[2026:RJ-JP:15672] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6812/2026 Chetan Prakash Sharma Son Of Shri Krishna Gopal Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Vpo- Jodli, Post Sapotra, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Principal Secretary And Commissioner, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. (Raj.) 3. The Joint Secretary, Zila Aayojana, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Executive/program Director, Aravali Sansthan, First Floor, Ministerial Campus, Indira Gandhi Panchayati Raj And Gramin Vikas Sansthan (Igprs) Campus, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.S. Gouttam. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Paliwal on behalf of Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, AGC. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNNURI LAXMAN Order 15/04/2026 1. Heard. 2. Issue short notice to the respondents. 3. The learned counsel Mr. Abhishek Paliwal for Mr. Dheeraj Tripathi, learned AGC, appears and he accepts the short notice on behalf of the respondents. 4. The case requires final disposal at the admission stage. 5. The limited grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that the petitioner was appointed to work as State Coordinator E- Governance under Rashtriya Gram Swarajya Abhiyan with the respondents through an outsourcing agency. By the impugned order dated 06.03.2026 (Annex.4), the services of the petitioner [2026:RJ-JP:15672] (2 of 2) [CW-6812/2026] were terminated by the Joint Secretary, who is the receiver of the services of the petitioner, by treating him as his employee. 6. This Court finds that the petitioner’s employer is the outsourcing agency and if the Joint Secretary of Department has any grievance with regard to the services rendered by the petitioner, he can only request or recommend to the concerned outsourcing agency to consider his grievance and take appropriate decision thereupon. Instead, the Joint Secretary resorted to an action directly terminating the services of the petitioner as if the petitioner is his employee. In such circumstances, the present writ petition is required to be allowed. 7. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.03.2026 (Annex.4) is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the concerned Joint Secretary to make a request or recommend his grievance with regard to the unsatisfactory services of the petitioner, to the concerned outsourcing agency and at the same time, the outsourcing agency shall be at a liberty to consider the grievance of the Joint Secretary and take an appropriate decision thereupon. 8. With the aforementioned observations and requirements, the present writ petition is allowed. (MUNNURI LAXMAN),J 17-Mohan/-