Anjani Kumar Singh vs Ministry Of Drinking Water And ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 1661 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                         WP(C) No.6445/2012

%                                                        April 11, 2013

ANJANI KUMAR SINGH                                       ..... Petitioner
                 Through:                None.


                          versus

MINISTRY OF DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION AND ANR.
                                            ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Saqib, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Mr. Ranjan Mazumdar, Advocate for respondent No.2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking employment

with the respondent No.1/Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation,

Government of India. Further relief prayed in this petition is that

respondents be directed to pay back wages with interest and all

consequential benefits to the petitioner.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner pleads that he was

working with respondent No.1 since 6.6.2000, though the salary was being

paid by the respondent No.2/M/s. National Informatics Centre Services Inc.

Petitioner claims that he has worked for about ten years and he has received

appreciation for his work. Petitioner claims that he was wrongly arrested by

the CBI but ultimately the case against him was dropped and therefore the

petitioner claims that he should be re-employed with back wages and

consequential benefits.

3. Respondents have filed their counter affidavits. Counter

affidavit filed by respondent No.2 shows that the petitioner was not

employee either of respondent No.1 or respondent No.2, but of the

contractor appointed by the respondent No.2 M/s. G.A. Digital Web Word

Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No.2 has also annexed as Annexure-E the salary

statement issued by the said M/s. G.A. Digital Web Word Pvt. Ltd. showing

payments to the petitioner as its employee.

4. A reference to the documents filed with the writ petition shows

that there is no employment letter filed by the petitioner or having been

employed either by the respondent No.1 or respondent No.2. Merely

because the petitioner was working with the respondent No.1 through the

respondent No.2 is not sufficient to hold that petitioner was employee of

respondent No.2 inasmuch as he was really the employee of contractor of

respondent No.2.

5. In view of the above stated facts which show that petitioner was

never an employee either of the respondent No.1 or of the respondent No.2,

the reliefs as prayed for cannot be granted, and the petition is accordingly

dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 11, 2013 Ne