Rajasthan High Court

Hemraj Meena S/O Shri Budharam Meena vs Mr. Pradeep Singh, Secretary ... on 14 February, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:7696]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4586/1999

1. HariShanker Shankar Sharma son of Shri Moti Lal Sharma,
resident of Infront of Airport, 10-C, Shivcolony, Sanganer, Jaipur.
2. Kailash Chand son of Bhanwar Lal, resident of village and post
Muhana Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur.
3. Om Prakash Gurjar son of Nand Lal Gurjar resident of P.No.s
39, Post Fasodi, District Sawai Madhopur.
4. Kedarnath Morya Son of Paltu Ram Resident of village
Rasoolpur, Post Mehanagar, Dist. Ajamgarh (U.P.)
5. Rameshwar Sharma Son of Motiram Sharma, resident of I.O.C.
10-C, Infront Airport Shivcolony, Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur.
6. Dilip Kumar Baghwani son of Shri Vasudev, resident of Sindhi
Colony, Near Jhulelal Temple, Sanganer, Jaipur.
7. Rajendra Kumar Verma S/o Manohar Lal, resident of Bharatpur
Gate, Darbari Mohalla, Post and Tehsil Bair, Distt. Bharatpur.
8. Jhawar Mal Jatwat S/o Shri Suganlal resident of village Poast
Patwari Ka Bas, Via Srimadhopur, District Sikar.
9. Durgaprasad Son of late Shri Bhori Lal, House No. 347, Mamta
Vidhya Mandir, Hassanpura, N.B.C. Road, Jaipur.
10. Samin Khan Son of Hanis Khan, resident of village Sekpure,
Post Adantram, Bangra, Via Gopal Ganj, Teh. Bardaiya, District
Siwan, Bihar.
11. Ranjan Kumar Samal Son of Arbind Kumar resident of village
Sakila, Post Kulasukar Pura, Distt. Kuttak, Orrisa.
12. Ramdhan Saini Son of Gopal Lal, Shanti Colony, Air Port,
Sanganer, Jaipur.
13. Navneet Kumar Jain Son of Rajendra Prasad Jain, Resident of
P.No. 48, Jagdish Colony, Near Mahesh Colony, Tonk Phatak,
Jaipur.
14. Dilip Singh Gehlot Son of Ganesh Singh Resident of Jooni
Haveli, Post Bhesroad, District Chittorgarh.
15. C.G. Thomas Son of Vargis, Chakalil House, Chemara, Post
Pathmathitta, Distt. Kerala.
16. Ashok Kumnar Son of Shri Laxmanram, Sheopur, Tiba, Kalya
Bar Ki Dhani, Sanganer, Distt. Jaipur.
17. Ganesh Narain Son of Hardas, Sheopur Tiba, Kalya Bar ki
Dhani, Sanganer, District Jaipur.
18. Bijendra Singh Son of Bane Singh, Village and Post Bilona
Kala, Tehsil Lalsot, Distt. Dausa.
19. Kamal Kishore Son of R.S. Agarwal, B-199, Laxminarayanpuri,

(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 09:16:37 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:7696] (2 of 11) [CW-4586/1999]

Surajpole, Jaipur
20. Om Prakash Gupta Son of Shyam Lal Gupta Shikarion Ka
Mohalla, Ramganj, Jaipur.
21. Manohar Singh Son of Bane Singh, village & Post Bilona Kala,
Tehsil Lalsot District Dausa.
22. Gajraj Singh Son of Bilona Kala, Tehsil Lalsot District Dausa.
23. Kuldeep Singh Son of A.G. Colony, Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur.
Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India, Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, New Delhi.
2. Airport Authority of India, N.A.D. New Delhi.
3. Director, Airport Authority of India, N.A.D. Jaipur.

