Writ petitions cannot be sustained if previously dismissed on related grounds; concealment of prior adjudication demonstrates mala fides, and employment claims must involve all necessary parties.

ORDER :

1. The arguments in the writ petitions were heard and the same were dismissed with cost. However, subsequently, a request was made by the Bar representatives for exemption of cost. Inadvertently, the direction could not be conveyed in time and hence, the matters have been listed today in ‘To be mentioned’ category.

2. Since the prayers in the present writ petitions are substantially alike with minor variations but involving similar issues, the prayers from the lead case, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13659/2025 are reproduced below for ready reference:

“A. the impugned action of the respondents in not releasing the salary of the petitioners which is due from October, 2024, as per communication dated 04.12.2024 and 31.12.2024, may kindly be declared per se illegal, arbitrary as well as discriminatory.

B. The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioners in light of communication dated 04.12.2024 (Annexure-4) and communication dated 31.12.2024 (Annexure-5).

C. The respondent may kindly be directed to release the due salary of the petitioners which is due from October, 2024, and such payment shall be made equivalent to the salary of the other similarly situated persons.

D. that the respondents may be restrained from discontinuing services of the petitioners and/or the present place of posting of the petitioners may not changed, and he may be allowed to continue their services.

E. 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.

F. Writ Petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.”

3. Counsel for the respondent-Department makes a specific statement that four out of the present five petitioners had earlier too filed writ petitions before the Jaipur Bench of this Court and the said writ petitions as filed by them stood dismissed vide order dated 06.04.2022. Without disclosing the fact of dismissal of their earlier writ petitions, the present writ petitions have been filed which is clearly malafide.

4. Counsel further submits that vide order dated 06.04.2022, it was specifically observed by the Court that no employer-employee relationship was proved between the State and the petitioners and hence, they could not be granted any relief.

5. Further, therein the Court specifically observed that the petitioners had been appointed through a placement agency but they did not implead the placement agency as party respondent and therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed on the said count too. Interestingly, the present petitions have been filed now at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur without disclosing the fact of dismissal of their earlier writ petitions at Jaipur Bench. Furthermore, in the present petitions too, the placement agency has not been impleaded as party respondent and the reason is crystal clear.

6. Counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to deny the fact of four of the petitioners having already preferred writ petitions before the Jaipur Bench and further, the same having been dismissed.

7. Counsel is also not in a position to refute the fact of the dismissal of their earlier writ petitions having not been disclosed in the present petitions. He however submits that the reliefs prayed for in the earlier writ petitions and the present writ petitions are not identical and therefore, the petitioners were not required to disclose the fact of dismissal of the earlier writ petitions. He submits that the earlier writ petitions were filed against the termination of the contractual services of the p