limited issued it letter of authority in favour of petitioner by which he was assigned the work of Assistant Branch Secretary. In letter dated 26-3-1979 sent by Assistant Divisional Manager to the Senior Area Manager Kanpur (Annexure XXIV to the writ petition) it was indicated that the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Branch Secretary and was holding charge of Varanasi Branch consisting of administrative Staff as well as Development Inspectors. It was further pointed out therein that no Development Staff was on the roll at the time of nationalisation as services of newly recruited development staff were terminated. This letter explains the statement of the petitioner in Annex. XVIII to the writ petition as to why petitioner was doing administrative work as well as work of development inspector. Respondent-Company itself issued a letter of authority in favour of petitioner as Assistant Branch Secretary. The material on record shows that the case of petitioner that he was Assistant Branch Secretary on the appointed date is not without substance. 19. We are conscious of our limitation while deciding such question under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when an authority is created under the Act to adjudicate such questions. It is thus within the domain of such authority to decide such disputes. We therefore refrain ourselves from adjudicating the status of petitioner on the appointed date as contemplated under S. 7 of the Act. It is thus within the domain of such authority to decide such disputes. We therefore refrain ourselves from adjudicating the status of petitioner on the appointed date as contemplated under S. 7 of the Act. We have referred to the pleadings of the parties and various annexures only to show that the question regarding the status of petitioner had really arisen which requires adjudication by the appropriate authority. 20. Second question that arises for consideration is as to whether the management committee had authority to decide the status of petitioner on development staff side especially when petitioner repeatedly was claiming to be Officer on the appointed date. Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act guarantees officers and employees of erstwhile Indian Insurance Companies the same terms and conditions of service which they enjoyed until their terms and conditions of service are duly altered by the company. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act provides that if a question arises as to whether any person was a whole-time officer or employee or any person or employee was employed wholly or mainly in connection with the general insurance business of the existing insurer immediately before the appointed date the question shall be referred within a period of two years from the appointed date to the Central Government which shall after giving opportunity to the person decide it in such manner as it thinks fit. Section 16 of the Act provides for framing of the Schemes. We have gone through the Act, but we do not find any provision which empowers the Management Committee to decide such questions. Paragraph 4 of Development Staff Scheme provides that persons of development staff shall after commencement of the scheme be categorised by a committee appointed by the Chairman into appropriate categories in accordance with provisions contained in sub paras (2) to (7) and paragraph 5 of the Scheme. This paragraph empowers the committee to categorise such persons who are members of development staff. The respondent-Company or the General Insurance Company had no power to set up a committee having power to categorise officer on development staff side. Under sub-sec. (1) of Section 7 of the Act it has already been determined that those officers in an erstwhile Indian Insurance Company will be absorbed as officers and those who are in development staff or field staff will be absorbed as development staff. Under sub-sec. (1) of Section 7 of the Act it has already been determined that those officers in an erstwhile Indian Insurance Company will be absorbed as officers and those who are in development staff or field staff will be absorbed as development staff. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act empowers the Central Government to decide the disputes arising out of a claim made by a person which claim is opposed by the Company and to determine the respective rights of the contesting parties who are opposed to each other. Here the claim of petitioner that he was an officer was opposed by the Company. Such a question is required to be referred to the Central Government for decision under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. The power to decide the question rests with the Central Government. It has not been brought to our notice that in the present case Central Government had occasion to consider the case of petitioner as contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Act. We, therefore, are of opinion that the Management Committee had no authority in law to determine the status of petitioner on appointed date and decision taken by the committee in categorising the petitioner as Inspector Grade I tinder the Development Staff Scheme 1976 has no legal sanction. 21. Learned counsel for the respondents then urged that assuming petitioner was Assistant Branch Secretary, such incumbents were not treated as officers at relevant time in New Indian Assurance. Company Limited. The respondents had not taken this stand in their counter-affidavit and is not open to them to press this plea during the course of argument. In any event of the matter it is all the more reason that such question is referred to the Central Government for decision. 22. Since we have held that the decision taken by the Management Committee was without authority of law, we need not consider the other arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. 23. Learned counsel for' the respondents urged that the petitioners have filed writ petitions after inordinate delay and, therefore, petitions should be dismissed on the ground of laches. 22. Since we have held that the decision taken by the Management Committee was without authority of law, we need not consider the other arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner. 23. Learned counsel for' the respondents urged that the petitioners have filed writ petitions after inordinate delay and, therefore, petitions should be dismissed on the ground of laches. We have gone through the contents of the writ petitions and find that the petitioners were bona fide pursuing their remedy before the appropriate authorities and they filed writ petitions when they were finally informed that nothing could be done in their cases. We, therefore, overrule this objection of the respondents. 24. Learned counsel for the respondents then urged that in any event of the matter the relation between the Company and the petitioner was governed by service conditions and there was no statutory obligation upon the respondents-Company and as such the petition is not maintainable. The objection deserves mention only to he rejected. Section 7 of the Act assures the Officers and employees the same terms and conditions of service which they enjoyed as if the concern is not nationalised. Under Section 7 (2) of the Act Central Government is empowered to decide if a question arises as to whether a person is a whole-time employee or not. 25. In writ petition No. 10017 of 1979 petitioner was appointed as Accountant in erstwhile Motor Owners Insurance Company Limited, Belgaon in the year 1962. In the year 1967 he was promoted as Branch Manager of the office at Kanpur. After the Motor Owners Insurance Company Limited closed down petitioner was employed in Liberty Insurance Company Limited as Branch Secretary in Dec. 1970. Subsequently, Liberty Insurance Company Limited was merged with New India Assurance Company Limited. Petitioner in Paragraph 4 of the writ petition has alleged that he was employed in Liberty Insurance Company Limited as Branch Secretary in December, 1970. This allegation of the petitioner has not been denied in the counter-affidavit. In paragraph 25 of the counter-affidavit only this much is stated that the contents of para 4 of the writ petition pertain to the matter of record, hence no reply. Petitioner has annexed his joining report in the capacity of Branch Secretary in the Divisional Office of New India Assurance Company Limited, viz. Annexure V to the rejoinder affidavit. In paragraph 25 of the counter-affidavit only this much is stated that the contents of para 4 of the writ petition pertain to the matter of record, hence no reply. Petitioner has annexed his joining report in the capacity of Branch Secretary in the Divisional Office of New India Assurance Company Limited, viz. Annexure V to the rejoinder affidavit. This document shows that after merger of Liberty Insurance Company Limited with New India Assurance Company Limited petitioner was posted as Branch Secretary. The respondents who are in possession of the record did not choose to file any record in support of their case. In view of these uncontroverted allegations it is surprising how the Management Committee had held the petitioner to be working on development side on appointed date. Since we have already held that the Management Committee had no power to decide the dispute in regard to the status of a person who claims to he an officer on appointed date, the decision of Management Committee in categorising the petitioner on Development Staff side was without authority of law. 26. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the impugned order dated 8-10-1976 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10368 of 1979 and the impugned orders/ letters dated 28-11-1975, 9-5-1978, 11-7-1979 and 28-3-1979 in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 10017 of 1979 are quashed. We direct the respondent-Company to refer the case of petitioners to the Central Government with regard to their status on the relevant date within two months from receipt of the judgment. We further direct that the Central Government shall decide the case of petitioners in accordance with law. Since considerable time has elapsed we hope that Central Government will decide the case of the petitioners expeditiously. Both the writ petitions are allowed with costs.