----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1877/2000
1. Ramji Lal Meena,S/o Shri Ram Karan Meena aged about 24
years, R/o Gram Ganeshpura, Teh. Phagi, Distt. Jaipur.
2. Hanuman Sahai Mali S/o Shri Chunnilal, aged about 29 years,
R/o Before Choudhary Petrol Pump, Kanwar ka Bagh, P.S.
Sanganer, Jaipur.
3. Sunil Kumar Sharama S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Sharma,
aged about 26 years, R/o 101, Nand Bihar, Sheopur Road,
Sanganer, Jaipur.
4,. Shri Narsin Lal Meena, S/o Shri Kana Ram Meena, aged about
27 years, R/o Gram Post Shivdaspura, Teh. Chaksu, Distt, Jaipur.
5. Shri Hem Raj Meena, aged about 23 years, S/o Shri Budha
Ram Meena, R/o Airport Colony, Quarter No.53, Jaipur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union of India, Department of Civil Aviation, New Delhi,
through Secretary.
2. Airport Authority of India, Rajeev Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung
Airport, New Delhi Through Chairman.
3. Airport Authority of India Civil Aerodrome, Sanganer, Jaipur
through Airport Director.
4. Bureau of Civil Aviation Security, Jaipur Office, Sanganer,
Jaipur through Director.
5. Lok Shail enterprises, 68/295, Pratap Nagar Housing Board,

(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 09:16:37 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:7696] (3 of 11) [CW-4586/1999]

Sanganer, jaipur, throught its proprietor.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 856/2019
Hemraj Meena S/o Shri Budharam Meena, At Present Resident Of
G-23, Tirupati Balaji Nagar, Khokhabas, Tehsil Sanganer, District
Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Mr. Pradeep Singh, Secretary, Department Of Civil Aviation,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi.
2. Shri Arvind Singh, Chairman, Airport Authority Of India,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi.
3. Shri J.S. Balhara, Airport Director, Airport Authority Of
India, Aerodrome, Sanganer, Jaipur.
4. Shri Dhara Singh Kesawat, Assistant Director, Bureau Of
Civil Aviation Security, Jaipur Office, Aerodrome, Sanganer
Jaipur
5. Shri Anoop Jain, Proprietor/controller of M/s Vardhman Feb
Tech., Near Forest Chowki, Laxmi Narayanpuri Road,
Surajpole, Jaipur
----Respondents/Contemnors
S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 259/2021
Hanuman Sahay Mali @ Hanuman Prasad Saini, S/o Shri
Chunnilal, R/o Opp. Choudhary Petrol Pump., Kanwar Ka Bagh,
P.S. Sanganer Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Shri Pradeep Singh Kharola Secretary, Department Of Civil
Acitation, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New
Delhi,
2. Shri Arvind Singh, Chairman, Airport Authority Of India,
Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Safdarjung Airport, New Delhi,
3. Shri J.S. Balhara, Airport Director, Airport Authority Of
India, Aerodrome, Sanganer, Jaipur.
4. Shri Dhara Singh Kesawat, Assistant Director, Bureau Of
Civil Aviation Security, Jaipur Office, Aerodrome, Sanganer,
Jaipur.

(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 09:16:37 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:7696] (4 of 11) [CW-4586/1999]

5. Shri Lokendra Kapil Proprietor, Lok Sahil Enterprises, H-
15/B, Chitaranjan Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents/Contemnors

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arvind Gupta with
Mr. Sohan Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.S. Sinha with
Ms. Kanika Wadhwani for
Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG
Mr. Krishna Verma for Airport
Authority

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

14/02/2024

1. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides, the

present bunch of petitions, involving common questions of fact

and law, are jointly taken up for final disposal. For the purpose of

recording arguments and/or submissions, the lead file is taken as

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4586/1999 titled as Harishankar

Sharma and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.

2. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your
Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and
allow the present writ petition and to
i)issue an appropriate writ, order or direction the
petitioners be continued in the services of the
respondents from the date of appointments
irrespective of their being a deliberate break in
service after every six months by the respondents in
violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of
India;
ii)declare by appropriate writ or direction that the
petitioners are in continuous service since their
respective date of appointments since the petitioners
have been shown as contractor labour under the
Airport Authority.

