OM PRAKASH LAKHINA vs UOI & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~88 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Decided on: 21.01.2025 + W.P.(C) 2818/2006, CM APPL. 2544/2006 & CM APPL. 19356/2022 OM PRAKASH LAKHINA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sonal Kumar Singh and Mr. Yashvardhan Singh, Advocates. versus UOI & ORS. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Parveen Kumar Mehdiratta and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocates for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN PRATEEK JALAN, J. (ORAL) 1. By way of this writ petition, filed in the year 2006, the petitioner seeks relief against an order dated 11.11.2005, dismissing him from service. The order was passed by respondent No. 2 - UTI Asset Management Company (P) Ltd. 2. The petition was filed on the premise that the respondent – Company was “presently regulated by the four PSU entities LIC Of India, Bank Of Baroda, Punjab National Bank, State Bank Of India and is under the pervasive control” of Union of India [“UOI”]1. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, respondent No. 2 has filed additional affidavits dated 06.03.2024 and 05.08.2024, contesting Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SHITU NAGPAL W.P.(C) 2818/2006 Page 1 of 5 Signing Date:23.01.2025 21:11:01 the maintainability of a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, in respect of a service dispute against it. It is stated therein that respondent No. 2 is professionally managed by its Board of Directors, and does not function under the financial or administrative control of UOI in any manner. Its shares are listed, and 30.75% are owned by the public. 4. Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No. 2, relies upon a judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Anil Kumar Anand v. Union of India and others1, and connected matters2, which has been upheld by the Di