Delhi High Court: In a batch of six petitions having a common question to be dealt by the Court i.e., whether Air Force Group Insurance Society (‘AFGIS’), Air HQs Non-public Fund Organization and CRPF Employees’ Educational Society, ought to be treated as ‘other authority’, as contemplated in the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12, a division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Neena Bansal Krishna, JJ., held that these Societies are not financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of Central Government and such control must be particular to the body in question and must be pervasive in order to establish it to fall within the ambit of ‘State’ as mentioned in Article 12.
The first petition was filed by the petitioners working on different posts in Air Force Group Insurance Society seeking to declare the impugned Revised Terms and Conditions of Service of AFGIS, 2017 as unconstitutional, ultra vires and arbitrary being aggrieved of oral order dated 17-05-2017 and notice dated 22-05-2017; whereby respondent, Air Force Group Insurance Society (‘AFGIS’) notified the Revised Terms and Conditions of Service of AFGIS, 2017 and has sought acceptance to it from all the employees within seven days of its issuance.
The second petition was filed by the petitioner, Vinod Kumar, who is working on the post of Assistant AFGIS and is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 02-11-2022 vide which respondent 2 has promulgated for conducting the promotional exam for only one post of Manager and wherein petitioner and respondent 3, who will complete 10 years of service on 30-11-2022, be eligible to appear and this has reduced petitioner’s chance to become Manager.
The third petition was filed by the petitioners who are employed with Air HQs Non-public Fund Organization on different posts and are governed by Air HQs Non-Public Fund Account (NPPFA) seeking revising the terms and conditions of service, the employees have been excluded from benefits of Leave Travel Compensation, Medical (CGHS) facilities and MACP etc., which is arbitrary and illegal.
The fourth petition was filed by the petitioners employed in Air HQ Non-Public Funds seeking quashing/ setting aside of order dated 25-04-2018 passed by the respondents whereby his request to grant grade pay of Rs. 4600/- (Pay Band-2) has been rejected by the respondents.
The fifth petition was filed by the petitioners who are also employees of Air HQs Non-public Fund Organization, wherein they have claimed that they are entitled to all benefits as have been granted to the Central Government employees being aggrieved that respondent, acting in an arbitrary manner, have deprived the petitioners of their legitimate financial benefits by not granting them pay scales recommended under the Sixth Pay Commission.
The sixth petition was filed by the petitioner being employed in the CRPF Employees Educational Society and posted at CRPF ITC, Biharipur, and is seeking an extension in the age of retirement from 58 to 60 years by amending F.R. 56. In addition, petitioners are also seeking implementation of recommendations of Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Pay Commission in case of petitioners.
The common issue under consideration is whether Air Force Group Insurance Society (‘AFGIS’); Air HQs Non-public Fund Organization and CRPF Employees’ Educational Society, ought to be treated as ‘other authority’, as contemplated in the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12.
The Court noted that irrespective of the fact that an organization is founded by the Government or not if an organization is financially, functionally, and administratively controlled by the Government and it is rendering an important public service, it shall be considered as a ‘State’.
The Court further noted that the Societies under which petitioners are employed are self-funded societies, which are formed and run for the benefit of those employees of Air Force who are its members. The petitioners have not placed any document on record to establish that these Societies are financially run by the Central Government.
The Court concluded that these societies are running only to the benefit of their members and their functioning does not in any way affect the Air Force. These Societies are not financially, functionally and administratively dominated by or under the control of Central Government.
Thus, the Court held that the petitioners have not been able to establish before this Court that the competent authority, against which relief is sought, falls within the ambit of ‘State’ as stipulated in Article 12.
[Ravi Khokhar v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 540, decide on 01-02-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Shankar Raju, Mr. Nilansh Gaur & Mr. Rajesh Sachdeva, Advocates for the Petitioner;
Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj, CGSC Mr. Ankur Chhibber & Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advocates for respondent 3/AFGIS.
*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
