Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kanhaiya Lal Chhipa vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 May, 2023

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2023/RJJD/012637] (1 of 11) [CW-11384/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11384/2022

1. Deep Shikha Trivedi W/o Hitendra Trivedi, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Kushalgarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

2. Ritu Joshi D/o Mahesh Prasad, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Khemura, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

3. Shiv Narayan Dholi S/o Bakshi Ram Dholi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Gangrar, District Chitorgarh, Rajasthan.

4. Sunil Kumar Trivedi S/o Durga Shankar, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Salumbar, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Ashok Kumar Sakrawat S/o Ganga Ram, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Salumbar, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

6. Ramsingh Solanki S/o Heer Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Khamnor, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

7. Ganpat Lal S/o Hira Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Walera Sayla, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

8. Arti Upadhaya D/o Jitendra Upadhaya, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Khemura, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

9. Jyotika Vyas D/o Laxman Vyas, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ghatol, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

10. Seema Sharma D/o Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Gangrar, District Chitorgarh, Rajasthan.

11. Prabhu Lal Mali S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

12. Kirti Thripathi D/o Monish Kumar Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Gangrar, District Chitorgarh, Rajasthan.

13. Akhil Vyas S/o Natwar Lal Vyas, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Chich, Bagidora District Banswara, Rajasthan.

14. Ashafaq Mirasee S/o Badrudeen Mirasee, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sajangarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

15. Badrudeen Mirashi S/o Mangi Lal Mirashi, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Sarada, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

16. Kishan Lal Dholi S/o Deva Ji Dholi, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Sarada, District Udipur, Rajasthan.

17. Harishankar Bharti S/o Nand Kishor Bharti, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Talera, District Bundi Rajasthan.

[2023/RJJD/012637] (2 of 11) [CW-11384/2022]

18. Lokesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shree Shambhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Talera, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

19. Mukesh Kumar Bairwa S/o Bishan Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Barudhan Taleda, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

20. Reheena Mirasee W/o Hamid Mirasee, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Boli), District Swaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

21. Kausar Kureshi W/o Anwar Husain, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Sajjangarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

22. Babbal Singh Rajput S/o Mahendra Singh Rajput, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Mavli District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

23. Rajesh Kumar Chanwariya S/o Mangi Lal Chanwariya, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Mandalgarh District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

24. Jaswant Kumar Harijan S/o Kailash Chandra Harijan, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Mandalgarh District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

25. Manoj Kumar Rawal S/o Harish Chandra Rawal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Chhipabarod District Baran, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of School And Sanskrit Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. State Project Director, Rajasthan Council Of Secondary Education Dr. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Block-6 JLN Marg, Jaipur Jaipur Rajasthan.

3. Additional State Project Director, Rajasthan Council Of Secondary Education Dr. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Block-6 JLN Marg, Jaipur Jaipur Rajasthan.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8557/2022

1. Kanhaiya Lal Chhipa S/o Laxmi Lal Chhipa, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Block-Raipur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

2. Chaina Ram Bhatt D/o Bhura Lal, Aged About 47 Years,

[2023/RJJD/012637] (3 of 11) [CW-11384/2022]

R/o Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

3. Laxman Das Vairagi S/o Huri Das, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Jhadol, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Suresh Kumar Mali S/o Cheetar Mal Mali, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Mandalgarh, Distrit Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

5. Devi Lal Janawat S/o Dhanraj Janawat, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Jhadol, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

6. Manoj Gaur S/o Durga Lal Gaur, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Jahazpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

7. Ashok Kumar Brahmbhatt S/o Hajari Lal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

8. Gopal Lal Mali S/o Ajari Lal Mali, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Mandalgarh District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

9. Lila Ram S/o Jogaram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Walera, Tehsil Sayla, Districtjalore, Rajasthan.

