Air Force Group Insurance Society is 'State' under Article 12 for writ maintainability.

The Appellants are employees of the Air Force Group Insurance Society (AFGIS), established in 1976 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with the President of India's sanction.

AFGIS's Board of Trustees resolved on December 27, 2016, to revise employee pay scales per the Sixth Pay Commission.

a subsequent resolution on February 13, 2017, delinked pay structures from Central Government Pay Commissions, followed by a notice on May 22, 2017, for employees to accept revised terms.

Aggrieved, the Appellants filed Writ Petitions before the High Court of Delhi, which dismissed them on February 1, 2023, finding that AFGIS was not "State" or "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution, thus rendering the writ petitions non-maintainable.

The High Court noted AFGIS was a self-contained welfare scheme, funded by member contributions, and that while senior Air Force officers were on its Board and on deputation, this did not constitute "deep or pervasive governmental control".

AFGIS's appointment letters explicitly stated service conditions were governed by its own rules, with no statutory or contractual guarantee of parity with Central Government employees.

The present appeal challenges this finding regarding AFGIS's status as "State".

The court applied the principles established for determining whether an entity is "State" under Article 12 of the Constitution.

It referenced *Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India* [(1979) 3 SCC 489], which outlined factors like government control over policy-making and functions, government share capital, financial assistance, monopoly status, deep and pervasive state control, and performance of public importance functions.

The Constitution Bench in *Ajay Hasia and Others v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others* [(1981) 1 SCC 722] affirmed these tests as indicative indicia needing careful application.

The court also relied on *Pradeep Kumar Biswas and Others v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others* [(2002) 5 SCC 111], which clarified that *Ajay Hasia* tests are not rigid, and the cumulative facts must demonstrate financial, functional, and administrative domination by the Government, with control being deep and pervasive and particular to the body.

Further, *Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India* [(2005) 4 SCC 649] distinguished between private bodies exercising public functions (remedy under Article 226 available) and those qualifying as "State" under Article 12.

The judgment in *Rajkaran Singh v. Union of India* [2024 SCC OnLine SC 2138] regarding compulsory savings funds and Pay Commission benefits was also cited.

The Court analyzed AFGIS's characteristics against the established tests for "State" under Article 12.

It noted several cumulative facts indicating governmental control and public function: compulsory membership for all IAF personnel;

automatic deduction of premiums from salaries;

the Board of Trustees comprising senior serving IAF officials;

deputation rules approved by the President of India;

periodical reporting of financial transactions to a senior IAF officer;

AFGIS's self-declaration as "Government" in official correspondence;

and tax exemptions due to its compulsory nature and connection to the Ministry of Defence.

Despite AFGIS being self-financed, the Court emphasized that a cumulative assessment of "deep and pervasive control," including administrative and functional elements, is crucial.

The Court held that AFGIS performs a public duty by providing insurance to armed forces personnel, which is a core government function tied to national security and soldier welfare, making AFGIS a "conduit for the discharge of that obligation".

The Court also highlighted AFGIS's contradictory stance, claiming to be "Government" for tax exemptions but denying it for the purpose of Article 12.

These factors, when viewed cumulatively in light of *Pradeep Kumar Biswas* and *Rajkaran Singh*, led the Court to conclude that AFGIS is indeed a "State".

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the Appellants before the High Court was maintainable.

The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment dismissing the writ petitions was set aside.

The High Court was requested to restore and decide the writ petition expeditiously, given it was filed in 2017.