(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 09:16:37 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:7696] (5 of 11) [CW-4586/1999]

iii)issue writ, order or direction in the nature of
mendamous or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction that the petitioners be entitled to get
benefit of minimum pay scale of the posts on which
they are discharging their duties.
iv)issue writ, order or direction to put the petitioners
on the regular pay scales alongwith other
consequential benefits of permanent employees from
the date of their initial appointment.
v)any other appropriate writ, order or direction which
the Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case, may be passed in favour
of petitioners.
vi)cost be awarded to the petitioners."

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the

petitioners were rendering their services with the respondent-

Airport Authority of India. The nature of the work rendered was

menial yet integral, such as the day to day maintenance of the

premises, like cleaning and gardening. Learned counsel submitted

that the petitioners were gainfully employed through a placement

agency/contractor, for a substantial period of time. During the said

period, the administrative control qua the petitioners work, was

within the control of the respondents. Furthermore, as per the

version of the petitioners, by and large, a majority of the

documents regarding the petitioners administration of work were

also counter-signed by the principle employer i.e. respondents.

Therefore, considering the fact that the petitioners rendered their

services with the respondents for a considerable long period of

time as Class-IV employees, a vested right of employment

accrued in favour of the petitioners. In support of the arguments

advanced, reliance was placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble

Apex Court as enunciated in HSEB vs. Suresh and Ors: AIR

(Downloaded on 08/03/2024 at 09:16:37 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:7696] (6 of 11) [CW-4586/1999]

1999 SC 1160, Air India Statutory Corporation and Ors. vs.

United Labour Union and Ors.: (1997) 9 SCC 377 and

International Airport Authority Employees Union and Ors.

vs. International Airports Authority of India and Ors.: AIR

2001 SC 276.

4. While placing reliance upon the above-referred judgments, it

was contended that the fundamental duty of the Court is to give

shape and offer to the long, regular and sustained work

undertaken by the petitioners. The Courts ought to pierce the veil

and recognize the employer-employee relationship which exists

between the petitioners and the respondents on account of the

work so rendered, which often is camouflaged by the labeled

contractual engagement. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioners

further submitted that after having taken note of the judgments

relied upon herein-above, this Court vide order dated 04.05.2000

had granted an ex-parte stay in favour of the petitioners, which

was subsequently confirmed, as the application filed by the

respondents under Article 226(3) for vacation of stay was

dismissed on 17.04.2001. Despite the same, the respondents

proceeded to terminate the certain select workers, on account of

which, the contempt petitions were preferred before this Court.

Therefore, claiming equity and recognition of the work rendered

and/or carried out by the petitioners, the petitioners have

preferred the present petitions claiming reinstatement and

regularization.

[2024:RJ-JP:7696] (7 of 11) [CW-4586/1999]

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, primarily for

the contesting party i.e. Airport Authority of India, has submitted

that there is an absence of an employer-employee relationship

between the petitioners and the respondent. In this regard,

learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners

have categorically failed to place on record any appointment letter

issued in favour of the petitioners by the respondents. Therefore,

the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present petitions, as

they are merely third parties and aliens to the contract which was

entered into between the respondent-Airport Authority of India

and the concerned placement agency/contractor. Moreover, the

absence of any contract between the petitioners and the

respondent-Airport Authority of India, goes on to show that the

work rendered by the petitioners was of a contingent and non-

recurring nature, which only pertained to seasonal maintenance,

including small activities like electricity maintenance, gardening

and cleaning. In support of the arguments advanced, reliance was

placed upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court as enunciated in

K.K. Suresh and Anr. vs. Food Corporation of India reported

in AIR 2018 SC 3905, Ganesh Digamber Jhambhrundkar

and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.: Special Leave to

Appeal No. 2543/2023.

6. Heard learned counsel for both the sides, scanned the record

of the petition and perused through the judgments cited at Bar.

