Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 136 (MP)

Gunjan Chugh v. State of M. P.

2015-02-03

SHEEL NAGU

body2015
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India assails the order of transfer of the petitioner who is working as Deputy Manager Business Development from Gwalior to Essel Vidyut Vitaran (Muzaffarpur) Limited w.e.f. 1st October, 2014. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is heard on the question of admission. 3. At the outset, the question as to whether the petitioner being an employee of the State or any of the instrumentalities of the State or any of the Agency of the State which falls within the definition of State under Article 12 of Constitution of India is posed. 4. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the employer-company is though a private limited company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 which is franchise of the respondent No.2 company which is indisputably a company fully owned and controlled by the State of M.P. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out as to whether there is any control of the respondent No.2 over the service conditions of the petitioner. 6. In this view of the matter, it is evident that the petitioner is an employee of franchise company namely Essel Vidyut Vitaran (Gwalior) Pvt. Limited which is ostensibly not a State as defined under Article 12 of Constitution of India. 7. However, since function performed by the said employer company i.e. Essel Vidyut Vitaran (Gwalior) Pvt. Limited is akin to public function since the said company on behalf of respondent No.2 company performs distribution and retail supply of electricity as it is evident from Annexure P-6 which is distribution franchise agreement, thus from the point of the employer of the petitioner performing public function this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. 8. The sole ground raised in support of challenge to the order of transfer is that the mother of the petitioner is ailing. 9. Bare perusal of terms and conditions contained in appointment order Annexure P-1 dated 11.6.2012 reflects that the service of the petitioner are subject to all India transferability and thus the petitioner can very well be transferred at any place within India. The petitioner by impugned order has been transferred from Gwalior to Essel Vidyut Vitaran (Muzaffarpur) Limited which as per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is within the State of Bihar. The petitioner by impugned order has been transferred from Gwalior to Essel Vidyut Vitaran (Muzaffarpur) Limited which as per submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is within the State of Bihar. Thus the order of transfer does not violate and is infact in conformity with terms and condition of the same. 10. As far as ground of ailment of mother of the petitioner is concerned, the same needs to be addressed by the employer which cannot be gone into this writ jurisdiction. The petitioner is free to make representation to the employer which this Court hopes and expects shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. 11. With the above said observation, this writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost. R. P. Singh for petitioner; Praveen Newaskar, Dy. Government Advocate for respondents/State.