Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1288 (RAJ)

Lalit Kumar v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-04-25

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking various directions. The directions prayed for, in SBCWP No.15560/2021 by way of illustration, reads as infra: "It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed: - A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, Order Dated 03.02.2021 (Annexure-14) may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permitted the petitioners to work on the post in question till regulars selected candidates made available for the post in question as per the decision taken by the government. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to not to take contractual employees in place of any contractual employee. D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction respondents may kindly be directed to have contract directly to the petitioners and their salary may also be paid directly not through the placement agency. E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to pay monthly salary of the petitioners through cheques/online payment/RTGS/online banking system and restrained to made cash payment to the petitioners. F. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to following the mandate of law as interpreted in the case of Shiv Prasad Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation of the petitioners, within a time frame, in the light of the adjudication in the case of Mukesh Kumar Khatik (supra), which they are ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter. G. 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. H. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs." 2. The above prayers have been made by the petitioners, who have been engaged through placement agencies by the respondents for performing various duties. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that similar nature issues, as raised in the present writ petitions, have been dealt with by a Coordinate Bench of this court at Japur Bench in Deepak Kumar Gupta & Ors. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that similar nature issues, as raised in the present writ petitions, have been dealt with by a Coordinate Bench of this court at Japur Bench in Deepak Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6232/2019 and large number of other connected matters, decided on 06.04.2022, wherein similar nature prayers have been rejected. 4. Counsel for the petitioners made submissions that though the Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Ranglal & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1885/2018, decided on 01.08.2019 made observations, the respondents have so far not followed the said directions. 5. 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. 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 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." 6. 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. 7. So far as the purported directions in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. 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. 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." 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. 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.