Rajasthan High Court

Gaurav Sharma Son Of Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 March, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR
          S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11712/2020
Gaurav Sharma Son Of Shri Balkrishan Sharma, Aged About 33
Years, Resident Of Kherapati Mohalla, Chomukha Mahadev,
Bharatpur (Raj)
                                                                 ----Petitioner
                                 Versus
1.    State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical And
      Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government
      Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj)
2.    The Director Special Secretary Administration, Medical
      Health And Mission Director, National Health Mission,
      Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj)
3.    Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaipur-I, Jaipur (Raj)
4.    Nodal Officer, S.m.s. Medical College, (Advance Research
      And T.b. Lab) S.m.s. Jaipur (Raj)
5.    State Nodel Officer, Rntcp, National Health Mission,
      Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj)
                                                              ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10664/2020

1. Surabhi Mishra Daughter Of Shri Ashok Kumar Mishra, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of House No. 553/26, Beawar Road, Ramganj, Ajmer (Raj.)

2. Vijeta Shivnani Daughter Of Shri Ghanshyam Bhatia, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of 2Kh20, Shri Naryan Kripa, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)

3. Chhavi Vijay Daughter Of Shri Vinod Vijay, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of B-2, Alakhnanda Colony, Behind Mps, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)

4. Dinesh Kumar Sain Son Of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Sain, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Maliyan Ki Dhani, Ward No. 09, Near Prerna School, Ajmer (Raj.)

5. Priya Gehlot Daughter Of Shri Narendra Singh Gehlot, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Kapil Nagar, Infront Of Nari Shala, Subhash Nagar, Ajmer (Raj.)

6. Bhanu Pratap Son Of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Verma, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of House No. C-400, Giri Marg, Ramganj, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Director, Special Secretary Administration, Medical Health And Mission Director, National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

(2 of 6) [CW-11712/2020]

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Ajmer (Raj.)

4. Director, Kamla Nehru State T.b. Demostration And Training Centres (Stdc), Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11381/2020

1. Rekha Khunteta Daughter Of Shri Kailash Chand Gupta, Wife Of Shri Ashish Khunteta, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of 26, Nadir Ji Ki Bagichi, Bharti Colony, Brahmpuri, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Neha Soni Daughter Of Shri Ram Sewak Soni, Wife Of Shri Piyush Soni, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of A- 710, R.k. Puram, Kota (Raj.)

3. Ruchi Jain Daughter Of Shri Kamlesh Kumar Jain, Wife Of Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of 64/322, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

4. Rajkumar Sharma Son Of Shri Ramratan Sharma, Aged About 44 Years, Resident Of 138, Krishna Vihar, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

5. Badal Singh Barar Son Of Shri Gyan Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Lb-320, Lig Block, Pratap Apartment, Sector-29, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

6. Ganesh Sharma Son Of Shri Kailash Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Tejawala, Post Kapurawala, Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

7. Ashutosh Chaturvedi Son Of Shri Harish Chandra Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of C-98, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Director, Special Secretary Administration, Medical Health And Mission Director, National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jaipur-I (Raj.)

4. Nodel Officer, S.m.s. Medical College, (Advance Research And T.b. Lab.) S.m.s. Jaipur (Raj.)

5. State Nodel Officer, Rntcp, National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Tyagi, Dy. G.C.

(3 of 6) [CW-11712/2020]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 29/03/2022

Since common question are involved in these petitions,

therefore with consent of the parties these petitions have been

heard together and are being decided by the present order.

As prayed, the facts have been taken into consideration from

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11381/2020 and the prayer made

therein reads as under:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and call for the entire record relating to the case and after examine the same-

1. By an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature, therein thereby the respondents may kindly be directed to not replace the petitioners with another set of contractual employee, continue to petitioners and pay the outstanding salary to petitioners with interest in the larger interest of justice

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents to give preference to the petitioners in further regular recruitment taking into consideration the long time experience of the petitioners.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents to pay the regular pay-scale to the petitioners with all consequential benefits alternatively increase the remuneration of the petitioners.

(iv) By issuing an appropriate writ, order of direction in the nature thereof and thereby direct the respondents to continue the petitioners in service till regular selection is made

(v) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

(4 of 6) [CW-11712/2020]

The case of the petitioners is that the respondents are going

to terminate services of the petitioners without following the due

process of law.

Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are

employees of the State Government though they were appointed

on contract basis and the respondents have been extending their

services since 2011. Counsel further submits that although their

agreement is with the placement agency namely Strategic Alliance

Management Services Private Limited but lastly their period has

been extended by the respondents only. Counsel prayed for giving

preference to the petitioners in regular recruitment and also for

grant of regular pay scale with all consequential benefit.

In support of his contentions, counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this court in the

matter of Mooli Devi Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6568/2010) decided on

25.08.2010.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents

opposed the writ petition and submitted that there is no

relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and

the respondents and the petitioners were engaged through

placment agency namely M/s Strategic Alliance Management

Services Private Limited who is the employer of the petitioners.

Counsel further submits that the petitioners have not imlpeaded

the said placement agency as party-respondent in the writ

petition.

In support of their contention, counsel relied upon the

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

K.K. Suresh & Anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors.

(5 of 6) [CW-11712/2020]

reported in (2018) 17 Supreme Court Cases 641 wherein para

No.7, has held as under:-

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