[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Aditya Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 December, 2025
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2025:RJ-JD:52786]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13659/2025
1. Obedulla Khan S/o Barkattulla Khan, Aged About 45
Years, Near Ramdevji Ka Mandir, Chhipabarod, District
Baran (Raj.).
2. Saroj Kanwar D/o Man Singh, Aged About 27 Years, 223,
Shanti Nagar, Esi Hospital, Hatwara Road, Ajmer Road,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director And Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local
Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Collector-Cum Chairman, District Level
Executive Committee, Day-Nulm, Jhalawar.
4. The Project Director, Directors Of Local Self Department,
Jaipur.
5. The Principal Secretary, Day-Nulm, State Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
6. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Housing And Urban Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
7. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Dist. Jhalawar.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10363/2025
1. Mukut Bihari Sharma S/o Shri Laxman Narayan Sharma,
Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 21, Ajmer Road,
Madanganj, Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.).
2. Mahaveer Singh Khidiya S/o Shri Madan Singh, Aged
About 40 Years, R/o 350, Shiv Dayal Charan Ki Dhani,
Khorandi, Tehsil Nanwa, Khorandi, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan. ----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 07:56:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/12/2025 at 11:52:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52786] (2 of 10) [CW-13659/2025]
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director And Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local
Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Collector-Cum Chairman, District Level
Executive Committee, Day-Nulm, Ajmer.
4. The Project Director, Directors Of Local Self Department,
Jaipur.
5. The Principal Secretary, Day-Nulm, State Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
6. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Housing And Urban Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
7. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporatior, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10385/2025
1. Aditya Sharma S/o Jitendra Sharma, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Brahmpuri, Panchayat Samiti Road, Dausa
Khurd, District Dausa (Raj.).
2. Ramniwas Mahawar S/o Shri Nathulal Mahavar, Aged
About 53 Years, R/o Kalakho, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director And Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local
Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Collector-Cum Chairman, District Level
Executive Committee, Day-Nulm, Dausa.
4. The Project Director, Directors Of Local Self Department,
Jaipur.
5. The Principal Secretary, Day-Nulm, State Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
6. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Housing And Urban Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
7. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Dausa.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 07:56:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/12/2025 at 11:52:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52786] (3 of 10) [CW-13659/2025]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12780/2025
1. Mukut Bihari Sharma S/o Laxmi Narayan Sharma, Aged
About 36 Years, Ward No.21, Ajmer Road, Madanganj,
Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.).
2. Mahaveer Singh Khidiya S/o Madan Singh, Aged About 40
Years, 350, Shiv Dayal Charan Ki Dhani, Khorandi, Tehsil
Nanwa, Khorandi, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Local Self Government ,government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director And Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local
Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Collector-Cum-Chairman, District Level
Executive Committee, Day-Nulm, Ajmer.
4. The Project Director, Directors Of Local Self Department,
Jaipur.
5. The Principal Secretary, Day-Nulm, State Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
6. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Housing And Urban Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
7. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Ajmer.
8. The Dy. Commissioner (Development), Municipal
Corporation, Ajmer. ----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13676/2025
1. Malay Pandya S/o Praveen Chandra Pandya, Aged About
37 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Rajpur, Dungarpur, District
Dungarpur (Raj.).
2. Harshvardhn Singh S/o Shri Vinay Pratap Singh, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Shipra Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. ----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Local Self Government, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director And Joint Secretary, Directorate Of Local
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 07:56:02 PM)
(Downloaded on 05/12/2025 at 11:52:55 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52786] (4 of 10) [CW-13659/2025]
Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Collector-Cum Chairman, District Level
Executive Committee, Day-Nulm, Dungarpur.
4. The Project Director, Directors Of Local Self Department,
Jaipur.
5. The Principal Secretary, Day-Nulm, State Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
6. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of
Housing And Urban Affairs, Govt. Of India, New Delhi.
7. The Commissioner, Municipal Council, Dist. Dungarpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravindra Puri Goswami &
Mr. Monal Chugh for Mr. Rajesh
Panwar, AAG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
02/12/2025
(S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No.13659/2025, 10363/2025,
10385/2025 & 12780/2025)
1. The arguments in the writ petitions were heard and the same
were dismissed with cost. However, subsequently, a request was
made by the Bar representatives for exemption of cost.
Inadvertently, the direction could not be conveyed in time and
hence, the matters have been listed today in 'To be mentioned'
category.
2. Since the prayers in the present writ petitions are
substantially alike with minor variations but involving similar
issues, the prayers from the lead case, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
13659/2025 are reproduced below for ready reference:
"A. the impugned action of the respondents in not
releasing the salary of the petitioners which is due from
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 07:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52786] (5 of 10) [CW-13659/2025]
October, 2024, as per communication dated 04.12.2024 and
31.12.2024, may kindly be declared per se illegal, arbitrary
as well as discriminatory.
B. The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the
case of the petitioners in light of communication dated
04.12.2024 (Annexure-4) and communication dated
31.12.2024 (Annexure-5).
C. The respondent may kindly be directed to release the
due salary of the petitioners which is due from October,
2024, and such payment shall be made equivalent to the
salary of the other similarly situated persons.
D. that the respondents may be restrained from
discontinuing services of the petitioners and/or the present
place of posting of the petitioners may not changed, and he
may be allowed to continue their services.
E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which
this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in
favour of the petitioners.
F. Writ Petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be
allowed with costs."
3. Counsel for the respondent-Department makes a specific
statement that four out of the present five petitioners had earlier
too filed writ petitions before the Jaipur Bench of this Court and
the said writ petitions as filed by them stood dismissed vide order
dated 06.04.2022. Without disclosing the fact of dismissal of their
earlier writ petitions, the present writ petitions have been filed
which is clearly malafide.
