Jharkhand High Court
Jitendera Kumar Dubey vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The ... on 26 March, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
2025:JHHC:10164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 1397 of 2019
-------
1. Jitendera Kumar Dubey, son of Purusatam Dubey, resident of village and
P.O- Purubdiha, P.S. Chainpur, District- Palamau, Jharkhand.
2. Sanjeev Kumar, son of late Dwarika Prasad, resident of Laxmi Nagar, Near
Jharkhand Public School, P.O Hehal, P.S. Pandara, District-Ranchi, at
present resident of Mohalla- Sudna, P.O and P.S Daltonganj, District-
Palamau, Jharkhand.
3. Zainul Hussain son of late Nasiruddin Husain, resident of village/Mohalla-
Paneri Galli, Kund Mohalla, Daltonganj, P.O and P.S -Daltonganj, District-
Palamau, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner(s)
-Versus-
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Health, Medical Educaiton
and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, at Nepal House,
Doranda, Ranchi.
2. The Director in Chief, Health Service, Govt. of Jharkhand, Doranda,
Ranchi.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare
Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, at Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi.
4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Daltonganj, Dist.-Palamau.
5. The Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Medninagar, Daltonganj,
District- Palamau.
6. M/s Recorders and Medicare System Pvt. Limited, Industrial Area, Phase-
1, P.O and P.S. Chandigarh, Chandigarh- 160002. ... Respondents.
------
CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
------
For the petitioner(s): Ms. Tanu Kumari, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Sweta Shukla, AC to AAG-II
------
10/26.03.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the
Letter No. 667 dated 13.11.2017 (Annexure-6), issued by respondent No. 5 ,
whereby the Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Medninagar, Daltonganj,
after blacklisting respondent No. 6, has directed not to take any work from the
employees of out source agency i.e. respondent No. 6. A further prayer has
been made to reinstate the petitioners in their respective posts in which, they
were working.
3. After hearing the parties, I find that the facts are undisputed in this case. The
respondent-State i.e. Sadar Hospital, Medninagar, Daltonganj entered in a
Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with respondent No. 6. As per the said
MoU, ECG Technicians and other technicians were to be supplied by the
respondent NO. 6. Respondent No. 6 being an out sourcing agency provides
2025:JHHC:10164
man power to operate X-ray machine as well as other machines. The
technicians, who were appointed, admittedly are the employees of a private
organization i.e. respondent No. 6, namely, M/s Recorders and Medicare
System Pvt. Limited. As an employee of the respondent No. 6, these petitioners
and other were working at the Hospital. The State thereafter blacklisted the said
agency i.e. respondent No. 6 and there was a direction to recover the amount
from the said private respondent No. 6 by invoking Public Demand Recovery Act.
4. Since the agency was blacklisted by the impugned order passed
by the Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Medninagar, Daltonganj and it
was directed not to take any work from the out sourced employee of the
private agency i.e. employee of respondent No. 6, work is not being taken
from them. The petitioners claim that since they were working, they should be
engaged by the State-respondent and they should be paid their salaries. It is
further submitted that since the petitioners were working in Government
Hospital, they should be treated to be the employees of the Government
Hospital. The counsel for the petitioners also submits that since the
supervisory control was with the Deputy Superintendent, Sadar Hospital,
Medninagar, Daltonganj, thus the claim of the petitioners should not be
rejected.
5. From the admitted facts, I find that the petitioner were not
engaged by any Government Agency. They were engaged as out sourced
employees provided by respondent No. 6, who was later on blacklisted. The
relationship of employee and employer was between the petitioners and
respondent No. 6, namely, M/s Recorders and Medicare System Pvt. Limited.
Admittedly, the petitioners were not appointed by the State-respondent pursuant
to any advertisement nor any due process of law was followed, because they
were out sourced employees supplied by respondent NO. 6.
6. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19648 of 2023 with its
analogous case in the case of the Joint Secretary, Central Board of
Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra and Ors.), in which,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 6 and 7 of its judgment/order dated
17.03.2025 has held as under:-
2025:JHHC:10164
"6. .............. The issue whether the private
respondents were employees of the appellants, is the
crux of the matter. Whatever material has been placed
and even the best point which was argued by the learned
senior counsel for the private respondents before this
Court was that since there was supervisory and
jurisdictional control over the private respondents by the
appellants, ipso facto, they would become employees of
the appellants is noted only to be rejected.
7. This is not only a very simplistic approach,
but also a totally erroneous approach in law. For a
person to claim employment under any organization, a
direct master-servant relationship has to be established
on paper. ..............."
7. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered
on similar nature of fact where an out sourced agency had provided man
power to the Central Board of Secondary Education.
8. In this case, there is no master-servant relationship between the
State and the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners are the employee of
private respondent No. 6. Thus, this case is covered by the judgment/order
dated 17.3.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 19648 of 2023 with its analogous case (the Joint
Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar
Mishra and Ors.). As the petitioners were not the employees of the State,
they cannot claim reinstatement/appointment in any post under the State
Government.
9. In that view, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this
writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
Anu/-Cp2 (ANANDA SEN, J.)
-3-.
