HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Inderjeet Singh, J.
Deepak Kumar Gupta & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Rajasthan & Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6232/2019
Decided On : 06-04-2022
CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYEES - State Government Scheme - Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Posts Rules, 2022 - [Rules of 2022] - The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, who claimed to be employees of the State Government, seeking regular pay-scale and salary directly from the State Government. The court held that the petitioners were appointed by a placement agency and were not contractual or regular employees of the State Government. The Rules of 2022, which provide for appointment of persons on contract basis directly by the State Government, were found not applicable to the petitioners. The court emphasized the lack of evidence establishing a direct relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the State Government.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners claimed to be employees of the State Government and sought regular pay-scale and salary directly from the State Government. They were appointed by a placement agency for a State Government scheme, and their appointments were contractual in nature.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were not contractual or regular employees of the State Government and emphasized the lack of evidence establishing a direct relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the State Government. The court also noted that the Rules of 2022, which provide for appointment of persons on contract basis directly by the State Government, were not applicable to the petitioners.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners, appointed by a placement agency for a State Government scheme, could be considered as employees of the State Government and entitled to regular pay-scale and salary directly from the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence establishing a direct relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the State Government, and the inapplicability of the Rules of 2022 to the petitioners' contractual appointments.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners had failed to establish their relationship of employee and employer with the respondent-State and that their claim for regularisation in the State could not be approved as they were never appointed by the State Government against sanctioned post on a regular basis.
ORDER
1. Since identical questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, therefore with consent of the parties, these writ petitions have been heard finally and are being decided by the present order.
2. On the request made by the parties, the facts have been noticed from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6232/2019 and the prayer made therein reads as under:-
"It is, therefore, humbly and most respectfully prayed that your lordships may very graciously be pleased to admit and allow this Civil Writ Petition and further;
i. By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, Respondents may be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners from the post in question and they may further be restrained from replacing the petitioners from another set of contractual employees in DAY-NULUM scheme till the currency of the project,
ii. By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may be directed to strictly adhere with the operational guidelines issued by the government of India in respect of DAY-NULM project and accordingly respondents may be directed to extend the benefits as mentioned in the operation guidelines.
iii. By issuing appropriate writ order or direction, the order dated 08.03.2019 may be quashed and set aside and respondents may be directed to engage the petitioners directly on the post in question, iv. That any other order or direction as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fair, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the Petitioner."
3. Brief facts of the case are that the Government of India introduced a scheme namely DEENDAYALANTYODAYAYOJNA-NATIONAL URBAN LIVELIHOOD MISSION (DAY-NULM) (hereinafter to be referred as the "Scheme") for the purpose of reducing poverty & vulnerability of the urban poor households by enabling them to get the gainful self employment and skilled wage employment opportunities, ultimately resulting in appreciable improvement in their livelihoods on sustainable basis through building grass route level institutions of the poor by tendering process. The scheme started in the year 2014-2015 and has been decided to be funded 60% by the Central Government and 40% by the State Government. Implementing the said scheme in the State of Rajasthan, the respondents invited bids from the placement agencies to provide manpower of various posts. In the case of the petitioners, the placement agency namely T & M Services Consulting Private Limited Mumbai (hereinafter to be referred as the "placement agency") was engaged by the respondents for providing manpower at the State Level as well as at the District Level. The said placement agency issued the advertisement for hiring the persons on various posts i.e. State Manager, District Manager and Community Organizer, on contract basis. The petitioners pursuant to the advertisement issued by the placement agency applied for appointment on the respective posts and after consideration, the petitioners were given offer of appointment on the respective posts by the placement agency. Initially, the process was started in the year 2015 and the petitioners were engaged on contract basis on the respective posts by the placement agency initially for a period of one year and their term on contract basis was extended further from time to time. It has also come on record that taking into consideration the achievement of 100% of targets allocated under the said scheme, the term of said placement agency was accordingly extended by the State Government, thereafter the term of said placement agency was ultimately terminated on 15.06.2019. After the termination, a new tender was floated in which the placement agency namely B.S.A. Corporation, Pune was selected, which entered into a contract with the State Government for the purpose of providing manpower on various posts. Thus, a perusal of the factual matrix shows that the State Government entered into a contract with the placement agency for manpower and the plac
K.K. Suresh & Anr. vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors.
Mohd. Abdul Kadir & Anr. vs. Director General of Police, Assam & Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence establishing a direct relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the State Government in claims....
The court upheld the contractual nature of the petitioners' services and found the appointment of the private agency to be in compliance with the NULM scheme.
The Rules of 2022 regulate contractual employment, ensuring equal treatment for employees appointed through placement agencies if they meet specified criteria.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for petitioners to provide evidence to support their claims and the interpretation of previous court directions regarding the St....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of contract workers to seek regularization of their services based on positive recommendations and lack of evidence to prove allege....
Employees appointed in temporary units on contractual basis are not entitled to absorption or regularization, as their initial appointment was not on permanent sanctioned posts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.