Full Judgment Text
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
O R D E R
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. That the respondent No. 1 herein was appointed as Computer
Digitally signed by
MEENAKSHI KOHLI
Date: 2020.10.15
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