WP(C) No. 1097/2026 Page 1 of 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR Case No: WP(C) No. 1097/2026, CM(2871/2026) Uploaded on:20.05.2026 Abdul Hamid Mir and others …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Parvaiz Lone, Advocate. Vs. Chairman, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and others …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Sameena Altaf, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER 19.05.2026 1. The petitioners, through the medium of the present petition, are seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue and discharge their duties as Security Guards at the establishments of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) located at Srinagar and Sempora, Pampore Depots. A further direction is also sought commanding the respondents to regularize and continue the services of the petitioners. WP(C) No. 1097/2026 Page 2 of 5 2. According to the petitioners, the respondents, in order to meet the regular and continuous requirement of manpower, including security services for the smooth functioning of the depots, have been engaging manpower through authorized security agencies from time to time. It has been submitted that M/s Iqbal Hussain Rather Security Agency, has been entrusted with the responsibility of supplying trained ex- servicemen security personnel and allied staff for the establishments of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. It has further been submitted that the petitioners were engaged through the aforesaid agency and they have been continuously working under the supervision and control of the respondents at the respective depots without any interruption in service since the year 2023. According to the petitioners, formal appointment orders were issued in their favour by the authorized agency, wherein the terms and conditions governing their engagement were specifically stipulated. 3. It has also been contended that 14 similarly situated persons, who were engaged through the same agency, continue to perform their duties with the respondent Corporation, whereas the petitioners have been selectively denied permission to continue their duties, thereby subjecting them to hostile and arbitrary discrimination. It has further been submitted that this Court, in a similar matters, has directed the respondents to maintain status quo with respect to the engagement of the petitioners therein. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been engaged by respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Admittedly, the WP(C) No. 1097/2026 Page 3 of 5 petitioners have been engaged by M/s Iqbal Hussain Rather Security Agency which is not even a party to the present petition. A perusal of the letters of engagement issued in favour of the petitioners, copies whereof have been placed on record, would reveal that the petitioners have been engaged by M/s Iqbal Hussain Rather Security Agency and not by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. As per the terms and conditions of the letters of engagement of the petitioners their engagement is valid for a duration of eleven (11) months from the date of appointment or the date of termination of Security Agency’s contract with PSU, whichever is earlier. The copies of the identity cards placed on record would also show that the petitioners are the employees of aforesaid Security Agency and not the employees of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. 6. The question that arises for determination is as to whether the petitioners can claim a direction for the continuation of their services against BPCL with a further direction for regularization of their services. 7. As already observed hereinabove, the averments made in the writ petition, as well as the documents placed on record, clearly demonstrate that the petitioners are, in fact, employees of M/s Iqbal Hussain Rather Security Agency and not the employees of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. The petitioners have merely been deployed at the establishments of the Corporation as outsourced employees. That being so, there exists no relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, against whom the petitioners are seeking the reliefs prayed WP(C) No. 1097/2026 Page 4 of 5 for in the present petition. Thus, no direction can be issued against the respondents qua the service conditions of the petitioners. 8. The issue with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition in respect of the claim of outsourced employees against the State or its instrumentality, where such employees have been posted, is no longer res integra. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in Sarbjeet Kaur vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 22534/2020, decided on 25.01.2021, has held that a writ petition seeking relief against a private outsourcing agency is not maintainable. It has further been held that the claim of such outsourced employees against an instrumentality of the State for regularization of their services is not tenable, there being no relationship of master and servant between the two, particularly when such persons have been engaged through an outsourcing agency and are not employees of the instrumentality of the State. A similar view has been taken by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Joga Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 267 of 2024, decided on 19.01.2024, and in Pardeep vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 15531 of 2024, decided on 10.07.2024. 9. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and others vs. Mohammad Ashraf Bhat and others, LPASW No. 128/2018, decided on 25.05.2022, is wholly misplaced. In the aforesaid case, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India, as a special measure, had recommended regularization of employees working through contractors in NACIL, AAI and Hotel Corporation WP(C) No. 1097/2026 Page 5 of 5 of India as a one-time measure. This was done keeping in view the fact that those employees had rendered valuable services while working during the peak period of militancy at Srinagar Airport. The petitioners herein do not even claim that any policy has been framed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for regularization of outsourced employees or that the petitioners are similarly situated persons entitled to such benefit. Therefore, the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court has no applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10. In the present case, admittedly, the services of the petitioners have been engaged by the outsourcing agency, which is not even a party to the present writ petition. Merely because the petitioners were performing their duties at the establishments of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited does not give rise to a relationship of master and servant between the petitioners and the said Corporation. Consequently, the relief claimed by the petitioners in the present writ petition is, therefore, not legally tenable. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed as such. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Jammu 19.05.2026 Madan Verma-Secy Whether order is speaking? Yes Whether order is reportable? No. MADAN LAL VERMA 2026.05.20 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document