1 CGHC010259182026 2026:CGHC:29296 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5252 of 2026 1 - Chitti Ramu S/o Chittayya Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Karlam, Post Office Mathapalli, Distt. Vizanagram, Andhra Pradesh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Jindal Steel And Power Limited Through Executive Director, Kharsiya Road, Patrapali, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jindal Steel And Power Limited Through Human Resources, Kharsiya Road, Patrapali, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. N.K. Guleri, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board 13.07.2026 1. By way of present petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction directing Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. to consider and decide the petitioner's representation regarding release of his final settlement dues, including unpaid salary, provident fund, AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2026.07.14 12:10:27 +0530 2 insurance and other service benefits, within a time- bound period. 10.2 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct Jindal Steel and Power Ltd. to cooperate in the proceedings and furnish all relevant service records pertaining to the petitioner 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other writ, direction or suitable order may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined the respondent Company on 11.09.2000 as an E.O.T. Crane Operator and rendered continuous service for more than 25 years, eventually being promoted to the post of Junior Foreman. It is further submitted that, despite diligently discharging his duties, the respondents arbitrarily deactivated his biometric attendance, wrongly treated him as absent without any justification, withheld his salary for the relevant period, and have failed to release his full and final settlement, including unpaid salary and other retiral benefits, despite repeated representations made by the petitioner. 3. Having considered the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the material available on record, it is manifest that no material has been placed on record to establish that the respondent Company is an instrumentality or agency of the ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, or that it discharges any public function so as to 3 attract the writ jurisdiction of this Court. The dispute raised by the petitioner is, therefore, essentially a private service dispute for which appropriate remedies are available under the ordinary civil law or the applicable labour and industrial laws. 4. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition, seeking enforcement of alleged service and monetary claims against a private entity, is not amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Amardeep