Employer-Employee Relationship Can't Be Established My Mere Averment In Petition, Must Be Supported By Cogent Evidence On Record: Rajasthan HC

Justice Inderjeet Singh dismissed the writ petitions on the following grounds:

"Firstly, the petitioners have failed to establish their relationship of employee and employer with the respondent-State and only narration in the petition cannot be considered to be a justifiable ground to grant the relief prayed for, unless it is supported by cogent evidence on record as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of K.K. Suresh (supra); secondly, as per own version of the petitioners, they were appointment by the placement agency but failed to implead the placement agency as party respondent in the writ petitions; thirdly, the salary/ remuneration was also paid to the petitioners by the placement agency and not by the State Government; and lastly claim of the petitioners for regularisation in the State cannot be approved by this court as the petitioners were never appointed by the State Government against sanctioned post on regular basis, rather, as already observed above they were appointed by the placement agency."

Placing reliance on K.K. Suresh & Anr. Vs. Food Corporation of India & Ors., 2018, the court observed that the petitioners have failed to establish their relationship of employee and employer with the respondent-State and only narration in the petition cannot be considered to be a justifiable ground to grant the relief prayed for, unless it is supported by cogent evidence on record.

The court opined that there is no relationship of employee and employer between the petitioners and the respondents as the offer of appointment was given to the petitioners by the placement agency and the salary/remuneration was also paid to the petitioners by the placement agency.

Further, on perusal of the factual matrix, the court observed that the State Government entered into a contract with the placement agency for manpower and the placement agency invited applications for appointment on various posts on contract basis and after consideration, the persons like the petitioners were given appointment, as such it is clear that the petitioners' appointments was contractual, made by the placement agency, their salary/remuneration was also paid by the placement agency and therefore, the petitioners are not either contractual or regular employees of the State Government in any manner.

Facts

The Government of India introduced a scheme namely Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana National Urban Livelihood Mission for the purpose of reducing poverty & vulnerability of the urban poor households by enabling them to get the gainful self employment and skilled wage employment opportunities. The scheme started in the year 2014-2015 and has been decided to be funded 60% by the Central Government and 40% by the State Government. The respondents-state government invited bids from the placement agencies to provide manpower for various posts. In the case of the petitioners, the placement agency namely T & M Services Consulting Private Limited Mumbai (hereinafter to be referred as the "placement agency") was engaged for providing manpower at the State Level as well as at the District Level. The said placement agency issued the advertisement for hiring the persons on various posts i.e. State Manager, District Manager and Community Organizer, on contract basis.

The petitioners pursuant to the advertisement issued by the placement agency applied for appointment on the respective posts and after consideration, the petitioners were given an offer of appointment on the respective posts by the placement agency. Initially, the process was started in the year 2015 and the petitioners were engaged on contract basis on the respective posts by the placement agency initially for a period of one year and their term on contract basis was extended further from time to time. It has also come on record that taking into consideration the achievement of 100% of targets allocated under the said scheme, the term of said placement agency was accordingly extended by the State Government, thereafter the term of said placement agency was ultimately terminated on 15.06.2019. After the termination, a new tender was floated in which the placement agency, namely B.S.A. Corporation, Pune was selected, which entered into a contract with the State Government for the purpose of providing manpower on various posts.

Counsels for the Petitioners: Mr. Saurabh Tiwari Mr. Himanshu Jain Mr. Ankit Bishnoi Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta Mr. Rajesh Sharma.

Counsels for the Respondents: Mr. Anil Mehta, AAG assisted by Mr. Mehul Harkawat Ms. Archana Mr. Yashodhar Pandey Mr. Abhishek Paliwal Mr. Bhanu Pratap Saini Mr. Rahul Sharma on behalf of Mr. Rajneesh Gupta Mr. Brij Kishore Sharma Ms. Nitika Sud Mr. Ritwick Dave Mr. Shyogi Ram Sharma Mr. Shyogi Ram, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Lokesh Sharma

Case Title: Deepak Kumar Gupta & Ors. .v. State Of Rajasthan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 130

Click Here To Read/Download Order