* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5448/2007 SATINDER KUMAR YADAV & ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Mr. I J S Mehra, Adv. versus UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Madhu Sharma and Mr. Jai Bansla, Advocates for UOI Mr. Ajay Kapur, Adv. for respondent no.2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 09.05.2008 1. The petitioners have challenged the VRS scheme floated by respondent no.3/Hotel Scope Vista Pvt. Ltd. It is also alleged that respondent no.3 had forced them to accept the VRS Scheme contrary to their wishes in 2003. Admittedly respondent no.3 is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is, therefore, not maintainable against them. The petitioners are however at liberty to challenge the action/VRS of the respondent no.3 in accordance with law before a civil court or another appropriate forum having jurisdiction. 2. Prayer clause c in the writ petition is for direction to the respondent no.3 to comply with the sale purchase agreement and direct the said respondent to make payment of salary for 10 months. If there was any violation of a contractual clause, which has given any right to the petitioners to claim any amount from the respondent no.3, the petitioners will have to invoke jurisdiction of a civil court or appropriate forum against the respondent no.3. Writ petition is not maintainable against the respondent No. 3. 3. The Supreme Court in the case of All India ITDC Workers’ Union Vs. ITDC & Ors. reported in (2006) 10 Supreme Court Cases 66 has held that employees of a government company do not have any vested right to continue to enjoy status of an employee of an instrumentality of the State. It has been further held that Government employees have no absolute right under Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India and the Government can abolish the post itself. 4. Last prayer made in the writ petition is for release and payment of the incentive welfare amount to the petitioners for the year 2001- 02. The writ petition was filed on 3rd May, 2007. The claim of the petitioner for release of alleged incentive welfare amount is bad for laches and undue delay. There is no explanation for the said delay of nearly 6 years. At this stage learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners’ claims are also subject matter and subjudice in another writ petition. However, he is not able to give the details of the said writ petition. It appears from the averments made in the present writ petition that another writ petition was filed in the year 2005 by Lodi Hotel Employees Welfare Association. If any such claims have been made in another writ petition, the same will be decided on their own merit. In view of the reasons stated above, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, subject to observations made above. No costs. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 09, 2008 Vld/VKR