Petitioner sought writ for regular salary drawal directly from respondent-state. Court dismissed petition, finding no employer-employee relationship and relying on Supreme Court precedent forbidding such direction when petitioners serve private agencies.
None. Writ petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4281/2022
Babu Lal Saini Son Of Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Saini, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Rampur, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajveer Gurjar For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order
19/04/2022
Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to admit and allow this writ petition and call for the entire record relating to the case and after examine the same:-
(i) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby remuneration/salary of the petitioner time to time and sent in bank account of petitioner instead of through placement agency, grant leave to petitioner according
(2 of 3)
[CW-4281/2022]
to other regular employee and pay the over time allowances in the larger interest of justice.
(ii) Respondents be restrained to replace the petitioner from other fresh candidates by another mode of selection process. (iii) 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."
Counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner is working with the respondents, however, they are not paying due salary to the petitioner. Counsel further submits that on the direction of this Court, the petitioner has submitted the contract agreement of the petitioner with M/s K.S. Security Agency, Jaipur (hereinafter to be referred as "Service Provider"). Counsel further submits that in the identical matter this Court has directed for providing salary to the employee.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh & Anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors. reported in (2018) 17 SCC 641 in Para-7 has been held as under:-
“7.In the first place, the appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and FCI; second when the documents on record showed that the appellants were appointed by FCI Head Load Workers Cooperative Society but not by 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 FCI; third, 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 FCI and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of 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.”
(3 of 3)
[CW-4281/2022]
This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons; firstly, admittedly, there is no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and the respondents, secondly, the petitioner is an employee of Service Provider, therefore, no direction can be issued to the State-respondents for payment of salary to the petitioner, lastly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh and Anr. (supra), I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
Upendra Pratap Singh /110
2 issues framed by the court
Whether extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised to direct respondent-state to pay salary to petitioner who is employed by a service provider and not
Whether a relationship of employer and employee exists between the petitioner and the respondent-state.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
K.K. Suresh & Anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors.Explained¶25
(2018) 17 SCC 641 · Who else cites this
Babu Lal Saini Son Of Late Shri Kanhaiya Lal Saini
State Of Rajasthan
Commissioner, Village Development And Panchayatiraj Department
Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar
Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Bansoor
Village Development Officer, Gram Panchayat Rampur
Inderjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
