INDIA
Citation(1984) 1 SCC 131
CourtSupreme Court of India
Date28 September 1983
Year1984
BenchY.V. Chandrachud CJ, D.P. Madon, O. Chinnappa Reddy JJ.
Acts/ArticlesArticle 12, Article 14, Article 16
CategoryConstitutional Law, Service & Employment Law

Key Principle Established

An institution receiving government grants is "State" under Article 12. Employees of such bodies are entitled to Article 14 and 16 protection against arbitrary termination.

Brief Facts

An employee of the Indian Statistical Institute was terminated. He challenged the termination arguing that the Institute, being substantially funded by the government, was “State” under Article 12 and must follow principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that an institution receiving substantial government funding and under deep and pervasive government control is “State” within the meaning of Article 12. Such bodies must follow Articles 14 and 16, and their employees are entitled to protection against arbitrary dismissal.

Impact & Significance

This judgment expanded the definition of “State” for employment purposes, bringing government-aided institutions, corporations, and societies under constitutional obligations. It is relied upon in disputes involving employees of autonomous bodies, registered societies, and public sector undertakings.

Tags & Related Topics

Constitutional Law Service & Employment Law Article 12 Article 14 Article 16
← Previous Judgment State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh
Next Judgment → Deepti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre

Related Judgments

1982

Randhir Singh v. Union of India

(1982) 1 SCC 618

Equal pay for equal work is a constitutional goal derivable from Articles 14, 16, and 39(d) read together.

Read Analysis
1996

State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh

(1996) 11 SCC 77

Contractual employee retained beyond tenure cannot be terminated without following principles of natural justice.

Read Analysis
2002

B.S. Bajwa v. State of Punjab

(2002) 1 SCC 187

Settled seniority cannot be disturbed retrospectively. Reopening seniority after long gap causes grave prejudice.

Read Analysis

Disclaimer

This judgment summary is for educational and research purposes. While care has been taken to accurately represent the ratio and findings, for authoritative reference always consult the original judgment text from official sources (SCC Online, AIR, Manupatra, or court websites).

Need Case Law Research or Legal Representation?

22+ years of practice before Punjab & Haryana High Court and Supreme Court of India.

Call: +919915442266