Partly allowed

Irfan Ali S/O Shri Ishahak Ali v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jan 2026CW/2925/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan held the termination of a contractual employee illegal and arbitrary, violating an interim protection order. The Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner and absorb him into an additional sanctioned post under specific hiring rules, granting backwages. Petition 19597/2023 was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 08.02.2025 quashed; petitioner reinstated and absorbed under post sanctioned vide order dated 15.10.2024; petitioner entitled to backwages; Writ Petition 19597/2023 dismissed.

Irfan Ali S/O Shri Ishahak Ali Vs the State… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:23]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2925/2025

¶4

Irfan Ali S/o Shri Ishahak Ali, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 23, Mohalla Topchiwara, Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

The Director, Department Of Medical And Health, Swasthya Bhawa, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶9

The Secretary, Medicare Relief Society Government Community Health Centre Khandela, Sikar (Raj.).

¶10

The Chief Medical Officer, Sub-Divisional Hospital, Khandela, Sikar (Raj.).

¶11

The Proprietor, The Human Resource Service Provider Uma Shekhawati Janhit Sahayata Sansthan, Khandela (Raj.).

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19597/2023

¶15

Irfan Ali S/o Shri Ishahak Ali, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ward No. 23, Mohalla Topchiwara, Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.).

¶16

----Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶19

The Director, Department Of Medical And Health (GroupIi),

¶20

The Joint Secretary (Admn.), Department Of Medical And Health (Group-2),

¶21

The Chief Medical Officer, Sub-District Hospital, Kandela (Sikar), Rajasthan.

¶22

The Secretary, Medicare Relief Society Government Community Health Centre Khandela, Sikar.

¶23

[2026:RJ-JP:23]	(2 of 13) --	[CW-2925/2025] --Respondents
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Akshit Gupta Ms. Pragya Seth Mr. Kamlesh Sharma Mr. Nakul Bansal Mr. Shreyansh Dhariwal
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Archit Bohra,AGC

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶25

Order

¶26

05/01/2026

¶27

These two writ petitions are connected with each other, therefore we are deciding these writ petitions with common order.

¶28

Earlier writ petition No.19597/2023 is filed by petitioner Irfan Ali and on 07.12.2023 an interim order is passed in favour of the petitioner, restraining respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. During pendency of said writ petition, the services of petitioner were terminated on 08.02.2025 and subsequent writ petition No.2925/2025 is filed.

¶29

Writ Petition No.2925/2025 is filed with following prayer: i) the impugned order dated 08.02.2025 issued by respondents by virtue of which services of the petitioner has been terminated from the post of Computer Operator w.e.f. 08.02.2025 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary; ii) by issuing the writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may be directed:

(3 of 13)

[2026:RJ-JP:23]

[CW-2925/2025]

a) to consider the applications dated 07.01.2025, 16.01.2025 and 30.01.2025 submitted by the petitioner before the respondent authorities;

¶34

b) to allow the petitioner to render his service on the post of Computer Operator with all consequential benefits;

¶35

c) to regularise the services of the petitioner on the post of Computer Operator by considering his experience with all consequential benefits and seniority;

¶36

During pendency of writ petition No.19597/2023, another writ petition No.2925/2025 is filed with following prayer: i) the impugned letter dated 29.09.2023 issued by Respondent No. 4 whereby the candidature of the humble petitioner came to be rejected for the post of Data Entry Operator may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary;

¶37

ii) by issuing the writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof the respondents may be directed a) to consider the candidature of the humble the petitioner for appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator sanctioned under Rajasthan Contractual Hiring to Civil Service Posts Rules, 2022;

¶38

b) to grant appointment to the humble petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator in pursuance to the post sanctioned vide letter dated 25.08.2023 with all consequential benefits.”

