Years, Resident Of Banjaron Ka Mohalla, Front Of Badi Ka Mandir, vs State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Director, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Dy. Director, Department Of Social Justice And Empowerment, Tonk (Raj.).

4. Hostel Superintendent, Dev Narayan Hostel, Niwai, District Tonk (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Karanpal Singh For Respondent(s) : None present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 17/07/2025

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the pleadings and documents enclosed with the writ petition.

2. Petitioner, by invoking the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has prayed the following relief:- "(i). By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby the respondents may kindly be directed to regularized the services of petitioner since the date of its entitlement and pay the arrear thereof with interest in the larger interest of justice. [2025:RJ-JP:26823] (2 of 7) [CW-13994/2024] (ii) Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iv) Cost of writ petition also may kindly be awarded in favour of petitioner.”

3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that initially the petitioner was appointed as Cook by the State Authorities in the month of September, 2012 and since then, she is discharging her duties as Cook in Government Devnarayan Hostel, hence she is entitled and eligible to get regularization of her service so also to get minimum pay-scale of cook or in alternative at least minimum of pay-scale of Cook. In addition, it has been contended that from July, 2014, the wages to petitioner has been paid through placement agency.

4. No one has appeared on behalf of respondents to argue the writ petition, however reply filed by the respondents is available on record, which has been taken into consideration by the Court. As per reply filed by the respondents, it has been contended that petitioner is not working against a regular post, and indeed the service of petitioner on the post of Cook in the Hostel was obtained through placement agency by way of inviting NIT under RTPP, 2012 and the Rules of 2013. It has been contended that petitioner is not the employee of respondents-State, rather employee of a placement agency and no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and respondents-State exists, hence, the case of petitioner, seeking regularization so also the payment of minimum pay-scale or in alternative, minimum of pay-scale of a cook, is not sustainable. [2025:RJ-JP:26823] (3 of 7) [CW-13994/2024]

5. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Chaturbhuj & Ors Vs. state of Rajasthan and other connected writ petitions:[S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.26574/2018] decided on 30.07.2024.

6. Having adverted to the pleadings of the writ petition and the contentions of counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that petitioner has not enclosed her appointment order, to show that she was appointed by the State Authority in the month of September, 2012 on the sanctioned post of Cook in Hostel. Only a letter dated 18.03.2024 (Ann.1) has been enclosed with the writ petition.

7. A perusal of the letter dated 18.03.2024 (Ann.1) shows that some information to one Narendra Kumar was provided by the Department of Social Justice & Empowerment under Right to Information Act, 2005. In the letter, name of petitioner has been indicated to be working as Cook in the Hostel from September, 2012 to 19.04.2013. Further in the letter, it has been indicated that from July, 2014, the Cook and Guards (Chaukidars) in the Hostel are getting wages from the placement agency.

8. This Court finds that in absence of producing any appointment order/letter, the case of petitioner that she was appointed by the State Authority on the post of Cook, has not been substantiated. The letter dated 18.03.2024 issued under RTI Act, is not suffice to prove the factum of appointment of petitioner by State, moreso when this fact has been disputed and admittedly [2025:RJ-JP:26823] (4 of 7) [CW-13994/2024] as per letter dated 18.03.2024, petitioner is receiving her wages from placement agency.

9. It is noteworthy that petitioner has not denied the fact that since July 2014 onwards, she has been given wages by the placement agency, rather this is an admitted fact.

10. As far as the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Chaturbhuj (supra) is concerned, the Coordinate Bench has relied upon the judgment of Anokha Bai Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.372/2013. There is no consideration and discussion in the judgment of Chaturbhuj’s case that petitioners of that writ petition were appointed through placement agency nor the issue of existence of relationship of employee-employer came up for consideration of Court. Hence, for such differentiation of facts, the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this High Court does not render any help to the case of petitioner.

11. In case of Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. v. Piyush Kant Sharma and Ors.[AIR(2020) SC 5036], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “Having heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court has committed a grave error in passing such an interim order restraining the Appellant Corporation from appointing new set of contractual employees in place of original writ Petitioners. No reasons, whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while passing the impugned interim order. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the fact that according to the Appellant Corporation, there was no regular sanctioned post of Computer Operator in the Appellant Corporation and that there was no employer-employee relationship between the original [2025:RJ-JP:26823] (5 of 7) [CW-13994/2024] writ Petitioner and the Appellant Corporation and that the original writ Petitioner was an employee appointed by the contractor on contractual basis and worked with the Appellant Corporation on contractual basis. As the writ petition is pending before the High Court, we refrain ourselves from making any further observations on merits. However, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove, the High Court ought not to have passed such an interim order. Under the circumstances, the impugned interim order passed by the High Court requires to be quashed and set aside.” (emphasis supplied)

12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.K. Suresh & Anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. [AIR (2018)17 SC 641], has held as under:- “7. In the first place, the Appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and the FCI; Second, when the documents on record showed that the appellants were appointed by the FCI Head Load Workers Co- Operative Society but not by the 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 the FCI; Third, the FCI was 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 the FCI and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of the 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.” (emphasis supplied) Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in K.K. Sures (Supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court on similar issue, has dismissed the writ petition and declined relief of regularization and pay scale in case of Deepak Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan [2022 (3) RLW 1810 (Raj.)] decided on

06.04.2022. Relevant portion of judgment in Para No. 15, is being reproduced hereunder: [2025:RJ-JP:26823] (6 of 7) [CW-13994/2024] “…...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.

13. Since this Court finds that the petitioner has miserably failed to establish her relationship of employee and employer with the State Authorities rather it is revealed that engagement of petitioner in the Hostel is through placement agency and she is getting wages since July, 2014 onwards, from the placement agency. Even the case of petitioner is taken up that for the specific period, from September, 2012 to 19.04.2013, she was paid wages by the Hostel Management, same itself does not confer any right in favour of petitioner to seek regularization or minimum pay-scale of Cook. Unless & until appointment of petitioner is not established as per procedure and Rule, known to law, claim of regularization & pay-scale can’t succeed. Therefore, on facts of this case, no relief as prayed for by the petitioner against the State Authorities can be granted. However, petitioner is at liberty to seek relief against the placement agency, which is not party herein. [2025:RJ-JP:26823] (7 of 7) [CW-13994/2024]

14. Before parting with, it is hereby observed that if in case of Chaturbhuj (supra), petitioners therein got the judgment from the Coordinate Bench, by suppressing the factum of their employment in State through placement agency and without disclosing the non-existence of direct relation of employee and employer with State, the respondent-State is at liberty to seek review or assail the judgment, being contrary to the proposition of law, well settled by the principal of judicial precedents, in view of several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court on this point.

15. With aforesaid observations, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.

16. Stay application and any other pending application, if any, stand disposed of. TN/239 (SUDESH BANSAL),J