10. Laxman Kamol S/o Lalu Kamol, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Sajjangarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

11. Moola Ram Choudhary S/o Laxman Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Osian, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

12. Vimal Kumar Nalwaya S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Dungla, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

13. Sohan Lal Mali S/o Mangi Lal Mali, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Khamnor, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

14. Panna Lal Meena S/o Manji Meena, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Sarada, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

15. Mahesh Chandra Pandya S/o Vitthal Pandya, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Bagidora, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

16. Tilok Chand S/o Narayan Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Osian, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

17. Kalu Singh Charpota S/o Shri Natwar Lal Charpota, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bagidora, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

18. Khem Chand Sharma S/o Om Praksh Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

19. Deepak Sharma S/o Omprakesh Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

[2023/RJJD/012637] (4 of 11) [CW-11384/2022]

20. Dinesh Kamol S/o Pem Ji, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Sajjangarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

21. Laxmi Devi Daver D/o Ramesh Daver, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Jahdol, District Udipur, Rajasthan.

22. Chetan Bai D/o Ranga, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Sajjangarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

23. Mukesh Mali S/o Shiv Lal Mali, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Block-Raipur, District Bhilwara,rajasthan.

24. Ila Roat S/o Shree Amrit Lal Roat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Simalwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

25. Manilal Roat S/o Shree Jaydev Roat, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Simalwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

26. Gayatri Pandya S/o Shree Kamalashanker Pandya, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Simalwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

27. Geeta Devi S/o Shree Mani Lal Roat, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Simalwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

28. Prakash Chandra Ahari S/o Shree Shanker Lal Ahari, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Simalwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

29. Shanker Lal Ahari S/o Shree Thavara Ji Ahari, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Simalwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

30. Panna Lal Joshi S/o Sohan Lal Joshi, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Jahdol, District Udipur, Rajasthan.

31. Ramesh Kumar S/o Sona Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Walera, Tehsil Sayla, Districtjalore, Rajasthan.

32. Rajiv Parmar S/o Subhash Parmar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Khemura, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

33. Surendra Kumar Joshi S/o Sukh Lal Joshi, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Salumbar, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

34. Lalita Malala S/o Suresh Bareth, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Gangrar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

35. Shanti Lal S/o Tara Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Walera, Tehsilsayla, Districtjalore, Rajasthan.

36. Teja Ram S/o Teela Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

37. Vailji Mahida S/o Tiha Mahida, Aged About 43 Years, R/o

[2023/RJJD/012637] (5 of 11) [CW-11384/2022]

Sajjangarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

38. Chandrpraksh Dhobi S/o Rameshwar Lal Dhobi, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Gangrar, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

39. Satyam Bhatt S/o Anil Bhatt, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Chich, Tehsil Bagidora,district Banswara, Rajasthan.

40. Mahaveer Prasad Mali S/o Hajari Lal Mali, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jahazpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

41. Mukesh Kumar Sen S/o Nand Lal Sen, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Kotari, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

42. Omprakash Sharma S/o Ratan Lal Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Kotari District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

43. Sunil Kumar Sen S/o Ganpat Lal Sen, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Asind District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

44. Ratan Devi Sen D/o Shambhu Lal Sen, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gangrar District Chitorgarh, Rajasthan.

45. Magan Lal Garg S/o Ganga Ram Garg, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Salumbar District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

46. Moda Meena S/o Dhanji Meena, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Salumbar District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

47. Rakesh Kumar Chouhan S/o Sampat Lal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Raipur District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

48. Radhyshyam Gurjar S/o Shobha Lal Gurjar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Raipur District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

49. Vinod Kumar Meena S/o Shanker Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Mavli District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

50. Pemji Meena S/o Huka Meena, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Aspur District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

51. Poja Damor S/o Kodara Damor, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Bagidora District Banswara, Rajasthan.

52. Sunita Jingar D/o Babu Lal Jingar, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Mavli District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

53. Vimla Lohar D/o Shankar Lal Lohar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Mavli District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

54. Narayan Lal Band S/o Shankar Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Mavli District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

55. Bhatu Khadiya S/o Magan Khadiya, Aged About 35 Years,

[2023/RJJD/012637] (6 of 11) [CW-11384/2022]

R/o Kushalgarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

56. Aswin Dabi S/o Gajendra Dabi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kushalgarh District Banswara, Rajasthan.

57. Rajendra Choudhary S/o Dhanna Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Talera District Bundi, Rajasthan.

58. Anita Panwar S/o Lal Singh Panwar, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Nainwa District Bundi, Rajasthan.