¶39

Brief facts of the case are that present petitioner was selected and appointed on post of computer operator by Respondent No. 5(WP No.19597/2023) pursuant to selection process initiated by an advt. dated 01.08.2019 published in

[2026:RJ-JP:23]

[CW-2925/2025]

(4 of 13)

Dainik Bhaskar on 03.08.2019. On 25.08.2023, the Respondent No. 3 has invited application for the post of Data Entry Operator, (earlier known as Machine with Man), sanctioned under Rajasthan contractual hiring to Civil Posts Rules 2022, (hereinafter referred as “Rules of 2022”), and petitioner has filed application pursuant to said advertisement. The petitioner is having experience of computer operator since 2012 and was working with Respondent No. 5, was eligible and qualified for appointment, but the Respondents have rejected the candidature of present petitioner and communicated vide Order dated 29.09.2023 about the rejection and the writ petition No.19597/2023 is filed. While considering the writ petition, an interim order 07.12.2023 is passed restraining Respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner.

¶44

During pendency of the writ petition, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 08.02.2025, hence a fresh writ petition No.2925/2025 is filed.

¶45

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on 01.08.2019, Respondents have invited application on post of Computer Operator and Present Petitioner has applied pursuance to advertisement and vide communication dated 27.08.2019. Present Petitioner was found eligible on post of Computer Operator. He further submitted that during his employment with Respondents, an advertisement dated 25.08.2023 is issued for engaging 2532 Computer Operator (earlier working as Machine with man on contract) under the Rules

(5 of 13)

[2026:RJ-JP:23]

[CW-2925/2025]

of 2022. The Petitioner has filed an application for selection as he was already working as Computer Operator (MNDY Scheme) with respondents. He also submitted that the candidature of the present petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was not working under the MNDY Scheme.

¶50

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that on 07.12.2023, this Hon’ble Court has protected the services of the present petitioner, but despite the protection granted by this Hon’ble Court, the respondents have forced the present petitioner to enter into an employment contract through respondent human resources provider, M/s Uma Shikhavati Sansthan, and ultimately terminated on 08.02.2025.

¶51

He also submitted that the present petitioner is working as a contractual employee since 03.09.2019, but PMO (respondent) directed him to be engaged through a service provider, and the present petitioner has submitted documents to the service provider, but the respondent, instead of continuing his appointment, has terminated the services of the present petitioner. He also placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of State of Jaggo v. Union of India and Ors. 2024 INSC 1034 , and submitted that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished.

¶52

He further submitted that engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, specifically when such roles are integral to the functioning of the organization, not only contravenes international labour standards, but also exposes

[2026:RJ-JP:23]

[CW-2925/2025]

(6 of 13)

the organization to legal challenges and undermines employees’ morale. He also submitted that the petitioner is not only entitled to be reinstated with the respondents, but is also entitled to regularization.

¶57

Aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, and he submitted that a detailed reply has been filed on record to show that the present petitioner was engaged only on a contractual basis for a limited period. He further submitted that the engagement of the present petitioner was only as a stop-gap arrangement and not on a regular basis. He further submitted that the present petitioner was not appointed under the MNDY Scheme on a contractual basis, and that the circular dated 25.08.2023 was only with respect to persons who were on contract either as Machine with Man or as Computer Operator, under MNDY Scheme. He also submitted that the present petitioner was not engaged under the Mukhyamantri Nishulk Nirogi Rajasthan Yojana (Dava), therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for absorption under the Rules of 2022. He further submitted that when an additional post was available and sanctioned, the petitioner is given an opportunity for engagement through a service provider, but the petitioner has neither submitted requisite documents nor executed the agreement, as a result, the engagement order was discontinued.

¶58

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.

[2026:RJ-JP:23]

[CW-2925/2025]

(7 of 13)

Writ petition No.19597/2023 pertains to rejection of candidature of petitioner on the post of computer operator under the Rules of 2022. The letter dated 25.08.2023 (annexure-6) indicate that the Government has granted sanction to engage 2532 contractual machine with man (computer operator already working on contract basis) under the Rules of 2022. It is made clear that manpower (human resource) engaged through service provider or on job basis will not be eligible for consideration for engagement under the Rules of 2022.

¶63

The letter dated 29.09.2023, next year, issued by the PMO, Sub-District Hospital, Khandela, District Sikar, reflects that there were three posts sanctioned under the MNDY Scheme and the petitioner was not appointed under the MNDY Scheme on a contractual basis; therefore, he is not entitled to be appointed under the Rules of 2022. The issue before us is whether the present petitioner was appointed as contractual employee under the MNDY Scheme.

