Kulvir Chand vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:50634-Db)
2025 Latest Caselaw 15948 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 15948 Raj
Judgement Date : 24 November, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kulvir Chand vs Union Of India (2025:Rj-Jd:50634-Db) on 24 November, 2025

Bench: Inderjeet Singh, Praveer Bhatnagar

[2025:RJ-JD:50634-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3519/2025
Kulvir Chand S/o Shri Gopi Ram, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Village and Post Bhagwansar, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.       Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry Of
         Defence, Raksha Bhawan, New Delhi.
2.       The Commander Works Engineer (Air Force), Bikaner
         Rajasthan.
3.       Garision Engineer (Af), Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar,
         Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. S.K. Malik
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Askaran Maru Adv., Senior Panel
                                   counsel for Union of India


           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 24/11/2025

1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner

challenging the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred as 'CAT').

2. The brief facts giving rise to the case are that the petitioner

was engaged through a contractor for executing electrical work

in the Department from the year January, 2001 and from time to

time, he executed the work in the Department. The petitioner

worked under the instructions given to him by the contractor and

the period of contract with the department was extended from

time to time with different contractors.

3. Earlier, in the first round of litigation, the petitioner filed D.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.13269/2020 before this Court, whereby

(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 12:15:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50634-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-3519/2025]

while disposing of the writ petition filed on behalf of the

petitioner, this Court remanded the matter back to the CAT vide

order dated 11.07.2024. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner

was considered by the CAT and the original application filed on

behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by the CAT on 28.08.2024.

Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.08.2024 passed by the

CAT, this writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has worked with the department continuously from

the year 2001. He further submits that the petitioner is entitled

for regularization of his services in view of the judgment passed

by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Jaggo Vs. Union of

India & Ors., 2024 INSC 1034. He further submits that the

work is still available with the department on which the petitioner

is working well and prays for regularization of his service.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the

submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submits that there is no relationship of employee and employer

between the petitioner and the department. He further submits

that the petitioner was never engaged by the department rather

as admitted by the petitioner himself, he was engaged through

different contractors. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Joint

Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr.

Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra & Anr., Special Leave Petition (Civil)

No.19648 of 2023, wherein the Court at para Nos.7, 8 & 9

observed as under:-

(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 12:15:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50634-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-3519/2025]

"7. This is not only a very simplistic approach, but also a totally erroneous approach in lawse. For a person to claim employment under any organization, a direct master-

servant relationship has to be established on paper. In the present case (s), admittedly, the only document, which the private respondents have in their favour, is showing that they were posted at various places doing different nature of work.

8. This clearly in the considered opinion of the Court would not establish master-servant relationship.

9. Had it been the case where there were other materials also in favour of the private respondents in both cases showing that they may have a case for being considered as an employee of the appellants, we may not have interfered with the orders impugned and would have left it to the Labour Court to once again to go into the matter(s) on merits. However, when the best defence of the private respondents in both cases, as discussed supra, has been found to be totally of no consequence to the private respondents in both cases, we find that the remand would be an exercise in futility."

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh &

Anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. reported in (2018) 17 SCC

641 in Para-7 has been held as under:-

"7. In the first place, the appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and FCI; second when the documents on record showed that the appellants were appointed by FCI Head Load Workers Cooperative Society but not by 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 FCI; third, FCI was

(Uploaded on 26/11/2025 at 12:15:31 PM)

[2025:RJ-JD:50634-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-3519/2025]

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 FCI and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of 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."

8. The writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner deserves to

be dismissed on following grounds; firstly there is no relation of

employer and employee between the petitioner and the

respondents as admittedly, the petitioner worked with the

department on contract basis through the contractor. Secondly,

the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo

(supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the

present case, as the employees in the said judgment were

appointed directly by the Department on temporary basis,

whereas, in the present case, the petitioner was admittedly

appointed through contractor and thirdly, in light of the judgment

passed in the case of K.K. Suresh (Supra), no case is made out