2025:JHHC:10273 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 967 of 2021 ------- 1. Golenur Bibi, wife of Muraja Shekh, resident of village Englishpara, P.O. Dharamkhanpara, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur. 2. Farukh Shekh, son of Md. Jainal Abadin, Resident of village Kanijhara, P.O Dharamkhanpara, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur. 3. Naimuddin Sheikh, son of Md. Mahasin Sheikh, resident of village Bahapur, P.O Radipur, P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur. 4. Fazal Shekh, son of Ismail Shekh, resident of village- Chaptura, P.O Dharamkhanpara, P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur. 5. Rokey Sheikh, son of Khalekh Sheikh, resident of village Chaptura, P.O Dharamkhanpara, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur. 6. Gulam Mehedi Hussain, son of Salim Sheikh, resident of village Chaptura, P.O. Dharamkhanpara, P.S. Mahespur, District Pakur. 7. Milan Hussain, son of Barjahansk, resident of village- Jagigram, P.S.and P.O. Jajigram, P.S. Murarai, District Birbhum, West Bengal. 8. Muraj Shekh, son of Mukul Sheikh, resident of village Englishpara, P.O.- Dharamkhanpara, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur. 9. Abdul Hai, son of Abdul Wahul, resident of village Kansadighi, P.O Malaypur, P.S. Maheshpur, District- Pakur. 10. Mizanpur Rahman, son of Sayeed Hussain, resident of Chaptura, P.O. Dharamkhanpara, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur. ... .. Petitioner(s) -Versus- 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Govt. of Jharkhand at Nepal House, Doranda, Ranchi. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Pakur. 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Pakur, P.O and P.S. and District- Pakur. 5. The Incharge Medical Officer, Amrapra, P.O and P.S- Amrapra, District- Pakur. 6. The Incharge Medical Officer, Maheshpur, P.O. And P.S. Maheshpur, District-Pakur. 7. The Incharge Medical Officer, Hiranpur, P.O and P.S – Hiranpur, District- Pakur. 8. M/s Shivlal Agency, At Jharna Colony, (Imlitola), P.S. And P.S. Sahebganj, District- Sahebganj. …..Respondents. ------ CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the petitioner(s): Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Advocate. For the respondent(s): Mr. Sarvendra Kumar, AC to SC (L&C)-III. ------ 17/02.04.2025: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing Memo No. 193/(C) dated 26.10.2020 (Annexure-4), issued by respondent No. 7, whereby in disobedience to the Letter No. Health Directorate/25 Bis-Nis 42/2020- 1813 (25) dated 24.11.2020 issued under the signature of the Director in-Chief, Health Services, Jharkhand, the petitioners have been disengaged from their services with effect from 1.1.2021. 2025:JHHC:10273 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed by the Civil Surgeon, pursuant to the notification issued by the Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand on honorarium basis, during the period 2017-20 on various posts such as Health Supervisor, Health Workers and Guards and were posted in different Primary Health Centre in the district of Pakur. It is also submitted that the Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Department of Health directed all the Civil Surgeons to ensure compliance about the availability of reports of service taken through outsourcing agency within time frame. Thereafter, the Civil Surgeon-cum- Chief Medical Officer, Pakur vide letter contained in Memo No. 1933 dated 03.09.2020 made correspondence with the alleged outsourcing agency to engage the manpower according to the sanctioned strength. Thereafter, the Director-in- Charge, Health Services, Jharkhand vide letter No. 1813(25) dated 24.11.2020 directed to all Civil Surgeons of Jharkhand to ensure compliance of the Department letter No. 528(17) dated 17.11.2020, whereby it was specifically directed not to remove any man powers from their work being kept through outsourcing. Thereafter, vide Memo No. 193(c) dated 26.12.2020, the In-charge Medical Officers of the community, Heath Centres of Pakur, Hiranpur, Litipara, Amrapara, Maheshpur, Pakuria were directed not to take works from the health workers and Supervisors being engaged at Primary Health Centres and Sub- Centres with effect from 01.01.2021 in light of the direction made by the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Pakur. Thereafter, the petitioners did not perform their work after 01.01.2021. The petitioners also filed their joint representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Pakur to consider their case, but till date no decision has been taken. 