Ashish Dave vs Atul Bal Ratnoo
2021 Latest Caselaw 6652 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Writ Contempt No. 1185/2018

Ashish Dave S/o S.l. Dave, Aged About 26 Years, 25, Polo 1St, Paota, Jodhpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. Atul Bal Ratnoo, Registrar, Dr. Sarvapally Radhakrishnan, Ayurved University, Jodhpur.

2. State Of Raj. Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Dept. Govt. Of Raj. Jaipur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7612/2018 Ashish Dave S/o S.l. Dave, R/o 25, Polo 1St, Paota, Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principle Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Dr. Sarvapally Radhakrishnan, Ayurved University Jodhpur Through Its Registrar.

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Salil Trivedi
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sundeep Bhandawat



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                 Judgment

05/03/2021

1. By way of the present contempt petition, the petitioner has

sought that appropriate proceedings be initiated against the

respondent-University and its Registrar, as they have failed to

(2 of 5) [WCP-1185/2018]

comply with the interim order dated 30.5.2018 passed by this

Court.

2. The petitioner has asserted that he has produced/served a

copy of the interim order to the Registrar and requested him to

allow him joining, but he was not allowed to join him.

3. Interim order dated 30.5.2018 reads thus:

"In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to continue the services of the petitioner on the post of Computer Operator till the next date.

4. A reply to the contempt petition has been filed by the

respondents, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was never

engaged by the respondent-University directly and he was

engaged through placement agency namely, 'Royal Guards

Security Services'. It is also indicated that the said placement

agency has disengaged him and thus, respondents cannot allow

him to join.

5. Mr. Bhandawat, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-University submitted that instead of hearing the

contempt petition, the writ petition itself be heard.

6. Normally, this Court would not have acceded to such request

of Mr. Bhandawat, because the contempt proceedings are

altogether different than the proceedings in the writ petition, but

having regard to the factual dispute, particularly when the

respondents have denied the very employer-employee

relationship, this Court deemed it appropriate to have a glance

over the averments made in the writ petition and the documents

filed therewith.

(3 of 5) [WCP-1185/2018]

7. A perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition reveals that

the petitioner has asserted that he was engaged as Computer

Operator on contract basis, whereas the respondents have come

with a specific case that there was no privity of contract between

the petitioner and the respondent-University and he was engaged

through a contractor, viz., Royal Guards Security Service.

8. Though the petitioner has disputed the fact that he was

engaged through placement agency in his rejoinder, but a perusal

of the documents filed by the petitioner himself raises a serious

doubt about his status, whether he was directly engaged or was

engaged through the contractor.

9. The petitioner has placed on record his bank statement

(Annex.2), which though shows some payments made to him

electronically, but that too, are from Nov., 2017 and from May,

2016. However, a perusal of the entries dated 12.4.2018 and

27.4.2018 reveals that monthly payment has been made by Royal

Guards Security Services. It can also not be ascertained that the

monthly payment, which is said to have been made to the

petitioner, has been made by the respondent-University.

10. It is rather surprising that petitioner has made a sweeping

statement that he entered the respondent University as Computer

Operator on 2.5.2016. Petitioner has neither placed on record

any letter or order nor has he made any averment about the

salary or monthly payment. Petitioner has not even stated by

which process he was selected and who had appointed him.

11. What has been placed by the petitioner are, certain orders of

the Registrar of University or other officers of the University

assigning duties to the petitioner. The same cannot be treated to

(4 of 5) [WCP-1185/2018]

be order(s) of appointment nor are they conclusive evidence to

establish employer-employee relationship.

12. It is to be noted that the petitioner has not impleaded said

placement agency namely, Royal Guards Security Services as a

party respondent through whom he has received payment. Even

on receiving the reply, petitioner has chosen not to implead the

said agency/contractor.

13. This being the position, it is very difficult for this Court to

ascertain who is petitioner's employer even as a

contractor/placement agency and who is responsible to comply

with the interim order passed by this Court.

14. True it is, once an interim order has been passed by this

Court, the University is under an obligation to comply with the

same, but a perusal of the record revels that on 30.5.2018 this

Court has passed an interim order and immediately on receiving

copy of the interim order (within three days) i.e., on 3.6.2018

itself, the respondent-University has filed its reply to the writ

petition and application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of

India with a plea that petitioner is not its employee.

15. The application so filed by the respondent-University

remained pending for one reason or the other-neither can the

petitioner be blamed nor the respondent-University.

16. It is noteworthy that documents cumulatively placed as

Annexure-2 also show different status of the petitioner-some

documents shows him as Computer Operator, while other shows

him as a contractor's man ( Bsdk). A careful scanning of these

documents shows that against petitioner's name and some other

persons' name expression 'Bsdk' has been used. If there was a

direct relationship through some contract, the expression

(5 of 5) [WCP-1185/2018]

lafonkdehZ would have been used, as has been used in case of one

Bhikaram Chouhan in all these documents.

17. The writ petition involves numerous disputed questions of

facts, including the foundational fact as to whether the petitioner

was in fact, engaged by the University itself, or through placement

agency. These facts cannot be adjudicated by this Court in

exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

18. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition (SBCWP

No.7612/2018) is dismissed. The stay application is rejected

as well.

19. For the reasons indicated for dismissal of the writ petition

and considering the fact that the respondents have filed reply and

application seeking vacation of the interim order immediately on

receipt of the interim order (within 3 days) asserting that the

petitioner is not its employee, the contemnors cannot be said to

be guilty of willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court.

20. The notices of contempt are hereby discharged.

21. The captioned contempt petition is also dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

78-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)