JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the relief to quash the 1 impugned oral termination order and directing the respondents to treat the petitioner in continuous service with the benefit of regularisation and payment of salary in the minimum of the pay scale for the post of Security Guards. 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the petitioners were appointed as the Security Guards in the Commercial Taxes Department in the year 1991. These appointments were made through the contractor but the administrative and disciplinary control etc. remained with the respondent Department. While the petitioners were working as Security Guards, at least vacancies became available within the jurisdiction of respondent No. 2. for their regularisation and a recommendation to this effect was sent to the Commissioner by the respondent No. 2 for consideration of their case. Ultimately. the respondents did not allow the petitioners to continue in service after the year 2001. Hence this writ petition. 3. Referring the averments made in the writ petition and justifying the 15 termination, the respondents have filed the reply. As per the stand taken in the reply, the services of the petitioners were made available to the respondents on contract basis through M/s. Goliath Detectives Pvt. Ltd. and payment towards salary was made to the said contractor. It has been contended that since the petitioners have never been appointed by the respondents nor did they remain as employees of the respondents, therefore, they are not entitled for the benefits of regularisation, salary in the regular pay scale etc. and as such there was no question of termination of their services by the respondents and actually their services were returned to the said contractor vide letter dated 11.5.2001. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The controversy involved in the instant writ petition stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Lokesh Dixit v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Writ Petition No, 2099/2001 etc. decided on 3.7.2003 , wherein the Division Bench, placing reliance on the judgments of 30 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. decided on 3.7.2003 , wherein the Division Bench, placing reliance on the judgments of 30 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. v. National Union Waterfront Workers & Ors., (2001) 7 SCC 1 by which the Apex Court approved the law laid down in Sarapur Mills Case (reported in (1974) 3 SCC 66 ) , held that where there is statutory liability on the part of the establishment in discharging the statutory obligation and the services are availed from the contractor, the contract labour would indeed be the employee of the principal employer. The Division Bench further observed that-1 creation of posts was under the statute as a part of statutory obligation for setting up check posts to check evasion and avoidance of tax in respect of goods passing through such check posts and to employ suitable persons viz. security guards on such check posts, was also the obligation of the 5 Department. In such an eventuality, the Division Bench quashed the termination order and directed the respondents to consider the case of each of the petitioners for regularisation in terms of the principles enunciated in Bhawani Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2002 (3) WLC 728 . 6. In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Lokesh Dixit's case (supra), the instant writ petition is allowed. The impugned oral termination order is quashed and the respondents are directed to allow the petitioners in service and consider their cases for regularisation in the light of the principles enunciated in Bhawani Singh's case (supra) There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******