Chairman's claim for salary & benefits denied by High Court, liability on Corporation, pursue claims there

The High Court dismissed the Chairman's claim for salary, allowances, and facilities equivalent to Ministers of State, ruling that entitlement is subject to specific notifications and governed by the Corporation's Articles of Association. The Court clarified that liability for employees rests with the Corporation, not the State Government, and directed the petitioner to pursue claims against the Corporation, which had already rejected the claim. The judgment found no merit in the petition, with no costs awarded, advising the petitioner to address the claim during the Corporation's liquidation proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
Claim for salary, allowances, and facilities based on a government decision for Chairman of a Corporation. Interpretation of Articles of Association regarding the tenure of Chairman. Entitlement to facilities at par with Ministers of State. Jurisdiction of High Court over Government Corporations incorporated under the Companies Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner, as Chairman of a Corporation, sought salary, allowances, and facilities based on a government decision extending benefits to former Cabinet Ministers/Ministers of State. The petitioner did not hold the office of Cabinet Minister or Minister of State but claimed entitlement to facilities admissible to Ministers of State. The Corporation, governed by its Articles of Association, argued that the Chairman's tenure is co-terminus with the office as Director, subject to the Governor's appointment and removal. The Corporation contended that specific notifications were required for individual Chairmen to avail facilities at par with Ministers of State.

The respondents maintained that the petitioner was provided facilities similar to his predecessor Chairman, including staff, car, telephones, honorarium, and allowances. The Corporation's stance was that facilities specified for Ministers of State were not automatically applicable to Chairmen without individual notifications. The Corporation highlighted the absence of a specific notification for the petitioner, citing a precedent involving a former Chairman.

The judgment emphasized that the appointment and terms of Directors/Chairman are governed by the Articles of Association, subject to the Governor's decisions acting on the advice of the Council of Ministers. Referring to a previous case, the Court clarified the distinction between Government Companies created by statute and those under the Companies Act, holding that liability for employees lay with the concerned Company or Corporation, not the State Government. The Court dismissed the petitioner's claim against the State of Bihar, directing any claims to be made against the Corporation, which had already rejected the petitioner's claim in a Board meeting.

The judgment concluded by dismissing the writ petition, stating no merit in the claim, without costs. The concurring judge agreed with the decision, highlighting the Corporation's rejection of the petitioner's claim and the ongoing liquidation proceedings, advising the petitioner to pursue the claim in accordance with the law during winding up.

---