7. Upon a considered perusal of the record, the following

germane stipulations have come to light, namely:-

7.1 That the petitioners have categorically failed to place on

record any appointment letter issued in favour of the petitioners

[2024:RJ-JP:7696] (8 of 11) [CW-4586/1999]

by the respondents, exhibiting the terms and conditions of their

engagement, nature of work to be carried out etc.

7.2 That the petitioners are merely third parties and aliens to the

contract which was primarily entered into between the

respondent-Airport Authority of India and the concerned

placement agency/contractor.

7.3 That privity of contract subsisted only between the

respondent-Airport Authority of India and the concerned

placement agency/contractor.

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K. Suresh (Supra), has

categorically held that contractual engagement does not create a

vested right of employment in favour of the workers, engaged

through a placement agency. The relevant extract of the said

judgment is reproduced herein-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."

9. In furtherance of the settled position of the law regarding the

negative scope of regularization of contractual employees, the

[2024:RJ-JP:7696] (9 of 11) [CW-4586/1999]

Hon'ble Apex Court as recently as on 12.09.2023 in Ganesh

Digamber Jhambhrundkar (Supra), has held that the fact of

having rendered their services for a long time by contractual

employees, shall not create a vested right of employment in their

favour. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced

herein-under:-

"The issue with which we are concerned in this petition is as to whether by working for a long period of time on contractual basis, the petitioners have acquired any vested legal right to be appointed in the respective posts on regular basis.

We appreciate the argument of the petitioners that they have given best part of their life for the said college but so far as law is concerned, we do not find their continuous working has created any legal right in their favour to be absorbed. In the event there was any scheme for such regularization, they could have availed of such scheme but in this case, there seems to be none. We are also apprised that some of the petitioners have applied for appointment through the current recruitment process. The High Court has rejected their claim mainly on the ground that they have no right to seek regularization of their service. We do not think any different view can be taken."

10. It is also noted that the respondent-Airport Authority of India

is an extended hand of the Government of India and therefore,

whilst absorbing and regularizing workers, no backdoor entries

can be permitted. Rather, a due selection process in the public

domain by way of an advertisement ought to be carried, in light of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

11. Having penned down the foregoing observations, this Court

deems it appropriate to hold that the judgments as relied upon by

the counsel for the petitioners are not applicable, on account of

the subsequent developments in law, as pronounced by the

[2024:RJ-JP:7696] (10 of 11) [CW-4586/1999]

Hon'ble Apex Court in K.K. Suresh (Supra) and Ganesh

Digamber Jhambhrundkar (Supra) among others.

12. Therefore, considering the fact that no employer-employee

relationship exists between the petitioners and the respondent-

Airport Authority of India; that the petitioners have categorically

failed to place on record any appointment letter issued in favour of

the petitioners by the respondents; that the petitioners are merely

third parties and aliens to the contract which was primarily

entered into between the respondent-Airport Authority of India

and the concerned placement agency/contractor; that contractual

engagement does not create a vested right of employment in

favour of the workers, engaged through a placement agency[Re:

K.K. Suresh (Supra)]; that the fact of having rendered services

for a long time by contractual employees, shall also not create a

vested right of employment in their favour [Re: Ganesh

Digamber Jhambhrundkar (Supra)]; that the respondent-

Airport Authority of India is an extended hand of the Government

of India, and therefore whilst absorbing and regularizing workers,

no backdoor entries can be permitted and cumulatively looking to

the overall facts, this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the

instant petition.

13. Howsoever, while dismissing the petitions, this Court deems

it appropriate to observe that the petitioners had rendered their

services with the respondent-Airport Authority of India for a

considerable period of 15 years, despite the placement agencies

having been changed in the subsisting period. Therefore, in the

future, if there is any scheme of regularization/absorption, the

[2024:RJ-JP:7696] (11 of 11) [CW-4586/1999]

petitioners may prefer their applications for consideration, which

may be decided by the respondent-Airport Authority of India,

independently, without being prejudiced by any observations made

by this Court. It is again made clear that the decision to absorb or

not, shall purely be of the discretion of the respondent-Airport