Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sbcwp No.5739/11 - Bhanwar Singh & Ors. vs Raj.Tourism Dept. &Ors. on 18 September, 2014
Author: Vineet Kothari
Bench: Vineet Kothari
SBCWP No.5739/11 - Bhanwar Singh & Ors. vs Raj.Tourism Dept. &Ors.
Judgment dt:18/9/14
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
JUDGMENT
Bhanwar Singh & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Tourism Department & Ors.
S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5739/2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 18th September, 2014
PRESENT
HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI
Mr. Rameshwar Dave, for the petitioners.
Mr. Pradhuman Singh, for the respondent Department.
BY THE COURT:
1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition for the following reliefs:-
"(i) That by an appropriate writ, order or
direction the termination order dated 29.6.2011
Annexure 8 passed by the Respondent No.3 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents may kindly be restrained from taking the employees of the agency Jodhpur Purva Sainik Bahu Uddeshiya Sahakari Samiti Ltd., Jodhpur in pursuance of letter dated 11.03.2011 Annexure 4 and they may be directed not to terminate the services of the petitioners.
(ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondent may kindly be directed to continue the service of petitioner and the order dated 11.02.2011 Annexure 4 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(iii) Any other writ, order or directions may be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble SBCWP No.5739/11 - Bhanwar Singh & Ors. vs Raj.Tourism Dept. &Ors.
Judgment dt:18/9/14 2/4 Court thinks just and proper may kindly be passed under the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice."
2. The respondents have since filed reply to the writ petition and contested the writ petition. The substance of the case of the respondents is in reply to para no. B, which is quoted below for ready reference:
"B. That the contents of ground (B) of the writ petition are denied. It is submitted that the contract of the respondent No.5 service providing agency whose petitioners are members was not renewed in view of the policy decision taken by the department that the security guards be engaged on contract through local ex- servicemen registered societies. Accordingly, the answering respondents have proceeded to engage the security guards on contract basis through local ex- servicemen society, and this action of the respondents cannot be termed as termination as stated by petitioners."
3. The contractual employment of the petitioners, who are ex- servicemen and were employed through the respondent no.5 - Desert Hawks Ex-servicemen Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd., Jaipur, came to an end by Annex.8 dated 29/6/2011 of Tourism Officer of the Tourism Department, Jodhpur on the ground that the contractual term of the security guards engaged through respondent no.5 - Society came to an end on 30th June, 2011 and, therefore, the respondent No.5 was informed vide Annex.8 that the security guards SBCWP No.5739/11 - Bhanwar Singh & Ors. vs Raj.Tourism Dept. &Ors.
Judgment dt:18/9/14 3/4 may not be sent w.e.f. 1st July, 2011.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents could not have taken a policy decision for employing only the local ex-servicemen of Jodhpur and petitioners even though coming from Jaipur were entitled to be employed at the Tourism Centre, Jodhpur and some of the petitioners also belong to Jodhpur.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Pradhuman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Department submitted that there is no illegality or arbitrariness in the policy decision taken by the respondent Tourism Department and the petitioners are employees of private respondent No.5 - Desert Hawks Ex-servicemen Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd., Jaipur and since the contractual term of the petitioners came to end, the petitioners have no subsisting right to continue indefinitely under the said contractual employment. He submitted that though interim order passed by this Court on 1/7/2011 does not specifically directed to continue the employment of present petitioners but the respondents have some how continued the petitioners in the same position.
6. Having heard the learned counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the contractual employment of the present petitioners indisputably came to an end on 30th June, 2011. This Court finds no illegality or arbitrariness in the policy decision taken by the respondent Department to employ the security guards only through the local placement agency so that the payments and working is SBCWP No.5739/11 - Bhanwar Singh & Ors. vs Raj.Tourism Dept. &Ors.
Judgment dt:18/9/14 4/4 facilitated. It is also clear from the interim order passed by this Court dated 1/7/2011 that the Tourism Department was only restrained not to appoint any ex-servicemen as security guard but there was no direction to the respondent Tourism Department or even to the respondent No.5 - Desert Hawks Ex-servicemen Welfare Cooperative Society Ltd., Jaipur to continue the employment of present petitioners on contractual basis indefinitely. Even if on misconstruction of the said interim order the respondents have continued the present petitioners uptil now, that cannot enure to the benefit of the petitioners once their contractual employment came to an end, much less the respondent Tourism Department of the State of Rajasthan cannot be compelled to continue to take the services of security guards, who were employed on out sourcing basis through the respondent No.5 Society.
7. In view of the above, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned forthwith.
(DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J.
item no. 58 baweja/-