Samman Padwar v. Union Of India

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WA No. 129 of 2018 1.

Samman Padwar S/o Shri Shankar Das Padwar, Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. LIG / 135, Housing Board Colony, Din Dayal Aawas, Khokhara Bhatha, Janjgir, Post Office And Tahsil Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh. ---- Appellant

Versus

1.

Union Of India Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Housing And Urban Poverty Alleviation, New Delhi, India.

2.

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

3.

State Urban Development Agency Chhattisgarh, Through The Mission Director, Dindayal Antyoday Yojana Rashtriya Shahari Aajivika Mission, State Urban Development Agency Chhattisgarh, 4th Floor, Block - D, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

4.

The Mission Director, Dindayal Antyoday Yojana Rashtriya Shahari Aajivika Mission, State Urban Development Agency Chhattisgarh, 4th Floor, Block - D, Indrawati Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh.

5.

The Collector Cum President, Dindayal Antyoday Yojana Rashtriya Shahari Aajivika Mission, City Mission Management Unit, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

6.

The Chief Municipal Officer Cum City Project Officer, Dindayal Antyoday Yojana Rashtriya Shahari Aajivika Mission, City Mission Management Unit, Municipal Council Tilda Neora, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

7.

Rajhans Consultants And Technocrats Private Limited, Through The Director, Rajhans Consultants And Technocrats Private Limited, H I G - 77, Amdi Nagar, HUDCO, Bhilai Chhattisgarh. 8.

Shri Basant Kispotta, The City Mission Manager, City Mission Management Unit Dindayal Antyoday Yojana Rashtriya Shahari Aajivika Mission, Municipal Council Bhathapara And Municipal Council Tilda Neora, Raipur Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

For Appellant Shri Alok Pandey, Advocate For Respondent/UOI Shri S.K. Dewangan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Judgment Per Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ.

01/08/2018 1.

Writ petition of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Single Judge when he raised a grievance against his disengagement or removal from the post of Manager/Expert (Skill & Livelihood). 2.

The learned Single Judge held that since the appellant was an appointee of a private company, who was hired by the said private company on contract basis for a period of one year, the disengagement of the appellant cannot be said to be a case, which is required to be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the private company is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction in relation to the dispute. 3.

The learned Single Judge, however, has given liberty to the appellant to take recourse to law otherwise.

4.

Having examined Annexure - P/3, annexed with the writ petition, which is a letter of appointment, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has committed no error in law.

5.

In the result, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Prashant Kumar Mishra) Chief Justice Judge Gowri