Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 37028 (RAJ)

STATE OF RAJASTHAN v. DR. SONIA SINGH W/O SHRI DEVENDRA SINGH

SAW/578/2024 · 2025-09-23

Bhuwan Goyal, Inderjeet Singh

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 578/2024 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3331/2023 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj And Gramin Vikas Sansthan, (State Institute Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj), Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Director. ----Appellants Versus 1. Dr. Sonia Singh W/o Shri Devendra Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Villa No. 78, Okay Plus Exotica, Sushant City-I, Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Priyanka Sharma D/o Raghuveer Prasad Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot E-154, Prem Nagar, Jhotwara, Jaipur. 3. Aravali (Association For Rural Advancement Through Voluntary Action And Legal Involvement), (Established By Government Of Rajasthan), First Floor, Ministerial Campus, Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj And Gramin Vikas Sansthan (Igprs) Campus, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through Program Director. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with Ms. Divya Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Akshay Bhardwaj Mr. Manish Kumar Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 23/09/2025 (2 of 3) [SAW-578/2024] This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 13.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the interim application filed on behalf of the original petitioners with regard to payment of due salary was allowed. Counsel for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has allowed only one prayer of the writ petition with regard to payment of due salary on the interim application submitted by the original petitioners whereas the consideration on the another prayer with regard to their termination is still pending before the learned Single Judge in the pending writ petition. Counsel further submits that the original petitioners were engaged through placement agency and there is no relationship of employer and employee between the original petitioners and the State. Counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that the respondents-original petitioners have a right to receive the due salary from the State. Heard counsel for the parties 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 Supreme Court Cases 641 wherein para No.7, has held as under:- “7. In the first place, the Appellants failed to adduce any evidence to prove existence of any relationship between them and the FCI; Second, when the documents on record showed that the Appellants were appointed by the FCI Head Load Workers Co-Operative Society but not by the 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 the FCI; Third, the FCI was able to prove with the aid of evidence that the (3 of 3) [SAW-578/2024] 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 the FCI and how and on what basis they claimed to be in the employment of the 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.” In our considered view, the present appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be allowed for the reasons; firstly, there was no relationship of employee and employer between the original petitioners and the State as the original petitioners were engaged through placement agency; secondly, the writ petition with regard to termination and consequential benefits is still pending before the learned Single Judge. In that view of the matter, this special appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 13.05.2024 is set aside. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge is requested to decide the pending writ petition expeditiously. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /88