Sh.Vikas Kumar Shukla vs Uoi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1407 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Decision: March 21, 2013

+                          W.P.(C) No.1888/2013

       SH.VIKAS KUMAR SHUKLA                .....Petitioner
                Represented by: Mr.A.K.Bhakt, Advocate with
                                Mr.Satay Prakash, Advocate

                                  versus

       UOI & ORS.                                 ..... Respondents
                 Represented by:       Mr.Amrit Pal Singh, CGSC with
                                       Ms.Gurjinder Kaur, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Whether or not the writ petitioner is an employee of National Informatics Centre (NIC), a Department of the Ministry of Information and Technology, is a question of fact and as long as the decision dated October 12, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, deciding said question of fact, has taken into account all relevant facts and has ignored none which is relevant; as also has not taken into account an irrelevant fact, the said decision would be immune to a challenge under writ jurisdiction inasmuch as it is not permissible for a Writ Court to re-appreciate the evidence pertaining to the facts determined by the Tribunal subordinate to the High Court.

2. All documents i.e. the evidence on which petitioner places reliance upon has been considered by the Tribunal to return a finding of

fact that the National Informatics Centre had required Mass Placement Consultancy Services to provide a driver on contractual basis to drive a staff car and that the petitioner was an employee of said Mass Placement Consultancy Services to whom NIC was paying the money as per the contract, and as regards the petitioner he was receiving salary from Mass Placement Consultancy Services.

3. The documents relied upon by the petitioner in the form of internal notings and communications to Mass Placement Consultancy Services, where a reference has been made to the petitioner have all been noted by the Tribunal with a finding of fact returned that all of them evidence NIC requiring drivers and helpers and the same being provided by Mass Placement Consultancy Services.

4. The contention urged before us that said communications would evidence that NIC appointed the petitioner as a driver, is premised on a non-appreciation of the communications between NIC and Mass Placement Consultancy Services. Now, if a man takes on hire a driver from a placement agency under a contract it is not that the man concerned would let any driver come and drive his vehicle. The suitability of the driver would be assessed by the man concerned, and said assessment cannot be read as an evidence of a direct Master-Servant relationship between the driver and the man concerned.

5. Work Order No.NICSI/CIC/06-07/65 dated April 04, 2007 shows a contract between NIC and Mass Placement Consultancy Services under which the latter was to provide two drivers and two helpers to NIC. The petitioner admittedly does not possess any letter offering him appointment by NIC. Reference to the identity card in the name of the petitioner issued by NIC has to be understood in light of the fact that office of NIC is in a high security area: CGO Complex New Delhi, in a

building where public excess is restricted through passes issued and as regards those who have to enter the building on daily basis, identity cards are issued. An identity card being issued is no evidence of employment.

6. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE MARCH 21, 2013 mm