Violation Of Service Rules Not Violation Of Public Function, Action Against Private Employee Not Amenable Under Article 226: MP High Court
The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that violation of service rules would not come within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions. In doing so, the court opined that the impugned action must relate to a 'public duty' in order to come under the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution.The single-judge bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla observed, “The...
The Indore Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that violation of service rules would not come within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions.
In doing so, the court opined that the impugned action must relate to a 'public duty' in order to come under the ambit of Article 226 of the Constitution.
The single-judge bench of Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla observed, “The right to continue in service cannot be held to be a fundamental right. The service conditions of an employee is governed by the Service rules and violation of service rules would not come within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions and, therefore, any action taken by a private institution against his employee would not come within the judicial scrutiny of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
The present petition challenges the order issued by respondent No.4/Ultratech Cement Limited whereby the petitioner was directed to be superannuated at the age of 58 years with effect from 31.1.2025. The petitioner was a Workman and is challenging his superannuation.
The counsel for State contended that the petition is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondent No.4 which is a private company.
The counsel for petitioner submitted that the Respondent No.4 is controlled by the respondent No.1/Union of India (Ministry of Labour and Employment) and since the fundamental right of the petitioner regarding 'livelihood' is violated, therefore, writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that as per the Rule 14-A of the M.P. Standing Order Rules 1963, the petitioner is entitled to continue up to the age of superannuation of 60 years. He argued that respondent No.4, even though a private company, is controlled by the respondent No.1 and is discharging public duty and, therefore, writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further contended that the order of the respondent No.4 retiring the petitioner on completion of age of 58 years instead of 60 years is in contravention to his right to livelihood which is an integral part of 'right to life' under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
While referring to few judgements of the apex court, the court said, “…writ is maintainable even against a private person or authority if action of such an authority which is challenged is in domain of public law as distinguished from private law. The emphasis is on the nature of duty and if the private person or authority is discharging a public duty, the writ is maintainable.”
The court referred to Laurels School International Vs. Union of India and Others wherein it was held that in a case of termination of a teacher of a private institution, the writ is maintainable because it affects The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and the Rules framed therein. The court also referred to St. Mary's Education Society and Ors. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Ors. wherein it was held that the action impugned before the writ court has no nexus with public element, even though the private body in question may be discharging public functions, the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in such a case.
Thus, it is evident that the impugned action should relate to a 'public duty'. The court observed, “the petitioner who was working as a Workman with the respondent No.4 which is a private company and is seeking relief for continuation in service upto 60 years of age cannot be held to be an action relating to public duty of the respondent No.4. The same cannot be held to be a breach of public duty by the respondent No.4… Thus, it is held that writ petition against a private company challenging the order of premature retirement and claiming to be continued in service is not maintainable.”
The petition was hence, dismissed as not maintainable.
Case Title: Vikram Singh versus Union of India and Others, Writ Petition No. 935 of 2025
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 20