Rajasthan State Road Development … vs Piyush Kant Sharma on 15 October, 2020


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Rajasthan State Road Development … vs Piyush Kant Sharma on 15 October, 2020

Author: M.R. Shah

Bench: Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah

                                                    1


                                                             NON­REPORTABLE
                                   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3489 OF 2020
                                  [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 95 of 2020]

         Rajasthan State Road Development and
         Construction Corporation Ltd.                             .. Appellant

                                                 Versus

         Piyush Kant Sharma & Ors.                                 .. Respondents


                                                ORDER

M. R. Shah, J.

Leave granted.

2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim

Order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature for

Rajasthan at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1924 of 2019, the

original respondent ­ Rajasthan State Road Development and

Construction Corporation Ltd. has preferred the present appeal.
Signature Not Verified

3.
Digitally signed by
MEENAKSHI KOHLI
Date: 2020.10.15
That the respondent No. 1 herein was appointed as Computer
16:30:20 IST
Reason:

Operator on contractual basis. Respondent No. 1 – original
2

petitioner filed the writ petition before the High Court for grant of

regular pay­scale and to regularize his services on the ground that

he is serving the appellant Corporation for the last three years. It

was the specific case on behalf of the appellant Corporation that

respondent No. 1 was never appointed by the appellant Corporation

and there was no employer­employee relationship between

respondent No. 1 and the appellant Corporation. It was the specific

case on behalf of the appellant Corporation that the original writ

petitioner was hired through one M/s Sahara Supreme Security

Service, Jaipur. It was also the case on behalf of the appellant

Corporation that even there was no regular sanctioned post of

Computer Operator existed in the appellant Corporation. That,

during the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, another e­tender

was issued by the appellant Corporation for hiring the Computer

Operators etc. and the contract was awarded to one firm, namely,

M/s Rakshak Security (P) Ltd. for providing Computer Operators

and other posts for a period of 12 months. That, thereafter, by the

impugned interim order dated 23.09.2019, the High Court has
3

restrained the appellant Corporation from appointing new set of

contractual employees in place of the original writ petitioner.

4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned interim

order passed by the High Court, the original respondent No. 1 –

Corporation has preferred the present appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties at length.

5.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ

petitioner has submitted that considering the fact that other

similarly situated Computer Operators were continued and there

was a requirement of Computer Operator and, therefore, the High

Court is justified in passing the impugned interim order.

5.2 On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant Corporation that, as such, no

reasons have been assigned by the High Court while passing the

impugned interim order. It is submitted that in fact the original

writ petitioner was a contractor’s employee and there was no

employer­employee relationship between the original writ petitioner

and the appellant Corporation. It is submitted that even there is no
4

regular sanctioned post of Computer Operator in the appellant

Corporation and, therefore, the appellant Corporation gave the work

order to the contractor for providing the services of the Computer

Operator etc., the High Court ought not to have passed such an

interim order.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respective parties, we are of the opinion that the High Court has

committed a grave error in passing such an interim order

restraining the appellant Corporation from appointing new set of

contractual employees in place of original writ petitioners. No

reasons, whatsoever have been assigned by the High Court while

passing the impugned interim order. The High Court has failed to

appreciate and consider the fact that according to the appellant

Corporation, there was no regular sanctioned post of Computer

Operator in the appellant Corporation and that there was no

employer­employee relationship between the original writ petitioner

and the appellant Corporation and that the original writ petitioner

was a employee appointed by the contractor on contractual basis

and worked with the appellant Corporation on contractual basis.
5

As the writ petition is pending before the High Court, we refrain

ourselves from making any further observations on merits.

However, we are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances

of the case narrated hereinabove, the High Court ought not to have

passed such an interim order. Under the circumstances, the

impugned interim order passed by the High Court requires to be

quashed and set aside.

7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the

present appeal is allowed and the impugned interim order passed

by the High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1924 of 2019

restraining the appellant Corporation from appointing new set of

contractual employees in place of the original writ petitioners is

hereby quashed and set aside. No costs.

……………………………J.

(ASHOK BHUSHAN)

……………………………J.

(R. SUBHASH REDDY)

……………………………J.

(M. R. SHAH)

New Delhi,
October 15, 2020



Source link