¶64

The petitioner has placed on record the tender notice dated 01.08.2019, whereby proposals were invited for engagement of Computer Operator. None of the conditions mentioned in the tender notice dated 01.08.2019 shows that the petitioner was appointed under the Chief Minister Nishulk Nirogi Rajasthan Yojana (Dawa). The petitioner has filed his identity card issued by the SMO, (IC) CSC, Khandela, District Sikar, to show that he was appointed as Computer Operator under the MNDY Scheme on a contractual basis.

(8 of 13)

[2026:RJ-JP:23]

[CW-2925/2025]

The only issue before us is whether the identity card is sufficient to show that the petitioner was appointed under the MNDY Scheme. The order dated 03.01.2025 and Annexure-9 in Writ Petition No. 2925/2025 shows that the vide order dated 15.10.2024 and an additional post of Machine with Man was provided under the MNDY Scheme, and the PMO had directed to absorb the petitioner who was already working. The identity card issued by the SMO (incharge) is placed on record but in support of the said identity card, no other document has been placed on record by the petitioner.

¶69

The Writ Petition No. 19597/2023 is filed by the petitioner to challenge the non-selection by the respondent pursuant to order dated 25.08.2023 issued by the Joint Secretary, Medical and Health (Group-II) Department, therefore, the responsibility is upon the petitioner to show that he was appointed under the MNDY Scheme. Since the petitioner has not filed any document with regard to his appointment and further payment therefore, the candidature of the present petitioner was not considered by the respondent and the same has been rightly rejected, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for declaration of letter dated 29.09.2023 (Annexure-1) in Writ Petition No. 19597/2023 as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the present writ petition.

¶70

During pendency of Writ Petition No. 19597/2023, a Coordinate Bench has restrained the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner. Admittedly,

[2026:RJ-JP:23]

[CW-2925/2025]

(9 of 13)

the petitioner was working as a contractual employee on the basis of engagement as Computer Operator in pursuance to his agreement dated 03.09.2019. Till passing of the order dated 07.12.2023, the petitioner was working and was in employment and engagement of the respondents.

¶75

The engagement of the petitioner was terminated by letter dated 08.02.2025 (Annexure-1), which is subject matter of Writ Petition No. 2925/2025. The interim order dated 07.12.2023 was neither modified nor withdrawn till 08.02.2025. The order dated 08.02.2025 issued by the PMO, Sub-District Hospital, Khandela, District Sikar, is a clear violation of the interim order dated 07.12.2023 passed by this Court. The order dated 08.02.2025 is reproduced as under:

¶76

“bl laLFkk esa eq[;ea=h fu%”kqYd fujksxh jktLFkku ;kstuk ¼nok½ ds rgr o’kZ 2024&25 ¼01-03-2024 ls 28-02-2025½ gsrq funs”kky; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok;sa] jktLFkku t;iqj ds i= Øekad 1087 fnukad 15-10-2024 }kjk ,d vfrfjDr lafonk e”khu fon eSu dh Lohd`fr iznku dh xbZ FkhA ,oa bl in ij laLFkk esa dk;Zjr lafonk dehZ dks mDr in ij lek;ksftr fd;s tkus gsrq funsZf”kr fd;k x;k FkkA bl laLFkku ds i= Øekad 2025@08 fnukad 03-01-2025 ,oa i= Øekad 2025@31 fnukad 10-01-2025 }kjk bjQku vyh dks iqu% volj iznku djrs gq, “kS{kf.kd nLrkost bl laLFkk ds ekuo lalk/ku lsok iznkrk dks izLrqr djus gsrq fy[kk x;k FkkA ijUrq ekuo lalk/ku lsok iznkrk }kjk voxr djk;k x;k Fkk fd bjQku vyh us “kS{kf.kd nLrkost Mkd }kjk fHktok;s gSa ,oa ekuo lsok iznkrk dks vuqcU/k gsrq uk gh lgefr i= iznku fd;k gS vkSj uk gh dk;Zxzg.k djus gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k gSA bl laLFkk ds i=kad laLFkk@2025@78 fnukad 27-01-2025 ds }kjk bjQku vyh dks vfUre volj iznku fd;k x;k FkkA ijUrq ekuo lalk/ku

