JUDGMENT : (Prasanna B. Varale, C.J.) Appellant was the employee of 1st respondent-Air India Limited. He had tendered his resignation to the post vide letter dated 5.2.2020. He had addressed another letter dated 18.3.2020 seeking withdrawal of resignation and signified his willingness to continue in employment. However, the respondent Air India vide letter dated 13.8.2020 having accepted the request for resignation, has relieved him from service. The same was challenged by the appellant in W.P.No.4171/2021 and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 28.11.2022 rejected the same on the ground of maintainability inasmuch as the respondent-Air India Limited ceased to be an instrumentality of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submits that the Writ Petition could not have been rejected on the ground of maintainability inasmuch as the 1st respondent-Air India Limited has all the trappings of 'other authorities' as given under Article 12 of the Constitution in the light of R.D.Shetty v. International Airport Authority Of India, Air 1979 SC 1628 . He also notifies to the court that in Special Leave to Appeal (C)Nos.23441-23444 of 2022, the same question is being examined by the Apex Court and therefore, this appeal too merits admission and a deeper examination at our hands. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant-employee and we have perused the Appeal Papers. Having done that, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order inasmuch as the same has been rendered keeping in view the law declared by a Division Bench of Bombay High Court in R.S. Madireddy & Anr. v. Union Of India & Ors., 2022 SCC Online Bom 2657. We are broadly in agreement with the observations therein that once an entity is privatized, ceases to be an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, aggrieved persons cannot invoke writ jurisdiction constitutionally vested under Articles 226 & 227. The fact that the Bombay High Court judgment has been put in challenge in the subject SLP and notice has been ordered by the Apex Court per se does not render the said decision a destitute of persuasive value. In fact, the Bombay High Court has also referred to several decisions of the Apex Court and thereafter, has rendered the said judgment. 4. In fact, the Bombay High Court has also referred to several decisions of the Apex Court and thereafter, has rendered the said judgment. 4. We notice that another learned Single Judge of this court in an identical fact matrix involved in W.P.No.21448/2021 between MS Padmavathi Subramaniyan v. The Ministry Of Civil Aviation, disposed off on 6.4.2022, has followed the aforesaid judgment of the Bombay High Court and declined indulgence. We are in agreement with this line of reasoning. Added, the appellant has more efficacious remedy of civil suit in the light of Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in Dhula Bhai v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1969 SC 78 . It is not that he is a poor peasant or a labourer or a person belonging to lower social strata and therefore, cannot fight a potentially long drawing suit. He happened to be a high rung employee i.e., admittedly, a Captain of Airships promoted as Commander with effect from 9.5.2014. Obviously, he would have had a very attractive pay packages and employment capabilities. It is not the case of appellant to the contrary. In the above facts and circumstances, this Writ Appeal being devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs having been made easy.