Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 78 (JK)

Narinder Pal Singh v. Food Corporation of India

2025-03-01

RAJNESH OSWAL

body2025
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner claims to have be en appointed as Typist in the year, 2003 in the Food Corporation of India on contractual basis and working with the respondents since then. He submitted repeated representations for regularization of his services on the vacant post of Typist (Hindi) in the year, 2007, 2011 and 2016 but to no effect. 2. It is stated by the petitioner that he was initially engaged as Typist on contractual basis thereafter the nomenclature of his engagement was changed to “day-to-day” basis and thereafter to an outsourced employee since 2014. Not only this, the petitioner was also paid as M/s Narinder Pal Typing Works Nanak Nagar Jammu, and it all was done to deny the petitioner of his right to be regularized as an employee of the respondent- Corporation. Faced with such a situation, the petitioner filed a writ petition in the year 2017 bearing SWP No. 10/2017 and this Court vide its interim order dated 10.01.2017 directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner for regularization as Hindi Typist in accordance with law. The respondent No. 3 vide order dated 05.04.2017 impugned in this writ petition, rejected the case of the petitioner. It is also stated that the respondents had taken a plea that the petitioner was disengaged vide letter dated 01.12.2016. 3. The petitioner has now filed this petition for quashing the order dated 05.04.2017. It is contended by the petitioner that in the order impugned dated 05.04.2017, it has been mentioned that the petitioner was disengaged vide letter dated 01.12.2016 but the said letter dated 01.12.2016 has been manipulated by the respondents to substantiate their claim of disengaging the petitioner, as the same does not bear any dispatch number. It is stated that the petitioner is still working and attending the office regularly but as a revenge, he is not allowed to do his routine work. It appears that the respondents have forgotten that the official record i.e. the Dispatch Register of the District Office Jammu of FCI clearly reflects the work done by the petitioner as Dispatcher with effect from 24.11.2016 to 07.12.2016. If the petitioner was disengaged on 01.12.2016, then how the respondents allowed him to work in the District Office Jammu. 4. It appears that the respondents have forgotten that the official record i.e. the Dispatch Register of the District Office Jammu of FCI clearly reflects the work done by the petitioner as Dispatcher with effect from 24.11.2016 to 07.12.2016. If the petitioner was disengaged on 01.12.2016, then how the respondents allowed him to work in the District Office Jammu. 4. The respondents have filed the response to the writ petition stating therein that the petitioner was never appointed as Typist at any point of time by the respondent-Corporation. As a matter of fact, the typing work was awarded to the firm of the petitioner, namely, M/s Narinder Pal Typing Works Nanak Nagar Jammu and even the bills for the work done were also submitted in the name of above said firm on its letter head, which were signed by the petitioner as proprietor of the firm. The above mentioned fact is corroborated by the fact that the respondents have even deducted the tax from the bill of the firm at the rate of 1% and 2% as provided under section 194(c) of the Income Tax Rules which are applicable in the case of the firm and not in the case of a person. In case of a person, the tax is required to be deducted at the minimum rate of 10% whereas in the instant case, the tax was deducted at 1% or 2%, applicable only to the firm, and is at par with the payments being made to many other firms providing services to the Corporation like contractors, private godown owners, transporters labours etc. The payments were also made to the firm of the petitioner on work done basis and never as a salary being paid to the employee of the Corporation. The monthly bills were submitted by the firm on its letter head every month with details of the work done in the form of total number of pages typed and thereafter payments were made on the basis of approved rates per page. It is also stated that the Corporation is already taking services of outsourced firms, and the Corporation cannot absorb all those persons which are associated with those firms, as regular employees of the Corporation. It is also stated that the Corporation is already taking services of outsourced firms, and the Corporation cannot absorb all those persons which are associated with those firms, as regular employees of the Corporation. The payments were made to the firm of the petitioner on account of actual work done from time to time, however with effect from 2014, the petitioner became the employee of private agency, namely, ABN Personnel Network, an agency which provided manpower services to the Corporation on outsourcing basis and there exists a proper agreement between the Corporation and the firm M/s ABN Personnel Network. In terms of condition No. 2 of the aforesaid agreement, the manpower will be the employees of M/s ABN Personnel Network which is clear from the Provident Fund challans of M/s ABN Personnel Network. Even the Provident Fund of the petitioner was deposited by M/s ABN Personnel Network only and the employee-employer relation existed between the petitioner and the ABN Personnel Network only. The petitioner has rendered his services as an outsourced employee of the ABN Personnel Network only upto 01.12.2016 and thereafter, he was disengaged by the M/s ABN Personnel Network through whom he rendered his services to the respondent-Corporation. 5. It is further stated that due to joining of new recruits through proper selection process, it was decided to disengage the services being provided by M/s ABN Personnel Network. The respondents have placed on record the cash vouchers from the year 2004 onwards to demonstrate that the typing work was being done through M/s Narinder Pal Typing Works Nanak Nagar Jammu and the petitioner was never engaged on contractual basis. The respondents have also placed on record the salary bills, wherein the petitioner, besides other three persons, have been shown as a part of manpower provided by ABN Personnel Network. They have also placed on record communication dated 23.11.2018 disengaging the manpower being provided by M/s ABN Personnel Network or other agency. 6. Ms. Meenakshi Salathia, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the mother of the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds with the respondent-Corporation wherefrom she retired as Assistant Grade-I in the year, 2014 and it was during her service career, the petitioner was engaged as a Typist in the September, 2002 by Manager Ramesh Kumar Sharma. 