THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 18517 of 1999 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted by a Senior Librarian working with the Atomic Energy Central School No.3, complaining that he has been erroneously denied the pay fixation benefit of senior scale, upon satisfactory completion of 12 years of service. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he had completed 12 years of service by 23.06.1996, but however, he has been erroneously extended the benefit of pay fixation in the senior scale only with effect from 24.06.1997. In the process, he has lost the benefit for one year period. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of this Writ Petition, on the ground that the Atomic Energy Education Society does not answer the description of the expression ‘State’, as found in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and consequently, this Writ Petition is not maintainable against it. Further, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the High Court by its judgment dated 29.09.1995 rendered in Writ Petition No. 21534 of 1995 has come to the same conclusion that the Writ Petition is not maintainable against the Atomic Energy Education Society. It was also pointed out that the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C.No. 2166 of 1996, by its judgment dated 01.09.1997 has held that the Atomic Energy Education Society does not answer the description of the ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 and that the matter was unsuccessfully challenged before the Supreme Court by instituting S.L.P. (Civil) No. 20768 of 1997, which was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 21.11.1997 with the following observation: “ In the facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment in the Special Leave Petition and hence dismissed.” It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, by its judgment dated 16.07.1998 rendered in Writ Petition No. 690 of 1998 had held that the Atomic Energy Education Society is not an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12. It is further pointed out that the Bombay High Court has subscribed to the reasoning assigned by the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court. In view of the consistent view taken by Andhra Pradesh High Court, Patna High Court and Bombay High Court, I do not see any reason to permit the writ petitioner to re-agitate this very question about the 2nd respondent answering the description of ‘State’ for the purpose of Article 12, in this Writ Petition. Hence, I hold that the 2nd respondent society does not fall within the definition of instrumentality of the State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and consequently, this Writ Petition is not maintainable. Only on the short ground, the Writ Petition is dismissed, leaving all other contentions canvassed by the writ petitioner open. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 12th August 2010 ksld