Shodan Singh Gurjar S/O Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6954 Raj/2

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 6954 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 2 November, 2022

Rajasthan High Court

Shodan Singh Gurjar S/O Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 2 November, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16001/2022

Shodan Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Ramkuwar Gurjar, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Barodiya Nanawata, District Baran.
                                                                     ----Petitioner

                                     Versus

1.      The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
        Rural Development And Prnanayati Raj Department, Govt.
        Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      Zila Parishad Baran, Through Its Chief Executive Officer
3.      Block      Development        Officer      And      Programme        Officer,
        Panchayat Samiti Atru, District Baran.
4.      Gram       Panchayat      Nanawata,          Panchayat      Samiti     Atru,
        District Baran Through Village Development Officer
5.      Yash Security, Atru District Baran, Through Authorized
        Officer.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini with Mr. Basant Singh Rathore For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

02/11/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly accept and allow this writ petition; and

i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may kindly be directed to allow continue to the petitioner to work as Security Guard at Rajiv Gandhi Kendra Nanawata (Atru) District Baran with all consequential benefits.

(2 of 4) [CW-16001/2022]

ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may further be directed to pay due salary of petitioner from July 2021 with interest @ 18% p.a.

iii) 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 petitioner."

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents

are neither paying regular salary to the petitioner nor allowing him

to work with the Gram Panchayat, Nanawata.

Admittedly, the petitioner was engaged on the post of

Security Guard through Palash Security Agency but there is no

privity of contract between the petitioner and the State-

respondents. The petitioner has failed to place on record any

termination order issued by the State-respondents.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

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

(3 of 4) [CW-16001/2022]

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."

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

(4 of 4) [CW-16001/2022]

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."

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, there is no privity of contract

between the petitioner and the State-respondents as the

petitioner was appointed through placement agency; secondly, the

petitioner has failed to submit any termination order issued 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.