6. Ms. Meenakshi Salathia, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the mother of the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds with the respondent-Corporation wherefrom she retired as Assistant Grade-I in the year, 2014 and it was during her service career, the petitioner was engaged as a Typist in the September, 2002 by Manager Ramesh Kumar Sharma. She further submitted that initially the petitioner was paid salary in his own name and in the year, 2005, the petitioner was asked by the respondent-Corporation to open his account as a firm in Punjab National Bank (PNB) because they had a tie up with the PNB and the petitioner did exactly as asked by the respondents. She has further submitted that the petitioner has been working with the respondent- Corporation on contractual basis and to deny the petitioner of his legal rights of regularisation, a false story of engagement of the petitioner through ABN Personnel Network has been concocted by the respondents. She has placed reliance upon the judgment of the High Court of Orissa in Sucharita Mohanty@ Mohapatra and others vs State of Odisha and others, 2022(1) Ori. Lal Rev. 34 3. She has also relied upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jaggo vs Union of India and others, 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, Food Corporation of India vs Gen. Secy. FCI India Employees Union and others, 2018(9) SCC 464 and. Shripal and anr. vs. Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad, 2025 INSC 144 7. On the contrary, Mr. Ravi Abrol, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has vehemently argued that there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the petitioner was engaged as an employee on contractual basis and further that initially the Typing work was being done by M/s Narinder Pal Typing Works Nanak Nagar Jammu, of which the petitioner was the proprietor and thereafter in the year, 2014, the manpower for some works was outsourced through M/S ABN Personnel Network and after recruitment of regular employees, the outsourcing of manpower by M/S ABN Personnel Network was stopped. He has placed reliance upon the various documents including the bills submitted by the M/s Narinder Pal Typing Works Nanak Nagar Jammu to substantiate the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was not engaged in any manner by the respondent-Corporation. 8. Heard and perused the record. 9. He has placed reliance upon the various documents including the bills submitted by the M/s Narinder Pal Typing Works Nanak Nagar Jammu to substantiate the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was not engaged in any manner by the respondent-Corporation. 8. Heard and perused the record. 9. The moot question which arises for adjudication is as to whether the petitioner was engaged as an employee on contractual basis or not. Except a bald assertion in para-7 of the petition that initially the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis, there is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate this contention that the petitioner at any point of time was engaged as Typist on contractual basis. The documentary evidence placed on record by the respondents in the form of bills submitted by no one else other than the petitioner himself clearly proves the contention of the petitioner that the work of Typing was being done through M/s Narinder Pal Typing Works Nanak Nagar Jammu. The bills signed by the petitioner at page Nos. 76,79,82 and others of the objections clearly demonstrate that the work was being done through M/s Narinder Pal Typing Works Nanak Nagar Jammu and even the various petty cash vouchers and the office orders sanctioning the release of payments from time to time clearly show that the typing work was got done by the respondents through M/s Narinder Pal Typing Works Nanak Nagar Jammu. 10. Further the various salary bills placed on record clearly proves that the petitioner besides other three persons, namely, Daljeet Singh, Shubam Sharma and Isherdhar Sharma were rendering the services to the respondents through M/s ABN Personnel Network. This Court taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner directed the petitioner to produce the relevant record in respect of the salary received from the respondent-Corporation till filing of the earlier petition, the petitioner filed an application for placing on record one statement of the account of the Punjab National Bank and the said account statement placed on record by the petitioner does not at all substantiate that the petitioner was receiving a fixed salary from the respondent-Corporation. As a matter of fact, there is nothing on record demonstrating the status of the petitioner as a contractual employee of the respondent-Corporation, rather there is abundant evidence on record to establish that the petitioner was the proprietor of the M/s Narinder Pal Typing Works Nanak Nagar, Jammu and the said concern was being paid on work to work basis, of which the petitioner was proprietor. The petitioner has never ever been the employee of the respondents- contractual, daily-wager, adhoc or daily rated worker. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that order dated 05.04.2017 passed by the respondent No. 3 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularisation of his services is not perverse or illegal in any manner. In fact, the petitioner has not been able to dislodge the claim made by the respondents that the Provident Fund of the petitioner was being deposited by M/s ABN Personnel Network. More so, after recruitment of 52 employees by the respondent-Corporation, the outsourcing of manpower from M/s ABN Personnel Network was stopped. 11. In the almost identical case in ' Satish Sharma vs Food Corporation of India ’ , the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30.12.2017, rejected the claim made by the petitioner therein for regularization with the respondents, with an observation that the petitioner therein has not placed on record any order or agreement, from the perusal of which the Court could come to the conclusion that the petitioner was appointed as a Computer Operator on contractual basis in the year 2003 in the respondent-Corporation and that he had been discharging his duties as such till date. 12. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the case in hand as the petitioner was not appointed as typist by the respondent- Corporation at any point of time. Also, the manpower being provided by M/s ABN Personnel Network has been discontinued with engagement of52 regular employees. 13. Viewed thus, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is misconceived and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 14. Consequently, the accompanied contempt proceedings are also closed.