Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19620 Court No. - 28 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1837 of 2002 Petitioner :- Smt.Kalpana Pandey Respondent :- Deputy Labour Commissioner And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr.R.K.Srivastava,Abhinav Singh,Anjani Kumar Srivastava,Gaurav Me,Gaurav Mehrotra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Sinha Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J. 1. Heard Shri Abhinav Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Shri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs: "i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite party no. 1 to take effective steps for providing employment to the petitioner under opposite party no. 2. ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties to provide suitable employment to the petitioner in place of her deceased husband who died while serving as a permanent employee of the opposite party no. 2. iii. issue appropriate order or direction by way of interim mandamus to the opposite Parties to provide suitable employment to the petitioner and pay her wages as applicable on the post according to her entitlement." 3. Shri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has raised preliminary objection that Ramgarh Chini Mills is a private sugar mill and the writ of mandamus cannot be issued against a private respondent. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the widow of Late Shekhar Pandey, who was employed by the respondent no.2, admittedly a private respondent. He further submitted that Wage Board has issued circular/notification dated 31.01.1991, wherein it is provided that all Vacuum pan Sugar Factories in the State shall enforce Government notification No.3158(III)/XXXVI-2-101(III)-79 dated July 15, 1982 regarding appointment of heirs as per conditions laid down therein. The agreements entered into at unit level will continue to be acted upon according to terms of settlement in this respect. He has further submitted that a direction may be issued to the respondent no.2 to take decision in view of the aforesaid Notification dated 31.01.1991. 5. Shri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 has submitted that the Notification dated 31.01.1991 has been considered in the case of United Provinces Sugar Company Ltd. versus State of U.P. and others; 2007 (114) FLR 872 and he has relied upon paragraph no.9 in which it has been held that the said notification was issued illegally, the same can not be sustained. He has also submitted that after looking into the aforesaid factual aspect as well as aforesaid judgement at this juncture, the petitioner cannot get any relief and her writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, it is evident that there is no statutory violation in the present case. The respondent no.2 is a private respondent against whom writ of mandamus cannot be issued. 7. The present writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. 8. However, it is open to the petitioner to see any other legal remedy as available under the law. (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Anupam S/- Digitally signed by :- ANUPAM SINGH PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench