Rajasthan High Court

Rajesh Gurjar S/O Devkaran Gurjar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 27 April, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6251/2020
1.    Rajesh Gurjar S/o Devkaran Gurjar, Aged About 35 Years,
      R/o 127, Diggi Road, Near School, Chanwadiya, Diggi
      Tehsil Malpura District Tonk
2.    Mastram Meena S/o Shri Hanuman Meena, Aged About 32
      Years, R/o Village And Post Bilota, Tehsil Uniyara, District
      Tonk
3.    Mahaveer S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
      Village And Post Kakod, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk
4.    Arjun Lal S/o Ramniwas Yadav, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
      Rahman Nagar, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk
5.    Sodas Meena S/o Kanhaiya Lal Meena, Aged About 23
      Years, R/o Main Bazar, Patoli, Bilota, Tehsil Uniyara,
      District Tonk
6.    Murari Lal Meena S/o Badri Lal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
      Village And Post Khohlya, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk
7.    Shyoraj Yogi S/o Ramkumar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
      Village And Post Suthada, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk
8.    Rameshwar S/o Ramkishan Jat, R/o Ward No. 06, Munshi
      Ji Ki Dhani, Rupwas, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk
9.    Mulkraj   Meena      S/o     Banshi       Lal    Meena,     R/o   Village
      Ranipura, Tehsil Uniyara District Tonk
10.   Barasram Meena S/o Bhanwar Lal Meena, R/o Village
      Bishanpura, Tehsil Uniyara District Tonk
11.   Ramjani Teli S/o Shamshuddin, R/o Luharo Ka Mohalla,
      Village Saup, Tehsil Uniyara District Tonk
12.   Sitaram   Sain     S/o      Laxminarayan            Sain,   R/o   Village
      Phooleta, Tehsil Uniyara District Tonk
13.   Pyare Lal Meena S/o Ramphool Meena, R/o Main Market,
      Near School, Morjhalan Ki Jhupdiya, Uniyara, District Tonk
14.   Shyoraj S/o Bhanwar Lal, R/o Village Bilaspur, Post
      Ranipura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk
15.   Hemchand        Meena     S/o     Hariram        Meena,     R/o   Village
      Hadripura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk
16.   Ladu Lal Sain S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Sain, R/o Village
      Rampura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk



                  (Downloaded on 29/04/2022 at 09:06:35 PM)
                                        (2 of 8)                  [CW-6251/2020]


17.   Rajendra Singh S/o Nand Singh, R/o Village Sureli, Tehsil
      Uniyara, District Tonk
18.   Mohan Lal Khatik S/o Badri Lal Khatik, R/o Village
      Banetha, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk
19.   Dholu Lal Meena S/o Suwalal Meena, R/o Village Devli,
      Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk
20.   Hansraj Gurjar S/o Bhojaram Gurjar, R/o Village Thadoli,
      Panchayat Samiti Todaraisingh, District Tonk
21.   Omprakash S/o Jagdish Sain, R/o Village Lawadar, Tehsil
      And District Tonk.
22.   Sanwar Lal S/o Shri Girraj, R/o Mohalla Charagah Dhani,
      Village And Post Soran, Tehsil And District Tonk
23.   Rambhajan S/o Shri Badri, R/o Ward No. 6, Village And
      Post Hatona Tehsil And District Tonk
24.   Birbal Gurjar S/o Bhaveri Lal Gurjar, R/o Ward No.03,
      Sawamiji Ka Johpada, Mandawara District Tonk
25.   Dhara Singh S/o Lalaram, R/o Rajput Mohalla, Village And
      Post Sankhana, Tehsil And District Tonk
26.   Kamlesh Kumar Sharma S/o Satyanarayan Sharma, R/o
      Village Aliyari, District Tonk
27.   Ramsingh     S/o    Jagdish,        R/o     Village     Shri   Rampura,
      Hamirpur, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk
28.   Suresh Kumar Jat S/o Sukhlal Jat, R/o Near Raghunath Ji
      Kandir, Village Mandoli, Post Mandolai, District Tonk
29.   Dhana Lal Gurjar S/o Kesara Gurjar, R/o Gurjar Mohalla,
      Fyawari, District Tonk
30.   Sukhlal Choudhary S/o Ramchandra Jat, R/o Jat Mohalla,
      Jhirja, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk
31.   Satyanarayan Jat S/o Hira Lal Jat, R/o Meeno Ka Mohalla,
      Village Nimhera, District Tonk
32.   Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Jagdish Sharma, R/o Village
      And Post Dodwadi, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk
33.   Gopal   Bairwa      S/o      Jagannath          Bairwa,    R/o   Village
      Chetanpura, Post Lamba District Tonk
34.   Ramniwas Kumhar S/o Vijay Lal Kumhar, R/o Village And
      Post Pansrotiya, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk
35.   Bhanwar Lal Jat S/o Radhakishan Jat, R/o Village And
      Post Sanwariya, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk


                  (Downloaded on 29/04/2022 at 09:06:35 PM)
                                        (3 of 8)                [CW-6251/2020]


36.   Parmeshwar Singh S/o Rameshwar Singh, R/o Village And
      Post Uniyara Khurad, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk
37.   Mukesh Sain S/o Kajod Sain, R/o Rajputo Ka Mohalla,
      Village Amiyamal District Tonk
38.   Gordhan Choudhary S/o Shri Bajrang Ram Jat, R/o Village
      And Post Chandlai, Tehsil And District Tonk
39.   Jeetu Gurjar S/o Shyojiram Gurjar, R/o Village And Post
      Devpura, Tehsil And District Tonk
40.   Vijay Bairwa S/o Narayan Bairwa, R/o Village Rinkiya
      Bujurg, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk.
41.   Gordhan Lal Gurjar S/o Sanwala Gurjar, R/o Village Indoli,
      Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk
42.   Heera Lal Sharma S/o Shri Panchuram Sharma, R/o
      Village Jaikishanpura, Post Loharwada, Tehsil Peeplu,
      District Tonk
43.   Jawan Singh S/o Mangal Singh, R/o Village And Post
      Chogai, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk
44.   Girraj Sharma S/o Ramkishore Sharma, R/o Village And
      Post Bagdwa, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk
45.   Tarachand S/o Ladu Balai, R/o Village And Post Sandeda,
      Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk
46.   Sitaram Meena S/o Radhakishan Meena, R/o Village
      Borkhandi Kalan (Rahim Nagar), Tehsil And District Tonk
47.   Mohan Lal Yogi S/o Prakash Yogi, R/o Raja Colony, Peeplu,
      District Tonk
48.   Kamlesh Khatik S/o Kajod Khatik, R/o Village Masoodpura
      Tehsil Turki Darda, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk
49.   Mukesh Swami S/o Jagdish Swami, R/o Near Kalyan Ji Ka
      Mandir, Bahad, Tehsil Niwai District Tonk
50.   Asharam Gurjar S/o Hansraj Gurjar, R/o Village And Post
      Khidagi, Tehsil Niwai, District Tonk
                                                              ----Petitioners
                                 Versus
1.    The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
      Rural Development And Prnanayati Raj Department, Govt.
      Of Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2.    Zila Parishad Tonk, Through Its Chief Executive Officer
3.    Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Uniyara,


                  (Downloaded on 29/04/2022 at 09:06:35 PM)
                                            (4 of 8)                  [CW-6251/2020]


       District Tonk
4.     Block   Development            Officer,     Panchayat       Samiti,    Tonk,
       District Tonk
5.     Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Peeplu,
       District Tonk
6.     Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Malpura,
       District Tonk
7.     Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Niwai,
       District Tonk
8.     Block        Development            Officer,         Panchayat        Samiti,
       Todaraisingh, District Tonk
9.     Gram Panchayat Chanwandiya, Panchayat Samiti Malpura,
       Zila Tonk through its Sarpanch.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG Mr. Sameer Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

27/04/2022

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly accept and allow this writ petition; call for and examine entire record of the case and

i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the impugned order dated 8.7.2019 and tender notice dated 19.05.2020 issued by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside.

ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioners to work on the post of Security Guard on contract basis in their respective Gram Panchayat with all consequential benefits.

(5 of 8) [CW-6251/2020]

iii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to pay salary/ remuneration to the petitioners as well as his due salary in minimum wages according to the minimum wages prescribed by Labour Department time to time.

(iv) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed not to replace the petitioners with the other set of contractual employee and pay the salary to the petitioners directly by the Panchayat Samiti without involvement of placement agency.

v) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioners."

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were

appointed through placement agency on the post of 'Security

Guard' and the contact agreement was also executed between the

petitioners and the placement agency and was further extended

by the placement agency from time to time. Thus by virtue of

appointment being made by the placement agency and also the

contract agreement executed between the petitioners and the

placement agency, the petitioners do not appear to be employee

of the State-respondents in any manner, as such there is no

relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners

and the State-respondents. The petitioners have failed to place on

record any documentary evidence to show that they were

appointed by the State-respondents, rather the documentary

evidence placed by the petitioners on record shows that they were

appointed by the placement agency and not by the State-

respondents. Apart from it, no order terminating services of the

petitioners has ever been passed by the State-respondents.

(6 of 8) [CW-6251/2020]

3. Counsel for the petitioners have challenged the circular dated

08.07.2019 issued by the State Government, condition No.4

thereof reads as under:-

"iapk;r lfefr ij lsok iznkrk ,stsUlh ls O;fDr;ksa ¼lqj{kk dkfeZd½ dh lsok;sa vuqcaf/kr ugha dh tkosxh cfYd "lqj{kk" dk;Z djkus dk vuqca/k fd;k tkosxk] ;gka dk;Z dks vuqcaf/kr fd;k tkosxk u fd O;fDr dksA ¼foRr foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 11-07-2016 ds fcUnq la[;k 5 ds vuqlkj½"

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that although the

petitioners are working as Security Guard through placement

agency, however, they are not paying due salary to the petitioners

and prayed that their services may not be replaced by another

contractual employees.

5. Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh &

Anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. reported in (2018)

17 Supreme Court Cases 641 wherein para No.7, has held as

under:-

"7. In the first place, the Appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and the FCI; Second, when the documents on record showed that the Appellants were appointed by the FCI Head Load Workers Co-Operative Society but not by the FCI then obviously the remedy of the Appellants, if at all, in relation to their any service dispute was against the said Society being their employer but not against the FCI; Third, the FCI was able to prove with the aid of evidence that the Appellants were in the employment of the said Society whereas the Appellants were not able to prove with the aid of any documents that they were appointed by the FCI and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of the FCI except to make an averment in the writ petitions in that behalf. It was, in our

(7 of 8) [CW-6251/2020]

opinion, not sufficient to grant any relief to the Appellants."

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in another judgment in the

matter of Rajasthan State Road Development and

Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Piyush Kant Sharma

reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 842 in para 8, has held as

under:-

"8. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in passing such an interim order restraining the Appellant Corporation from appointing new set of contractual employees in place of original writ Petitioners. No reasons, whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while passing the impugned interim order. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that according to the Appellant Corporation, there was no regular sanctioned post of Computer Operator in the Appellant Corporation and that there was no employer-employee relationship between the original writ Petitioner and the Appellant Corporation and that the original writ Petitioner was a employee appointed by the contractor on contractual basis and worked with the Appellant Corporation on contractual basis. As the writ petition is pending before the High Court, we refrain ourselves from making any further observations on merits. However, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the High Court ought not to have passed such an interim order. Under the circumstances, the impugned interim order passed by the High Court requires to be quashed and set aside."

9. This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, there is no relationship of

employee and employer between the petitioners and the State-

(8 of 8) [CW-6251/2020]

respondents; secondly, the petitioners were employee of the

placement agency and no contract agreement was there between

the petitioners and the State-respondents; lastly, in view of the

judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

K.K. Suresh (supra) & Rajasthan State Road Development

and Construction Corporation Ltd. (supra), I am not inclined

to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India.