HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 10539 of 2000 Nasiruddin …..Petitioner(s) Versus U.P. State Sugar Corporation and others …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : A.k.srivastava, Alok Kumar Srivastava, Amit Kumar, M.a. Khan, M.a. Zaidi, Sanjay Kumar Rai, Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dr.y.k.srivastav, Rajesh D. Khare, S.C., Tarun Agrawal A.F.R. Reserved on 28.4.2026 Delivered on 05.5.2026 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri S.K.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.K. Srivastava and Sri Shashank Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is of the year 2000. Court finds that petitioner has a good case however, due to subsequent events whereby sugar factory in State of U.P. i.e., U.P. State Sugarcane Corporation Unit Bijnor has now been disinvested and it was taken over by a private player namely; Wave Industries Private Ltd. has now rendered this writ petition not maintainable. (see R.S. Madireddy and Anr. Vs. Union of India and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 965. 3.The facts which are not under dispute are that the petitioner a Labour had faced a disciplinary proceedings, on a charge of theft, wherein he was awarded 2 WRIA No. - 10539 of 2000 a punishment of stoppage of 3 annual increments with cumulative effect vide an order dated 9/11.6.1998. 4. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal in terms of Clause 'O' of Standing Order of Sugar Industry U.P. (Decision of Manager to be final, subject to right of appeal), which does not provide any specific procedure to decide the Appeals. However, Appellate Authority not only put its disagreement with the order of Disciplinary Authority but enhanced the punishment and passed an order of dismissal from service vide an order dated 17.12.1999, the order impugned. 5. Court finds merit in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner so far as impugned order is concerned that without any specific power to enhance the punishment in a statutory appeal, impugned order whereby punishment was enhanced from three permanent stoppage of annual increments to dismissal from service would not legally survive. Court also takes note of a judgment passed by this Court in Ravi Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & 3 Ors, 2024:AHC:85116-DB. 6. However, as referred above, there is a legal impediment to pass an order today since now the writ petition is not maintainable due to subsequent events as a private player has taken over the company. 7. Aforesaid referred position of law in R.S. Madireddy (Supra) is not being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner also. For reference relevant paragraphs of it is reproduced hereinafter : “38. The question of issuing a writ would only arise when the writ petition is being decided. Thus, the issue about exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would arise only on the date when the writ petitions were taken up for consideration and decision. The respondent No. 3(AIL)- employer was a government entity on the date of filing of the writ petitions, which came to be decided after a significant delay by which time, the company had been disinvested and taken over by a private player. Since, respondent No. 3 employer had been disinvested and had assumed the character of a private entity not performing any public function, the High Court could not have exercised the extra ordinary writ jurisdiction to issue a writ to such private entity. The learned Division Bench has taken care to protect the rights of the appellants to 3 WRIA No. - 10539 of 2000 seek remedy and thus, it cannot be said that the appellants have been non-suited in the case. It is only that the appellants would have to approach another forum for seeking their remedy. Thus, the question No. 2 is decided against the appellants. 39. By no stretch of imagination, the delay in disposal of the writ petitions could have been a ground to continue with and maintain the writ petitions because the forum that is the High Court where the writ petitions were instituted could not have issued a writ to the private respondent which had changed hands in the intervening period. Hence, the question No. 3 is also decided against the appellants. 40. Resultantly, the view taken by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in denying equitable relief to the appellants herein and relegating them to approach the appropriate forum for ventilating their grievances is the only just and permissible view.” 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, though the Court finds that impugned order cannot survive on law, still, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The judgment of R.S. Madireddy (Supra) applies in present case not only on facts but on law also and this writ petition is dismissed being not maintainable. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court if so advise and in case any proceeding is initiated before Labour Court, delay if any, can be condoned since this writ petition was pending for about 25 years before this Court and Labour Court will take endeavour to decide the proceedings if initiated expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year. (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) May 05, 2026 SB/NS Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad