[2025:RJ-JP:47759-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1232/2022 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6924/2021 1. Kamlesh Bunkar W/o Shri Gopal Lal, aged about 41 Years, R/o House No. 16, Behind Airforce School, Gurjar Ghati, Amer Road, Jaipur. 2. Naval Kishore Koli S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Koli, aged about 44 Years, R/o House No. 436, Kala Hanuman, Kacchi Basti, Behind Golimar Garden, Amer Road, Jal Mahal, Jaipur. 3. Nathu Singh S/o Shri Bhairu Lal Gurjar, aged about 35 Years, R/o House No. 390, Kagadiwada, Opp. Shamshan Ghat, Ramgarh Mode, Amer Road, Jaipur. 4. Banti Swami S/o Shri Pappu Swami, aged about 29 Years, R/o 289, Shivaji Nagar Kacchi Basti, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. 5. Sanwar Khan S/o Shri Kayum Khan, aged about 37 Years, R/o 2286, Pilu Ka Chowk, Paharganj, Ghatgate, Jaipur. 6. Balveer Navriya S/o Shri Raju Navriya, aged about 32 Years, R/o House No. 490, Mandi Khatikan, Char Darwaja Bahar, Talai Chowk, Jaipur. 7. Shankar Lal Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Meena, aged about 47 Years, R/o Teela No. 1, Near Keshra Ki Hotel, Jawahar Nagar, Kacchi Basti, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of Medical and Health Services, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Director, Medical and Health Service, Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Principal and Controller, Sawai Man Singh Medical College, Jaipur. 4. Medical Superintendent, SMS Hospital, Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav, AAG HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 25/11/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:47759-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-1232/2022] 1. Application No.1041/2025 has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the special appeal. 2. For the grounds mentioned in the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, delay is condoned. 3. Application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act is accordingly, allowed. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal (writ) is no more res integra as same stands finally adjudicated by this Court in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1124/2022, wherein the judgment dated 17.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge was examined and the Court relied on the judgment passed by 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, it 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 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." 5. The Court further relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd. Vs. Piyush Kant [2025:RJ-JP:47759-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-1232/2022] Sharma reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 842 in para 8, has held as under:- "8. 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 employer-employee relationship between the original writ Petitioner änd the Appellant Corporation and that the original writ Petitioner was an employee appointed by the contractor on contractual basis and worked with the Appellant Corporation on contractual basis. 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." 6. In view of the above, present appeal (writ) is also dismissed with the same liberty as above. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ DEEPA /37