59. Jagdish Bharti S/o Nand Kishor Bharti, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Lakeri District Bundi, Rajasthan.

60. Ram Kishan Saini S/o Ramnivas Saini, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Uniyara District Tonk, Rajasthan.

61. Ashok Kumar S/o Vinod Kumar Valmiki, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Uniyar District Tonk, Rajasthan.

62. Ramswaroop Bheel S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Chhipabarod, District Bara, Rajasthan.

63. Naresh Morval S/o Madan Lal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Chipabadod, District Bara, Rajasthan.

64. Yogesh Tiwari S/o Baijanath Tiwari, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Baseri, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

65. Bachhoo Singh Parmar S/o Aneg Singh, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Baseri, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

66. Dinesh S/o Nahane, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Baseri, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

67. Banti Gurjar S/o Pancham Singh Gurjar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Baseri, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

68. Vishvraj Singh Rathore S/o Rajbhagat Singh Rathore, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Mandalgarh District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

69. Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o Ramnarayan Sharma, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Chipabadod, District Bara, Rajasthan.

70. Vinod Kumar Rathor S/o Rambharos Rathor, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Chipabadod, District Bara, Rajasthan.

71. Ramdev Teli S/o Jagdish Chandra Teli, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jahazpur District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

72. Dilip Meena S/o Prem Shankar Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Aspur District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

73. Ramila Meena W/o Jagdish Meena, Aged About 34 Years,

[2023/RJJD/012637] (7 of 11) [CW-11384/2022]

R/o Aspur District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

74. Maya Bunkar W/o Kanhaiya, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Chich, Bagidora District Banswara, Rajasthan.

75. Balveer Singh Chouhan S/o Sajan Singh Chouhan, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Bichhiwara District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

76. Jeeva Kotwal S/o Dola Kotwal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Bichhiwara District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

77. Abhishek Labana S/o Babu Lal Labana, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Bichhiwara District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of School And Sanskrit Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Rajasthan.

2. State Project Director, Rajasthan Council Of Secondary Education Dr. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Block-6 JLN Marg, Jaipurjaipur Rajasthan.

3. Additional State Project Director, Rajasthan Council Of Secondary Education Dr. Radhakrishnan Shiksha Sankul, Block-6 JLN Marg, Jaipur jaipur Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhati For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.R.S. Jodha with Mr. Mohit Singh

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order

01/05/2023

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since the present writ petitions are based on identical facts

and common point of law, therefore, they are being disposed of by

this common order.

[2023/RJJD/012637] (8 of 11) [CW-11384/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on

the Single Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Mooli Devi

Choudhary & Ors. V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on

25.08.2010, wherein directions were issued by the co-ordinate

Bench that the Teachers and other related staff in SSA or KGBV

cannot be treated as employees of the private placement agencies

and in the case of Tony Meghwal & Ors. V/s State of

Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 21.01.2021 (amended vide order

dated 10.08.2021), whereby the services of the persons placed

through placement agencies were ordered to be placed directly

through the department. He, therefore, prays that the present

writ petitions may kindly be allowed.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that

the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered

by the judgment of Single Bench of this Court rendered in S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.15560/2021 (Lalit Kumar & Ors. V/s

State of Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 25.04.2022, wherein

reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Jaipur Bench of

this Court rendered in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.6232/2019 (Deepak Kumar Gupta & Ors. V/s State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) decided on 06.04.2022. Since, the

controversy in the present case is with respect to the fact that the

petitioners who are working on different positions in the

respondent-department on the basis of a contractual agreement

executed between the concerned authorities and the placement

agencies, the prayer made in the writ petitions with respect to the

regularization, equal pay and equal work and for a direction that

they should be appointed directly by the respondent-department,

[2023/RJJD/012637] (9 of 11) [CW-11384/2022]

has already been considered by the Single Bench in the case of

Deepak Kumar Gupta(supra). He, therefore, prays that the writ

petitions may be dismissed in the light of Single Bench judgment

of Deepak Kumar Gupta(supra).

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the relevant record of the cases.