4. Counsel further submits that vide order dated 06.04.2022, it
was specifically observed by the Court that no employer-employee
relationship was proved between the State and the petitioners and
hence, they could not be granted any relief.
5. Further, therein the Court specifically observed that the
petitioners had been appointed through a placement agency but
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 07:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52786] (6 of 10) [CW-13659/2025]
they did not implead the placement agency as party respondent
and therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed on the said count
too. Interestingly, the present petitions have been filed now at the
Principal Seat at Jodhpur without disclosing the fact of dismissal of
their earlier writ petitions at Jaipur Bench. Furthermore, in the
present petitions too, the placement agency has not been
impleaded as party respondent and the reason is crystal clear.
6. Counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to deny the
fact of four of the petitioners having already preferred writ
petitions before the Jaipur Bench and further, the same having
been dismissed.
7. Counsel is also not in a position to refute the fact of the
dismissal of their earlier writ petitions having not been disclosed in
the present petitions. He however submits that the reliefs prayed
for in the earlier writ petitions and the present writ petitions are
not identical and therefore, the petitioners were not required to
disclose the fact of dismissal of the earlier writ petitions. He
submits that the earlier writ petitions were filed against the
termination of the contractual services of the petitioners whereas
the present petitions have been filed only for release of the due
salary to the petitioners.
8. Heard the counsels. Perused the record.
9. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to note the
particulars of the writ petitions as filed by the present petitioners,
earlier:
i). Writ petition No.6232/2019 wherein Aditya Kumar
Sharma was petitioner No.2 who has preferred present Writ
Petition No.10385/2025.
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 07:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52786] (7 of 10) [CW-13659/2025]
ii) Writ petition no.17575/2019 wherein Obedulla Khan
was petitioner No.8 who has preferred present Writ Petition
No.13659/2025.
iii) Writ petition No.20292/2019 filed by Mukut Bihari
Sharma who has filed present Writ Petition Nos.10363/2025 &
12780/2025.
iv) Writ petition No.20381/2019 wherein Harsh Vardhan
Singh was petitioner No.2 who has preferred present Writ Petition
No.13676/2025.
10. A bare perusal of judgment dated 06.04.2022 passed in a
bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.6232/2019; Deepak Kumar & Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (including the aforementioned writ petitions)
reveals that therein the petitioners prayed that the respondents be
restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners and
further to adhere with the operational guidelines issued by the
Government of India in respect of the Day-nulum project.
11. In the present petitions prayer No.D as made is to the effect
that the respondents be restrained from discontinuing the services
of the petitioners. Further, prayer has been made for consideration
of the communications dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure-4) and
31.12.2024 (Annexure-5) as issued by the Union of India and the
State authority respectively.
12. In view of the above prayers, it cannot be said that the
reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners in the present petitions and
as prayed in the earlier writ petitions are not co-related or are
different. Meaning thereby, vide the earlier writ petitions too, the
petitioners prayed for continuance of their services which prayer
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 07:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52786] (8 of 10) [CW-13659/2025]
specifically stood dismissed with an observation that there was no
privity of contract between the petitioners and the State. In the
year 2022, the petitioners were not held entitled to be continued
in service also for the reason that they did not implead the
placement agency through which they were appointed. Therein it
was also clearly observed that the liability to pay the salary to the
petitioners was of the placement agency.
13. In Deepak Kumar (supra), the Court observed as under:
"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 fora 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 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 regularisationin the
State cannot be approved by this court as the petitioners
were never appointed by the State Government against
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 07:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52786] (9 of 10) [CW-13659/2025]
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 226of
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."
14. Interestingly in the present petitions, a prayer for release of
salary has been made and that too without impleading the
placement agency once again. Further the fact of a finding having
already been recorded against the petitioners in their earlier writ
petitions has clearly been concealed and the same is on the face
of it, malafide. The malafide intent is also clear from the fact that
the earlier petitions were filed at Jaipur Bench, the petitioners
being the residents of Jaipur jurisdiction and further being
employees of the offices of Jaipur jurisdiction. The present
petitions have malafidely been filed at Principal Seat. It is crystal
clear that the petitioners misused the process of the Court firstly
by filing the present petitions before the Principal Seat despite
they being falling under Jaipur jurisdiction. Secondly, by
concealing the fact of the writ petitions as filed by them before the
Jaipur Bench having already been dismissed. Thirdly, by filing the
present petitions again without impleading the placement agency
despite a finding recorded against them in the earlier writ
petitions. And fourthly, praying for release of salary in the present
petitions despite a finding recorded in the earlier writ petitions
that the liability to pay the salary to the petitioners was of the
placement agency.
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 07:56:02 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:52786] (10 of 10) [CW-13659/2025]
15. In view of the above crystal clear facts and in view of the
observations as made above, S.B. Civil Writ petition
Nos.13659/2025, 10363/2025, 10385/2025 & 12780/2025 are
hereby dismissed.
16. Stay petitions and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13676/2025)
1. Counsel for the respondents placed on record a
communication made by both the petitioners whereby it has been
submitted on their behalf that they have been granted
reappointment on 01.08.2025 and even the amount qua the
salary as payable to them has been forwarded by the Department
to the placement agency. It has therefore been submitted that the
relief as prayed for in the writ petition has already been granted to
them.
2. Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, submits that the
submission as made by communication dated 19.08.2025 is
correct.
3. Letter dated 19.08.2025 is taken on record.
4. In view of the submission made, the present writ petition is
dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
5. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
164-168/KashishS/-
(Uploaded on 05/12/2025 at 07:56:02 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
