Rajasthan High Court
Damodar Singh S/O Vrindavan vs The State Of Rajasthan on 7 May, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6784/2022
Damodar Singh S/o Vrindavan, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Village
Purabaikheda, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bharatpur.
3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bayana,
District Bharatpur.
4. The Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat
Purabaikheda, District Bharatpur.
5. Savera Security Agencies, Ranjit Nagar, Bharatpur
Through Its Director/ Proprietor.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukhdev Singh Solanki, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
07/05/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that your lordship may graciously
be pleased to accept and allow the writ
petition and by an appropriate writ of
mandamus, order or direction in nature
thereof:
i) The respondent may kindly be directed
to regularize the service of the petitioner
on the post of Security Guard by enhancing
his wages as per notification dated
28.08.2017 issuing by Ministry of Labour &
(2 of 4) [CW-6784/2022]
Empowerment, Govt. of India with all
consequential service benefits.
ii) The respondents may also be directed to
draw the salary of petitioner regularly and
also pay the salary to the petitioner, which
is due from 2015 to till date.
iii) Any other order which the Hon'ble Court
deems fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case also be passed
in favour of humble petitioner along with
cost of writ petition."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed
through placement agency on the post of 'Security Guard' and the
contact agreement was also executed between the petitioner and
the placement agency and working with the State-respondents
under the instructions of the placement agency. Thus by virtue of
appointment being made by the placement agency and also the
contract agreement executed between the petitioner and the
placement agency, the petitioner does not appear to be employee
of the State-respondents in any manner, as such there is no
relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and
the State-respondents. The petitioner has failed to place on
record any documentary evidence to show that he was directly
appointed by the State-respondents, rather the documentary
evidence placed by the petitioner on record shows that he was
appointed by the placement agency and not by the State-
respondents. Apart from it, no order terminating services of the
petitioner has ever been passed by the State-respondents.
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the
petitioner is working with the State-respondents, however, they
are not paying the minimum wages to the petitioner and prayed
that the services of the petitioner be regularized as Security
Guard.
(3 of 4) [CW-6784/2022]
4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
5. 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
opinion, not sufficient to grant any relief to
the Appellants."
6. 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
(4 of 4) [CW-6784/2022]
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."
7. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be
dismissed for the reasons; firstly, there is no relationship of
employee and employer between the petitioner and the State-
respondents; secondly, the petitioner has failed to submit any
document on record which shows that he was appointed by the
State-respondents; thirdly, in view of the judgments passed by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh and
Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation
Ltd. (both supra), I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of
this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
8. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands
dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
JYOTI /97
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