The controversy involved in the present case has been

discussed at the threadbare by the Single Bench in the case of

Deepak Kumar Gupta(supra) and considering the said

judgment, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Lalit

Kumar(surpa) has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated

25.04.2022 in the following terms :-

"In the case of Deepak Kumar Gupta (supra), the Coordinate Bench after dealing with large number of orders/ judgments cited, came to the following conclusion:

"14. Admittedly, there is no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents as the offer of appointment was given to the petitioners by the placement agency and the salary/remuneration was also paid to the petitioners by the placement agency. Initially, the contract was for a period of one year and the term of petitioners' services was further extended from time to time by the placement agency. The Rules of 2022 referred by the counsel for the petitioners relate to the persons appointed by the State Government on contract basis through public advertisement and admittedly the petitioners were not engaged as contractual employees directly by the State Government rather were appointed by the placement agency, as such the Rules of 2022 are not at all applicable in the case of the petitioners.

15. In view of the above discussion, these writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioners have failed to establish their relationship of employee and employer with the respondent-State and only narration in the petition cannot be considered to be a justifiable ground to grant the relief prayed for, unless it is supported by cogent evidence on record as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K.

Suresh (supra); secondly, as per own version of

[2023/RJJD/012637] (10 of 11) [CW-11384/2022]

the petitioners, they were appointment by the placement agency but failed to implead the placement agency as party respondent in the writ petitions; thirdly, the salary/remuneration was also paid to the petitioners by the placement agency and not by the State Government; and lastly claim of the petitioners for regularisation in the State cannot be approved by this court as the petitioners were never appointed by the State Government against sanctioned post on regular basis, rather, as already observed above they were appointed by the placement agency; therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the petitioners have completely failed to make out a case against the respondents, as such I am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

16. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. A copy of the order be placed in each connected file."

The cases of the petitioners, and the prayers made are not different from what was prayed for in the case of Deepak Kumar Gupta (supra) and as such the issue raised, already stands answered by a Coordinate Bench in the said case.

So far as the purported directions in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Ranglal & Ors. (supra) relied on by the petitioners are concerned, the said order, inter-alia, reads as infra:

"3. This Court is of the opinion that the State should evolve a mechanism of directly remitting the amounts of minimum wages to the concerned contract workers, whose details and particulars - including bank account etc. are maintained by the contractor/agency and supplied to it. This would in no way alter the inter se relationship between the contractor and his/its employees.

4. The writ petitioners' counsel argues that the State should ensure that the arrangement in the contract is directly between the employee who work and State itself. He highlighted that in some instances, the State has resorted to direct engagement of contract workers.

5. This Court is unable to issue such a direction. The manner in which the State organizes its arrangements depends upon the exigencies of the time. In these circumstances it would be impossible to direct that a particular mode or method only should be adopted; the State may resort to direct engagements itself or may resort to employment of contract workers through placement agency/contractor, in accordance with law.

6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms."

[2023/RJJD/012637] (11 of 11) [CW-11384/2022]

A perusal of the above, would reveal that the Court had only expressed opinion that the State should evolve a mechanism of directly remitting the amounts of minimum wages to the concerned contract works and also came to the conclusion that no directions as prayed for regarding State entering into direct contract with the employees could be issued. The Division Bench also opined that the manner in which the State organizes its arrangements depends upon the exigencies of the time, which includes resorting to the direct engagement or through placement agencies.

None of the directions given by the Division Bench, requires the State to directly make the payments to the petitioners, as sought to be argued. Further submissions made regarding violation of the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, Employees Provident Fund Act and Employees State Insurance Act by the placement agencies, are essentially independent causes to the petitioners, for which the remedy is available under various laws against the placement agencies, for which this Court, at this stage, is not required to issue any direction.

In view of above, following the dictum in the case of Deepak Kumar Gupta (supra), no case for interference is made out in the petitions, the same are therefore, dismissed."

The controversy involved in the present case is squarely

covered by the judgment passed in the case of Lalit

Kumar(supra). In the facts and circumstances, reliance placed by

the learned counsel for the petitioners in the cases of Mooli Devi

Choudhary(supra) & Tony Meghwal(supra) are not applicable of

the present case, therefore, the present writ petitions are bereft of

merit and the same are dismissed.