(10 of 13)

[2026:RJ-JP:23]

[CW-2925/2025]

lsok iznkrk }kjk i= Øekad 06 fnukad 06-02-2025 }kjk voxr djk;k x;k gS fd bjQku vyh us ekuo lsok iznkrk dks vuqcU/k gsrq uk gh lgefr i= iznku fd;k gS vkSj uk gh lsokiznkrk ls dksbZ vuqcU/k fd;k x;k gSA bjQku vyh dks ckj&ckj volj iznku djus ds i”pkr Hkh vuqcU/k ugha djus ds dkj.k ;g ekurs gq, fd mDr lafonk dkfeZd bl in ij dk;Z djus dk bPNqd ugha gSA bl laLFkk ls bjQku vyh dk dEI;qVj vkWijsVj ds in ls vkt fnukad 08-02-2025 dks nksigj ckn ls vuqcU/k lekIr fd;k tkrk gSA ”

¶81

The language used by the PMO, a Government official, indicates that either the PMO was not aware of the engagement process or he is indulging in unfair labour practice. The present petitioner was engaged contractually by the RMRS pursuant to the tender notification dated 01.08.2019 and was continuing in service till issuance of the letter dated 29.09.2023, whereby his absorption under the Rules of 2022 was denied. The letter dated 27.01.2025 issued by the PMO (Annexure-4) in Writ Petition No. 2925/2025 indicate that on 27.01.2025, the petitioner was directed to get his engagement contract through a service provider, meaning thereby that the respondents directed the petitioner to change his employment from RMRS (direct basis) to engagement through a service provider.

¶82

The letter dated 27.01.2025 also indicates that the present petitioner was working as a Computer Operator on a contractual basis. The letter dated 27.01.2025 is reproduced as under:

jktLFkku ljdkj

(11 of 13)

[2026:RJ-JP:23]

[CW-2925/2025]

dk;kZy; izeq[k fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh] mi ftyk fpfdRlky; [k.Msyk ¼lhdj½

¶88

Øekad % laLFkk@2025@78 fnukad 27-01-2025

¶89

bjQku vyh ¼dE;qVj vkWijsVj lafonk½ mi ftyk fpfdRlky;] jktLFkku

¶90

fo"k; % eq[;ea=h fu 'kqYd fujksxh jktLFkku ;kstuk ¼nok½ ds rgr o"kZ 2024&25 ¼01-03-2024 ls 28-02-2025½ e lafonk e’khu fon eSu in gsrq nLrkost ekuo lalk/ku lsok iznkrk dks miyC/k djokus ds lUnHkZ esaA

¶91

mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd bl laLFkk esa eq[;ea=h fu%’kqYd fujksxh jktLFkku ;kstuk ¼nok½ ds rgr o"kZ 2024&25 ¼01-03-2024 ls 28-02-2025½ gsrq funs’kky; fpfdRlk ,oa LokLF; lsok;sa] jktLFkku t;ijd i= Øekad 1087 fnukad 15-10-2024 }kjk ,d vfrfjDr lafonk e’khu fon eSu dh LohÑfr uke dh xbZ gSA bl gsrq vkidks bTtk laLFkku ds i= Øekad % 2025@08 fnukad 03-01-2025 ,oa i= Øekad% 2025@31 fnukad 10-01-2025 }kjk vkidks iqu% volj iznku djrs gq, 'kS{kf.kd nLrkost bl laLFkk d ekuo lalk/ku lsok iznkrk dks izLrqr djus gsrq fy[kk x;k FkkA ijUrq ekuo lalk/ku lsok voxr djk;k x;k gS fd vkius 'kS{kf.kd nLrkost Mkd }kjk fHktok;s gSa ,oa ekuo lalk/ku vuqcU/k gsrq uk gh lgefr i= iznku fd;k gS vkSj uk gh dk;Zxzg.k djus gsrq izkFkZuk i= izLrqr fd;k gSA