4. Learned counsel for the State by referring Para-8 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 4 to 7 submits that the petitioners were engaged in the Health Department at the District of Pakur as outsourced employee provided by an agency namely M/s Shivlal of Jharna, Colony Sahebganj and Raider Security Services Pvt. Ltd. Ranchi, thus, the petitioners are not the employees of Health Department, Govt. of Jharkhand. A supplementary counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5. Para 5 of the said affidavit reads as under:- “5. That it is also relevant to mention here that the respondent No. 4 has sent a letter to M/s Shivlal, Jharna Colony, Sahebganj, Jharkhand (an outsourcing agency through which the service of the petitioners were rendered ) vide letter No. 618 dated 20.3.2020 to take back the service of extra hands in compliance of para-5 of the letter of the Principal Secretary, Department of Medical 2025:JHHC:10273 Education and Family Welfare, Govt. of Jharkhand i.e. letter No.183 (6) Ba.Swa. Dated 2.3.2020 and para 11 of the letter of the respondent No. 4 i.e. letter No. 269 dated 27.2.2019 and in the compliance of the said letter of the respondent No. 4, said outsourcing Agency, M/s Shivlal, Jharna Colony, Sahibganj, Jharkhand, removed the petitioners considering them the extra workers but due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the petitioners continued their services, but in the month of November, 2020, the petitioners who were posted as Guard were taken back form their posts and in the month of January, 2021, the Health Workers were taken back from their posting by the Outsourcing Agency M/s Shivlal in compliance of the letter No. 6/P.-02/2020- 646(6) /Swa. Dated 15.09.2020 of Dr. Nitin Madan Kulkarni, the Principal Secretary of Jharkhand Government in which it was clearly instructed that the Civil Surgeons shall be responsible for the engagement of extra workers in excess of the sanctioned position of the Government and the petitioners who were in excess of the sanctioned position were take back as per the new rules and regulations laid by the Government of Jharkhand. The petitioners have received their due amount, allowances, etc. whatever they were eligible through the said outsourcing Agency, M/s Shivlal, Jharna Colony, Sahebganj, Jharkhand.” 5. After hearing the parties, I find that the facts are undisputed in this case. Respondent No. 8 being an out sourcing agency provided man power to the said Health Centres at Pakur District. The petitioners, were admittedly appointed by the said private organization i.e. respondent No. 8, namely, M/s Shivlal, Jharna Colony, Sahebganj, Jharkhand. Being the employees of the Private Agency i.e. respondent No. 8, these petitioners were working at the Hospital. 6. Since by the impugned order passed by the respondent authority it was directed not to take any work from the out sourced employee of the private agency i.e. employee of respondent No. 8, work is not being taken from them. The petitioners claim that since they were working, they should be engaged by the State-respondent and they should be paid their salaries. It is further submitted that since the petitioners were working in Government Hospital, they should be treated to be the employees of the Government Hospital. The counsel for the petitioners also submits that since the supervisory control was with the respondent-State, thus the claim of the petitioners should not be rejected. 7. From the admitted facts, I find that the petitioner were not engaged by any Government Agency. They were engaged as out sourced employees provided by respondent No.8. The relationship of employee and employer was between the petitioners and respondent No. 8, namely, M/s Shivlal, Jharna Colony, Sahebganj. Admittedly, the petitioners were not appointed by the State- respondent pursuant to any advertisement nor following any due process of law, because they were out sourced employees supplied by respondent No. 8. 2025:JHHC:10273 Even salary was paid by the agency to these employees. 8. Similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19648 of 2023 with its analogous case in the case of the Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra and Ors.), in which, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paras 6 and 7 of its judgment/order dated 17.03.2025 has held as under:- “6. ......…..... The issue whether the private respondents were employees of the appellants, is the crux of the matter. Whatever material has been placed and even the best point which was argued by the learned senior counsel for the private respondents before this Court was that since there was supervisory and jurisdictional control over the private respondents by the appellants, ipso facto, they would become employees of the appellants is noted only to be rejected. 7. This is not only a very simplistic approach, but also a totally erroneous approach in law. For a person to claim employment under any organization, a direct master- servant relationship has to be established on paper. …............” 9. In the aforesaid case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered similar nature of fact where an out sourced agency had provided man power to the Central Board of Secondary Education. 10. In this case also, there is no master-servant relationship between the State and the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners are the employee of private respondent No. 8. Thus, this case is covered by the judgment/order dated 17.3.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19648 of 2023 with its analogous case (the Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra and Ors.). As the petitioners were not the employees of the State, they cannot claim reinstatement/appointment in any post under the State Government. 11. In that view, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Anu/-Cp2 (ANANDA SEN, J.) AFR