Gujarat High Court
Dr. Indranil Bandyopadhyay vs Institute For Plasma Research on 8 May, 2025
Author: Nikhil S. Kariel
Bench: Nikhil S. Kariel
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1261/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1261 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1262 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1263 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1264 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1265 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1266 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1267 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1268 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1269 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1270 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1271 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1272 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1273 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1274 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1275 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1276 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1277 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1278 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1279 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1280 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1281 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1282 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1283 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1284 of 2023
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1285 of 2023
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 18:51:51 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/1261/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025
undefined
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1272 of 2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2024
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1285 of 2023
==========================================================
DR. INDRANIL BANDYOPADHYAY
Versus
INSTITUTE FOR PLASMA RESEARCH & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. SHALIN MEHTA, SR. ADVOCATE with G H VIRK(7392) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1
MR M. R. BHATT, SR. ADVOCATE with MUNJAL BHATT, ADVOCATE and MR.
MAYUR KISHANCHANDANI, ADVOCATE for M R BHATT & CO.(5953) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR HARSHEEL D SHUKLA(6158) for the Respondent(s) No. 5,6
MUNJAAL M BHATT(8283) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIKHIL S. KARIEL
Date : 08/05/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned Advocate Mr. G.H. Virk for the petitioners and learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.R. Bhatt with learned Advocate Mr. Munjal Bhatt and learned Advocate Mr. Mayur Kishanchandani for the respondents No. 1 to 4.
2. By way of these petitions, the petitioners have inter alia challenged orders whereby the pay of the petitioners has been re-fixed to their detriment and whereas recovery order has also been passed.
3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt raises a preliminary objection as regards maintainability of these petitions in view of the law laid down by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court as confirmed by Division Bench of this Court, namely that the respondent-Institute of Plasma Research is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Page 2 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 18:51:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1261/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined Constitution of India. Attention of this Court is drawn to observations made by the learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Vaibhavi D. Nanavati) vide judgment dated 08.08.2024 in Special Civil Application No. 4530 of 2016, as confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram : Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak) vide CAV Judgment dated 04.04.2025 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1366 of 2024.
3.1 Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt having taken a preliminary objection, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta for the petitioners could not dispute the fact that the orders in questions, have not been interfered with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. Under such circumstances, to this Court, it would appear that the present petitions cannot be considered any further by this Court and they are required to be dismissed.
5. At this stage, learned Senior Advocate Mr.Mehta would request this Court to extend the interim relief as granted by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2023, which has continued till date, for the petitioners to approach the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly since the petitioners do not intend to approach the Division Bench as the law has already been laid down by the Division Bench. The said interim relief being in the nature of staying Office orders dated 16.12.2022 19.12.2022, namely whereby the pay of the petitioners have been re-fixed and recovery ordered. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta would also rely upon observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide an order dated 03.03.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 3533 of 2025.
6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt would vehemently object to Page 3 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 18:51:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1261/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined the request made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta, yet, learned Advocate Mr. Bhatt could not dispute the proposition as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order referred to by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta.
7. Considering the submissions made by both the learned Senior Advocates, at the first instance, this Court seeks to refer to observations of the learned Co-ordinate Bench vide judgment dated 08.08.2024, paragraph No. 16 thereof is relevant for the present purpose is reproduced herein below for benefit.
"16. In light of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the opinion of this Court, the present petition is not maintainable against the respondent No.1 herein; the Institute not being a "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India."
8. Furthermore, this Court seeks to refer to observations of the Division Bench of this Court vide decision dated 04.04.2025, paragraph No. 7 thereof being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced herein below for benefit.
"7 In the facts of the present case, we find that the institute is purely an academic and research institute setup as an autonomous research and development organization and it can never be said that merely because it is under the authority of Department of Atomic Energy it becomes a State. The institute is largely involved in theoretical and experimental studies in plasma science including basic plasma physics which is a scientific and research activity which cannot be termed to be fundamental to the governance of the country and certainly therefore, the Institute cannot be a "State"
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. We are, therefore of the opinion that the learned Single Judge committed no error in dismissing the petition."
Page 4 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 18:51:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1261/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined
9. Having regard to the observations of the learned Co-ordinate Bench as confirmed by the Division Bench, it would appear that as of now, the respondent No.1- Institute of Plasma Research is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence the present petitions cannot be entertained by this Court.
10. Furthermore, insofar as the issue with regard to interim relief is concerned, as noticed, interim relief is continuing in favour of the petitioners since more than two and half years. It would also be appropriate to refer to observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated. 03.03.2025 in Civil Appeal No. 3533 of 2025, paragraphs No. 3 and 4 thereof being relevant for the present purpose is reproduced hereinbelow for benefit.
"3. In our view what is done by the High Court under the order dated 12th February, 2025 was not appropriate. If the High Court was of the view that there was no merit in the writ petition filed by the appellant, the High Court could have dismissed the writ petition on that day so that the appellant could have challenged the said order. Even assuming that the High Court had some justification in vacating the interim relief which was in operation for two and a half years, while reserving the order, fairness required that the interim relief should have been continued for a reasonable time to enable the appellant to challenge the order vacating stay. Even that was not done. All Benches of the High Court pass large number orders every day. Therefore, it takes time to correct, sign and upload the order. When an interim relief was operative for two and a half years, it was necessary for the Court to extend the same for a reasonable time so that the appellant could get a copy of the order and challenge the same.
4. We do not approve this approach on the part of the High Court. Now that the order in the writ petition has been reserved, we direct that the interim order dated 30th August, 2022 shall continue Page 5 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 18:51:51 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/1261/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/05/2025 undefined to operate till the order/judgment in the writ petition is pronounced. We make it clear that if the writ petition is dismissed, the High Court will extend the interim relief for a reasonable time to enable the appellant to challenge the final order."
11. Having regard to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, more particularly since the facts appear to be similar since the interim relief was enuring in favour of the petitioners since approximately two and a half years, the following order is passed.
(i) The present petitions stand disposed of as being not maintainable.
Consequently, connect Civil Applications also stand disposed of.
(ii) Interim relief granted by this Court vade order dated 30.01.2023 shall continue for a further period of eight weeks from the date the present order is uploaded portal of the Gujarat High Court.
12. At the request of learned Senior Advocate Mr. Bhatt, it is clarified insofar as employees who have retired during course of the proceedings or who are retiring within the period of two months that their retiral dues shall be paid as per the undisputed position and whereas as far as the disputed part is concerned, the same would be subject to final orders that would be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(NIKHIL S. KARIEL,J) BDSONGARA Page 6 of 6 Uploaded by BHUPENDRASINH SONAGRA(HC01082) on Fri May 09 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 10 18:51:51 IST 2025