Chhattisgarh HC Dismisses Accounts Manager’s Writ Over Salary Allegedly Unpaid Since 2021, Finding Private-School Dispute Lacked Public-Law Element

In brief

The question

Whether a writ direction could be issued requiring the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation concerning alleged non-payment of salary by a private institution

The court held

The Court held that the petition was not maintainable in writ jurisdiction and dismissed it.

It also directed

The petitioner was left at liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law.

01Facts

The petitioner claimed that he was appointed Manager (Accounts) at Mansarowar Vidyalaya English Medium, a school operated by respondent No. 2 Society, with effect from 1 January 2015, and that his salary had not been paid since June 2021 despite his continuing to perform his duties.

¶ 1 · p. 2

He had submitted a representation dated 9 July 2026 to the Registrar of Firms and Societies seeking redress, and sought a direction for the authorities to consider and decide it.

¶ 1 · p. 2

The State opposed the petition, contending that the Society was a private institution, the Registrar lacked authority to adjudicate the salary claim, and the petitioner had an alternative remedy.

¶ 2 · pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.Whether a writ direction could be issued requiring the respondent authorities to consider and decide the petitioner’s representation concerning alleged non-payment of salary by a private institution

¶ 1, 4 · pp. 2–3

ii.Whether the salary dispute was amenable to the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226, in the absence of a demonstrated public-law element, statutory service conditions, or the institution’s status as “State” or “other authority” under Article 12

¶ 4 · p. 3

03Law Applied

The Court considered the limits of the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in a private employment dispute.

¶ 4 · p. 3

It held that writ relief was not warranted where the dispute involved non-payment of salary by a private institution, no public-law element or public duty concerning the petitioner’s employment had been established, the service conditions were not shown to be governed by statute, and the institution was not shown to be “State” or “other authority” under Article 12.

¶ 4 · p. 3

The Court identified no specific statute or precedent as the basis of its decision.

¶ 1–5 · pp. 2–4

04Reasoning

The petitioner sought only a direction for the Registrar and other authorities to act on his representation concerning salary allegedly owed by the Society.

¶ 1 · p. 2

The Court characterised the underlying claim as a private service dispute and found that the petitioner had not established that the school or Society discharged a relevant public duty, that his employment was governed by statutory provisions, or that the institution had Article 12 status.

¶ 4 · p. 3

It also found no statutory obligation requiring the authorities to adjudicate the salary claim; accordingly, it declined to issue the requested direction under Article 226.

¶ 4 · p. 3