1 CGHC010320242022 2026:CGHC:32667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6615 of 2022  Nirmal Chandra Kasar S/o Late Satish Kumar Kasar Aged About 37 Years R/o House No. 1703, Nehru Nagar, Durga Mandir, Balco Nagar, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (Balco) Through Ceo, Aluminium Sadan, Core-6 Scope Office Complex, Lodi Road, New Delhi 110003. 2. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited Through General Manager, Post Balco, Police Station Balco Nagar, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Adv. For Respondents : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Adv. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order On Board 29.7.2026 1) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s father was working on the post of Fitter under the respondents and he died in harness on 26.1.2012. He further submits petitioner moved application for grant of dependent employment on 2.3.2012 but till date same has not been decided. He also submits that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioner at the earliest. 2 2) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that respondent i.e. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited (BALCO) has been privatised on 2.3.2001 and 51% of its shares are with the private persons therefore BALCO is not the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and writ petition against it would not be maintainable therefore this petition deserves to be dismissed. 3) Heard. 4) Pertinently, Hon’ble Division Bench in the matter of Bharat Aluminum Company Limited & Others Versus Ram Prasad Dewangan & Another passed in Writ Appeal No. 1175 of 2012 while dealing with the issue at hand held as under :- 7. The BALCO has been privatised on 02.03.2001 and 49% of the shares are with the government and 51% of the shares are with the private persons. In view of the same, the BALCO is not the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 8. The writ petition was against private person, no violation of any statutory provision has been brought to our notice. In view of the same, the writ petition against the BALCO was not maintainable. 5) Having considered the fact that BALCO has been privatised, no writ will lie against it, thus this petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed. 6) However, petitioner would be at liberty to avail the remedy available under the law. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.07.29 16:54:17 +0530