Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as a Lecturer on probation at Army Centre for Education (ACE), Panchmarhi, Madhya Pradesh on October 3, 2006. She was confirmed on the said post on September 29, 2008. According to her, in terms of Rules & Regulations of AWES/respondent No.1, as amended, it was stipulated that the regular employees of the society would be paid HRA and DA as per the rates applicable in the State in which the college is located. On September 9, 2009, a letter was issued by the Dy. Managing Director, AWES clarifying that the ACE employees would be paid basic pay as per Sixth Pay Commission w.e.f July 1, 2009 and DA and HRA would be applicable at the rates applicable in the State where the college is located. On not receiving the DA as per the rates applicable in the State of Madhya Pradesh, she wrote a letter to the Managing Director, AWES/respondent No.1, Delhi Cantt. on July 26, 2010 for payment of the same. According to her, till May 21, 2012, the issue of DA arrears remained pending, which compelled the petitioner to send a reminder. On October 28, 2014, a further letter was sent to Managing Director, AWES/respondent No.1 and Chairman, board of Governors to intervene in the matter to resolve DA and pay fixation as per recommendations of Sixth Central Pay Commission. According to her, on November 21, 2014, the respondents had turned down the application on the plea of financial constraints.

3. When the matter was listed for hearing on July 14, 2015, an issue of maintainability of the writ petition was raised inasmuch as, apparently, the respondent No.1 not being a 'State', instrumentality of State or other Authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India would not be amenable to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4. The matter was adjourned to July 15, 2015 when learned counsel for the petitioner has placed before me, a document which appears to be Rules and Regulations of the Army Welfare Education Society, the respondent No.1 herein. According to him, on perusal of Rule 127 of AWES Rules & Regulations, specifically the one relates to qualification of Principal, HOD and Lecturer, it is noted that the same would be as per the qualifications prescribed by different authorities under the Government of India like UGC, AICTE, NCTE, BCI, DCI, MCI etc. He would also submit that in terms of the said Rules, the DA and HRA to regular confirmed employees will be admissible at the rates applicable to the State where the college is located. It is his contention that the respondents being involved in imparting education are discharging public function. He also draws my attention to page 3 of the writ petition, wherein an averment has been made that the administrative control and management of the respondent No.1 society i.e Army Welfare Education Society is in the hands of High Ranking Serving Defence Officers namely Chief of Army Staff; President of the Society and the Board of Governors is headed by Adjutant General of the rank of Lieutenant General. The college is built on the Defence land and therefore amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He would rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as 2005(4) SCC 649 Zee Telefilms Ltd and An.r Vs. Union of India and Ors.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent, who appeared on advance notice, had relied upon one of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Indian Medical Association West Own Branch and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors. LPA 756 of 2008 decided on February 25, 2009 to state that the present petition is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction nor the respondents are performing any public functions.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I may state here that during the course of submission, a specific query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether the petitioner has anywhere averred in the petition that the provisions of an enactment of the State of Madhya Pradesh which governs the service conditions of the school teachers would be applicable to the ACE, Panchmarhi. The answer was in negative. According to him, the service conditions are governed by the Rules & Regulations framed and issued by AWES from time to time.

11. The Supreme Court has also noted its observation in Federal Bank Ltd. (supra) wherein the Supreme Court has stated that "such a private body who either runs substantially on State funding or discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature or a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function".

12. In the present case, following are the aims and objectives of the AWES/respondent No.1:-