¶92

vr% vkidks vfUre volj iznku fd;k tkrk gS fd vki bl laLFkku ds ekuo lalk/ku lsok iznkrk muk 'ks[kkoVh tufgr lgk;rk laLFkku] [k.Msyk ls 7 fnol esa vuqoU/k djuk lqfuf’pr djsA lkfo vfrfjDr LohÑr lafonk in ij e’khu fon eSu dh lsok;sa fy;s tkus dh fu/kkZfjr 'krksZa ds vuqlkj vkidk bl in ij lek;ksftr fd;k tk ldsA vki }kjk mDr vof/k esa vuqcU/k ugha djus dh fLFkfr bl in ij vU; O;fDr dk flysD’ku dj fy;k tkosxk ,oa vkids bl laLFkk ls daI;wVj vkWijsVj ds in ls vuqca/k lekIr djus dh dk;Zokgh izLrkfor dj nh tkosxhA

¶93

izeq[k fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh mi ftyk fpfdRlky; [k.Msyk ¼lhdj½

¶94

The petitioner, in his documents (annexure-11) mentioned a fact that his adjustments through service provider shall

[2026:RJ-JP:23]

[CW-2925/2025]

(12 of 13)

depend upon outcome of writ petition No.19597/2023. The material on record clearly indicated that the sole reason of disagreement was mentioning of writ petition No.19597/2023, which ultimately led to passing of order dated 08.02.2025.

¶99

The material on record is sufficient to draw a conclusion that the respondent PMO has illegally and arbitrarily terminated the engagement of the present petitioner on 08.02.2025; thus, the order dated 08.02.2025 is illegal, arbitrary, and against the settled norms. In the case of Jaggo (supra) , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

¶100

“It is a settled principle of law that even contractual employees are entitled to a fair hearing before any adverse action is taken against them, particularly when their service records are unblemished.

¶101

Engaging workers on a temporary basis for extended periods, especially when their roles are integral to the organization's functioning, not only contravenes international labour standards but also exposes the organization to legal challenges and undermines employee morale. By ensuring fair employment practices, government institutions can reduce the burden of unnecessary litigation, promote job security, and uphold the principles of justice and fairness that they are meant to embody. This approach aligns with international standards and sets a positive precedent for the private sector to follow, thereby contributing to the overall betterment of labour practices in the country.”

(13 of 13)

[2026:RJ-JP:23]

[CW-2925/2025]

The material on record is sufficient to draw a conclusion that the termination order dated 08.02.2025 is not only malafide but illegal, arbitrary, and liable to be set aside. The petitioner is entitled for reinstatement on the post of Computer Operator and further absorption on the additional post sanctioned vide white order dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure10), under the Rules of 2022.

¶106

In view of the discussion made hereinabove, Writ Petition No. 19597/2023 is hereby dismissed along with pending application(s), if any.

¶107

The writ petition No.2925/2025 is allowed against the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and order dated 08.02.2025 issued by respondent No.4 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner is reinstated in service of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and they are directed to absorb the petitioner against contractual post sanctioned vide letter dated 15.10.2024 (Anexure-10) under the Rules of 2022.

¶108

Since the order dated 08.02.2025 is illegal, arbitrary and issued, as the petitioner has insisted for mentioning of outcome of writ petition No.19597/2023 therefore the petitioner is entitled for backwages and other benefits, if available to the petitioner.

¶109

Misc. application, if any, is disposed of.

¶110

(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J

¶111

PREETI VALECHA /302-303

Irfan Ali S/O Shri Ishahak Ali v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Irfan Ali S/O Shri Ishahak Ali v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sayeed Khan S/O Ismail Khan Vs Anandi Lal S/O Nathulal

Dr. Devender Kumar Dev S/O Sh. Laxman Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Shankar Sharma S/O Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sunil Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Gopal Lal Sharma Vs Managing Director

Ritesh Gautam S/O Shri Sushil Mohan Sharma Vs Managing Director

Pradeep Kumawat S/O Shri Radheyshyam Kumawat Vs Managing Director