caselaws

Supreme Court of India
N.C.C.F Employees Union (Regd) … vs Union Of India on 7 January, 2022Author: Uday Umesh Lalit

Bench: Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat

1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.512 OF 2017

N.C.C.F. EMPLOYEES UNION (REGD)(RECOGNIZED) & ANR. ..Petitioners

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1221 OF 2020

SANJAY SINGH ..Petitioner

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..Respondents

O R D E R

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.512 OF 2017

1. This petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution

of India has prayed for following reliefs:

“(a) Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus
or any other appropriate writ, direction or order
declaring that the respondent 2, namely, National
Co-operative Consumer Federation of India Limited
is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and is amenable to writ
jurisdiction.

(b) Issue an appropriate writ, direction and order
Signature Not Verified commanding the respondent 1 and 2 to give (i) 80%
Digitally signed by Dr.
Mukesh Nasa
arrears/balance amount of 6th Pay Commission, (ii)
Date: 2022.01.12
14:14:26 IST
Reason:
Arrears of dearness allowance w.e.f. July 2015 as
declared by the Government of India from time to
time, (iii) revised pay scales as recommended by 7th
Pay Commission with arrears w.e.f. 1.1.2016, (iv)
payment of leave encashment for the year 2015,
2

2016, (v) pay fixation, upgradation/promotion of
class IV employees, (vi) payment of Tea Allowance
and Medical Reimbursement to the Head Office
employees, as has been given to the employees of
other branches of N.C.C.F., (vii) Arrears of Leave
Travel Concession w.e.f. 2005, and (viii) retiral
benefits/dues to the retired employees, as
mentioned in Annexure 11.”

2. The petitioner has averred:-

“4. That there are conflicting judgments of the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna and the
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on a question as to
whether the respondent No.1 is a State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India
and is amenable to writ jurisdiction. A Division
Bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its
judgment titled J.S. Arneja Vs. N.C.C.F. 1994 (28)
DRJ 546 has held that the N.C.C.F. is not State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India. However, the Hon’ble High
Court of Judicature at Patna by its Judgment and
Order dated 11.9.2008 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case No.7042 of 1995 and in Civil Writ Jurisdiction
Case No.9940 of 1996 has held that the N.C.C.F. is
a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution of India and the same is amenable to
writ jurisdiction. The aforesaid judgment of the
Ld. Single Judge dated 11.9.2008 has been upheld by
the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at
Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No.926 of 2008 and
863 of 2008 filed by Chairman/President N.C.C.F.
vide its Judgment and Order dated 7.7.2011.

Against the aforesaid Judgment and Order dated
7.7.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Patna, the Chairman/President N.C.C.F. of India has
filed Civil Appeals No.1918-1919 of 2012 are
pending disposal before this Hon’ble Court. This
Hon’ble Court by order dated 6.2.2012 while
granting leave to appeal refused to grant stay of
the impugned judgment and order dated 7.7.2011
passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Patna.”

3. As is clear from the record, the Division Bench of the

Patna High Court (in LPA No.926 of 2008 arising from CWJC

No.7042 of 1995) had affirmed the view taken by the Single
3

Judge holding the National Co-operative Consumers’ Federation

of India Limited (for short “NCCF”) to be a “State” within the

meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

Said view taken by the Division Bench was challenged in

Civil Appeal Nos.1918-1919 of 2012 arising out of SLP (Civil)

Nos.1827-1828 of 2012 in which this Court was pleased to grant

Special Leave to Appeal vide order dated 06.02.2012. Later,

the appellant NCCF preferred I.A. No.13111 of 2019 seeking

withdrawal of the appeals and a learned Chamber Judge of this

Court by order dated 01.08.2019 allowed the appellant to

withdraw the appeals.

4. In the submission of Mr. Dhingra, the learned counsel for

the petitioner, the decision of the Patna High Court holding

NCCF to be “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the

Constitution of India was thus accepted by the NCCF and the

appeals were consciously withdrawn. Mr. Dhingra, therefore,

submits that in view of the change in the circumstances,

especially in the light of withdrawal of the appeal by NCCF,

liberty be granted to the petitioners to file appropriate

proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to

agitate and claim reliefs prayed by way of substantive prayer

(b) in the instant petition.

5. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General

appearing for Union of India, however, submits that in any
4

case, no relief could be claimed against the Central

Government.

6. We need not go into rival contentions. We allow the

instant writ petition to be withdrawn, with liberty as prayed

for by Mr. Dhingra. All the issues are left open to be

decided in an appropriately instituted proceedings.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1221 OF 2020

7. In view of the order passed in Writ Petition (Civil)

No.512 of 2017, Ms. S. Janani, learned Advocate appearing for

the petitioner prays for withdrawal of this writ petition with

similar liberty.

In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed to be

withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.

…………………J.
(UDAY UMESH LALIT)

…………………J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)

NEW DELHI,
JANUARY 07, 2022.

Comments

Leave a Reply

Sign In

Register

Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.