Madhya Pradesh High Court ("HC"), in Vikram Singh case,1 held that violation of service rules does not fall within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions. Therefore, any action taken by a private institution against its employee would not come within the purview of its writ jurisdiction2.
Brief Facts.
Vikram Singh ("Vikram"), a workman employed by a private company, challenged an order directing his superannuation at the age of 58 years3("Order").
The Order was challenged by Vikram before the HC by a writ petition ("WP").
Vikram's former employer, the Union of India ("UOI") and others were made parties (collectively referred to as "Respondents").
Vikram's Contentions.
Employer was controlled by the UOI.
Early superannuation was a violation of his fundamental "right to livelihood," making the WP maintainable.
Relying on judgments,4 he asserted the proposition that writ can be issued against a private body acting as a public authority with a public duty to perform.
He also contended that as per the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 19635, he was entitled to continue until the age of 60 years, and his premature retirement contravened his right to livelihood6.
Respondents' Contentions.
The WP was not maintainable against Vikram's employer since it is a private company.
HC's Judgement and Reasoning.
The HC:
- Noted that writs can be maintainable against private persons or authorities discharging public duties, particularly in the realm of education.
- Held that Vikram's claim for continuation in service up to 60 years against a private company did not relate to a public duty.
- Stated that the right to continue in service is not a fundamental right. The violation of service rules by a private institution does not fall under the purview of the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
- Concluded that the WP, challenging premature retirement and claiming continuation in service against a private company, is not maintainable. The WP was thus dismissed.
Footnotes
1 Vikram Singh v. Union of India and others, 2025 SCC OnLine MP 213.
2 Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
3 with effect from January 31, 2025.
4 Kaushal Kishore v. State of UP, (2023) 4 SCC 1 and Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649.
5 Rule 14-A
6 Under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
