Dismissed

Jai Singh v. National Bal Bhavan & Ors.

Delhi HC22 Apr 2026W.P.(C)/4876/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging discontinuation of contractual service raised before High Court of Delhi. Court held writ jurisdiction not maintainable as disputed master-servant relationship must be adjudicated under Industrial Dispetes Act, 1947 instead of administrative law remedies.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without merits being examined; liberty granted to file remedy under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Jai Singh Vs National Bal Bhavan & Ors. — Service and Employment | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~84

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4876/2026 & CM APPL. 23967/2026

¶4

JAI SINGH .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Manu Beri and Mr. Raunek Raheja, Advocates.

¶6

versus

¶7

NATIONAL BAL BHAVAN & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. S. Rajappa, Mr. R. Gowrishankar and Ms. G. Dhivyasri, Advocates for R-1. Dr. Ishaan S. Sharma, SPC with Mr. Shubham Shukla, Mr. Ayush and Mr. Mukund Ranjan, Advocates for R-3.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

¶9

O R D E R % 22.04.2026

¶10

The present writ petition assails order dated 28^th December, 2025 passed by Respondent No. 1/National Bal Bhavan, whereby the services of the Petitioner, who was deployed on a contractual basis, have been discontinued with immediate effect.

¶11

It is the case of the Petitioner that he was engaged with Respondent No. 1 as a contractual employee and rendered services for nearly a decade, from 7^th June, 2016 till 28^th December, 2025. According to the Petitioner, although his formal designation remained that of a Stenographer, he was, in effect, entrusted with and continuously performed duties akin to those of a Personal Assistant to the Deputy Director (Administration).

¶12

The Petitioner submits that his initial engagement was directly with

¶13

This is a digitally signed order.

¶14

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/04/2026 at 13:10:57

¶15

Respondent No. 1 on a contractual basis commencing from 3^rd June, 2016, which came to be periodically renewed until 2022. Thereafter, his engagement continued through agencies on the Government e-Marketplace,¹ including Respondent No. 2. It is his case that notwithstanding the interposition of such agencies, he remained under the direct administrative control and supervision of Respondent No. 1 throughout. In support of this assertion, reliance is placed on the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports issued by Respondent No. 1, wherein he has been consistently assessed as sincere, hardworking and disciplined.

¶16

The immediate grievance of the Petitioner arises from the office order dated 28^th December, 2025 terminating his services, which, according to him, is arbitrary, mala fide and stigmatic. It is contended that the termination is premised on unfounded allegations of “dereliction of duty, insubordination and a conniving attitude,” and is thus stigmatic and punitive in nature. Aggrieved, the Petitioner has approached this Court, challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order.

¶17

On the other hand, Mr. S. Rajappa, counsel for Respondent No. 1, submits that no master-service relationship subsists between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1. He submits that while the Petitioner was initially engaged directly on a contractual basis, from the year 2023 onwards, Respondent No. 1 discontinued such engagements and resorted to outsourcing personnel through placement agencies via the GeM portal. It is further submitted that, for the past three years, the Petitioner has been engaged through such a placement agency, and his remuneration has been paid by the said agency. In this backdrop, it is contended that the impugned

¶18

1 “GeM”

¶19

This is a digitally signed order.

¶20

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/04/2026 at 13:10:57

¶21

order does not terminate the Petitioner’s employment but merely communicates to the agency that his deployment at Respondent No. 1 is no longer required.

¶22

The Court has considered the submissions advanced. It is not in controversy that the Petitioner was initially engaged on a contractual basis directly by Respondent No. 1. However, with effect from the year 2023, Respondent No. 1 has opted to engage personnel through placement agencies via GeM. The question that falls for consideration is whether, notwithstanding such arrangement, the Petitioner continued to retain the status of a contractual employee of Respondent No. 1.

¶23

The material placed on record indicates that, post-2023, the Petitioner was deployed at the establishment of Respondent No. 1 through placement agencies. There is no cogent material for this Court to prima facie establish the continuance of a direct contractual relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 during this period. The impugned communication, though referring to allegations such as dereliction of duty, insubordination and a conniving attitude, does not purport to terminate the Petitioner’s employment per se , but records discontinuation of his deployment with immediate effect. In these circumstances, it would be incumbent upon the Petitioner to establish that the arrangement of engagement through a placement agency was a mere facade and that, in substance, he continued to be an employee of Respondent No. 1.

¶24

Such determination would necessarily involve adjudication of disputed questions of fact, which, in the opinion of this Court, cannot be undertaken in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The appropriate remedy for the Petitioner would lie in invoking the mechanism under the Industrial

¶25

This is a digitally signed order.

¶26

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/04/2026 at 13:10:57

¶27

Disputes Act, 1947, which the Petitioner, as a workman, is entitled to avail such remedy.

¶28

Accordingly, in the absence of a prima facie demonstrable masterservant relationship between the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the Petitioner to avail appropriate remedies under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, if so advised.

¶29

With the aforesaid liberty and directions, the petition, along with pending application, stands disposed of.

¶30

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶31

APRIL 22, 2026 as

¶32

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/04/2026 at 13:10:57

Jai Singh v. National Bal Bhavan & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Singh v. National Bal Bhavan & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lx Pantos India Private Limited Vs Assessment Unit National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Central Circle 30 Delhi & Anr.

Rishi Kant Sharma Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports & Ors.

Wwl India Private Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Income Tax Department, Govt of India & Anr.

Sh Chandan Lal Yadav Vs the Comissioner MCD and Anr.

Independent Schools Federation of India and Ors. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Arun K Goel Vs Punjab National Bank and Anr.

UOI Thr. Secretary Ministry of Health & Family Welfare Vs Chahat Ram & Ors.

Ravi Kumar Solanki Vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation and Anr.

Nanda Boishya and Ors. Vs the Ashok and Ors.

Arvind Mohan Dwivedi Vs Union of India & Anr.

Ranjana Vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd.

Shahid Hussain Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shri Madan and Ors. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

B L Koli Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors.