[2025:RJ-JP:12634-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 202/2025 1. Sushila Devi Mahawar Wife Of Shri Shambhu Dayal, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Titarwara Kalan, Dausa, Rajasthan Working As Ward Maid. 2. Suraj Prakash Sharma Son Of Shri Badri Narayan Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Biharipura Chandrana, Dausa, Distt. Dausa Working As Ward Boy 3. Dimple Dhakar Wife Of Shri Bahadur Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 39, Keshav Nagar-Iii, Keshav Vidyapeeth Road, Jaisinghpura Khor, Jaipur, Working As Ward Maid. ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through, Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical Health And Family Welfare, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Sms Medical College And Hospital, Through Office Of The Medical Superintendent, Sms Hospital, Jaipur. 3. The Superintendent, J.k.lon Hospital, Jaipur. 4. M/s Nitya Enterprises, Ward No. 29, Tamoli Mohalla Jhalawar-326001, Through Proprietor. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Ms. Anita Aggarwal, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 20/03/2025 This appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 13.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge. [2025:RJ-JP:12634-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-202/2025] The learned Single Judge has dismissed the S. B. Writ Petition No.19201/2024 on account of a judgment passed in the matter of ‘Rahul Sharma & Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.’ in D. B. Special Appeal Writ No.1124/2022 on 21.10.2022. The order dated 21.10.2022 passed in D. B. Special Appeal Writ No.1124/2022 titled ‘Rahul Sharma & Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.’ reads as under:- “1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants. 2. The writ petition of the petitioners-appellants has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.08.2022. 3. The grievance of the petitioners- appellants in the writ petition was that they are not being paid minimum of the pay-scale and that the respondents State authorities are engaging them through placement agency even though, sanctioned posts are available. The petitioners- appellants in the writ petition also claimed regularization of service since they were working continuously from the year 2015. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants at the very outset submits that they are not claiming any regularization through the medium of this appeal but want minimum pay-scale of electrician on which post they are working. 5. Despite repeated request, learned counsel for the petitioners- appellants is unable to show us any appointment letter or the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioners- appellants. He submits that in fact respondents-State authorities or the placement agencies through whom the petitioners- appellants were engaged have not issued any appointment letter. 6. The learned Single Judge as of fact found that there is no privity of contract between the petitioners- appellants and the State-respondents. The petitioners-appellants, therefore, have no claim for any pay/salary or arrears of pay and salary as against [2025:RJ-JP:12634-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-202/2025] the State Government. Whatever claim, if any, accrues to the petitioners-appellants is against the placement agency. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 01.07.2020 of the Medical Superintendent and on its basis it has been submitted that the State is paying Rs.13,500/- per month to the placement agencies for the work of an electrician but the placement agency is only making payment of Rs.65,00/- and therefore, directions may at least be issued for the payment of the amount which is being released by the State Government. If that be so, the claim of the petitioners-appellants for releasing of the balance amount is against the placement agency and for which they can raise a claim before an appropriate forum. The writ Court or the appellate court is not the appropriate forum or the remedy for the petitioners- appellants for the above purpose. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners- appellants to take whatever other legal remedies are open to them in law.” We have perused the record. Since the Division Bench has already taken a view in a similarly situated person’s matter. Therefore, in view of judgment passed in the matter of Rahul Sharma (supra), this appeal is dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Tushar/46