[2026:RJ-JP:683] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5342/2021 Shivraj Gaur S/o Shri Satyanarayan Gaur, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Neelkanth Colony, Anta Dist. Baran, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principle Secretary, Local Self Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Anta, Dist. Baran, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.N. Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.P. Singh Rajawat & Mr. Aryan Jagrat for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 08/01/2026 1. Instant writ petition is filed with following prayer:- i) Issue appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby quash and set-aside the oral termination order from service of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.03.2021 with all consequential benefits. ii) And further the respondent may kindly be directed the services of the petitioner may be regularized and will be allowed regular pay scale as according to the other similarly situated employees of the respondent department with all consequential benefits. 2. While considering the writ petition at the time of issuance of notice, a coordinate bench has considered the submission of the [2026:RJ-JP:683] (2 of 5) [CW-5342/2021] counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working for 13 years without any break, but his services were terminated by an oral order. A coordinate bench has allowed the petitioner to continue to perform his duty on contract basis and restrained the respondents from taking any coercive steps. Thereafter, an application No. 1/2022 is filed by the respondents for vacation of ex parte stay order dated 03.05.2021. The writ petition is listed on this application and with consent of the counsel for the parties, is being considered on merits, we are considering on merits. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner is working in respondent department No. 2 and same is evident from experience certificate dated 10.10.2000 (Annexure 1). He also submitted that the respondent No. 1 has sanctioned certain posts in municipalities of Rajasthan including respondent No. 2. He further submitted that one post of Data Computer Operator has been sanctioned in respondent No. 2 office. He also submitted that the information submitted by respondent No. 2 clearly indicate that present petitioner is working since 01.04.2007 on contractual basis. He also submitted that the recommendation clearly indicates that the petitioner was recommended for regularization, but all of a sudden his services were terminated to accommodate some other person. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner has further placed reliance upon order dated 29.07.2020 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13091/2018 titled as Krishna Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and submitted that a Coordinate Bench at Principal Seat, Jodhpur has already directed to continue service of a person, who was contractually engaged with direction to not to replace [2026:RJ-JP:683] (3 of 5) [CW-5342/2021] services till availability of regularly selected candidates. He further referred and placed reliance upon judgment dated 22.01.2021 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3435/2019 titled as Dalip Singh & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and submitted that the petitioner is entitled to continue on post of Computer Operator. Learned counsel for petitioner has further relied upon judgment in case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Ors. 2024 INSC 1034 and Dharam Singh & Ors. vs. State of UP & Anr. 2025 INSC 998 and submitted that petitioner is entitled for regularization as he is continuously in service since 2007 and a post is available in the office of respondent No. 2. 5. The aforesaid contentions were opposed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents and submitted that the petitioner was working only on contractual basis as a contractor and not as an employee. He further submitted that there is a difference between contract of service and contract for service. He submitted that the documents on record clearly indicate that services of petitioner were hired as a contractor and he was discharging his work as a contractor. He further submitted that the petitioner was never engaged as a contractual employee and there is no privity of contract to show employment with respondent No. 2. He further submitted that if any post is sanctioned by the respondent No.1 then the recruitment will be held in accordance with rules and petitioner is not entitled to claim appointment on the post. He further referred AnnexureR-1 (cash book and ledger) and submitted that the payment was made treating as a contractor and same is evident from the voucher submitted by the petitioner. [2026:RJ-JP:683] (4 of 5) [CW-5342/2021] 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. 7. The petitioner has claimed to work as Computer Operator since 2007 till 31.03.2021 and submitted experience certificate dated 10.10.2020 (Annexure-I) issued by the Executive Officer, Municipality, Anta (respondent No.2). The petitioner has also filed certain appreciation letters to show that he is working in regular capacity in the Office of respondent No.2. The petitioner has also filed a letter dated 26.02.2019 (Annexure-4) along with tabulated information to show that petitioner is working on contract as Computer Operator in the Office of respondent No.2. 8. The respondent have filed a daily ledger book (cash book) to show expenditure along with vouchers to show that the petitioner was engaged as contractor for job work as Computer Operator. One more document (Annexure R-2) dated 01.03.2013 is filed to show that a tender was floated about work of Computer Operator and same was accepted by respondent No.2. 9. In rejoinder, the petitioner has placed on record, the information submitted by Municipal body and further deployment order of petitioner on various occasions. 10. Aforementioned material indicate that the nature of employment is a disputed fact but the respondent No.2 has treated petitioner as a contractual employee, whereas the document submitted by respondents indicate that the petitioner was engaged as a job contractor. The services of petitioner is continued in respondent No.2 Office under the orders of this Court. Whatever be the case, but the material on record is sufficient to draw a conclusion in favour of petitioner that without [2026:RJ-JP:683] (5 of 5) [CW-5342/2021] any sufficient reason his job was discontinued and this Court has directed to continue him till availability of regularly selected employee. Considering the period of experience and direct engagement, it is appropriate and justifiable to continue the petitioner till availability of regularly selected candiate. 11. The counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Jaggo Vs. State (supra) and Dharam Singh Vs. State (supra), but for that the petitioner is entitled to submit a representation to the respondents and respondents are free to take a call on the basis of ratio laid by Hon'ble Supreme Court in aforementioned judgments. 12. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition of the petitioner is partly allowed and the termination of petitioner with effect from 31.03.2021 is quashed and set aside, the petitioner is entitled to continue in the same position as he was serving in the office of respondent No.2, (before 31.03.2021), till availability of regularly selected employee. The respondent No.2 is entitled to take any action, if the petitioner commits any of the misconduct, as prescribed under the rules. 13. The petitioner is free to submit a representation in light of judgment in case of Jaggo Vs. State (supra) and Dharm Singh Vs. State (supra) to respondents and respondents shall consider the representation on the basis of claim of the petitioner in light of ratio laid down in aforementioned cases. 14. Hence, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5342/2021 stands disposed of with pending application(s), if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J GAURAV /30