Rajasthan vs State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan

4. District Collector, Sikar District Sikar Rajasthan Chief Medical And Health Officer, Sikar Rajasthan Member Secretary, Rajasthan Medical Relief Society, Sikar Rajasthan

Principal Medical Officer, Govt. Shri Kalyan Hospital, Sikar Rajasthan

6. Nursing Superintendent, Shri Kalyan Hospital, Sikar Rajasthan ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ripu Daman Singh Naruka. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan, Shah, AAG. Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR 29/01/2025 Order

1. Heard on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

3. This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 13.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this [2025:RJ-JP:4010-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-780/2023] Court whereby the writ petition filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the learned Singe Judge has failed to consider the facts and law involved in the matter. Counsel further submits that the appellant was working with the respondents since the year 2015 and all of sudden, the respondents were discontinuing the services of the petitioner in the year 2019 without providing any opportunity of hearing which is in violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, prayed for allowing the present appeal filed on behalf of the appellant.

5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge in the year 2023 after a delay of four years. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant as there is no relationship of employee and employer between the appellant and the State-respondents and the appellant was appointed through placement agency.

6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

7. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition, in para No.3 & 4 of its order observed as under:- “3. Having heard counsel for petitioner and taking into consideration the aforesaid undisputed factual aspect, where the appointment of petitioner on contractual post through placement agency is not in dispute, this Court finds that no relationship of employee and [2025:RJ-JP:4010-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-780/2023] employer has been established between the petitioner and respondents. In addition, there is nothing on record that petitioner’s services were continued after 02.12.20219. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of K.K. Suresh & Anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. [AIR (2018)17 SC641], the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:- “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.” In another 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 [2025:RJ-JP:4010-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-780/2023] 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 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, were frain 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.”

8. After gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh (supra), therefore, in our considered view, no case is made out for interference by this Court in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

9. In that view of the matter, this appeal is accordingly dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/41