1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1574/1997 Mohanlal Agarwal vs. Jaipur Development Authority, Jaipur & Ors. Date of order : 12/3/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Prahlad Sharma for the petitioner. Ms. Shweta Pareek for the respondent. ****** Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner way back in the year 1997 with the prayer that the order of his termination dated 1.7.1997 be set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate him in service and it be declared that their exist a relationship of master and servant between petitioner and the respondent no.1-JDA and the respondents be directed to regularise him and fix him in regular pay scale. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was actually engaged by the respondent-JDA and was working for them and under the supervision of their officers. It was these officers who actually controlled the working of the petitioner to put attendance and 2 require him to work on different places. The intermediary of contractor initially M/s. Modern Detective Company and thereafter M/s. Mosad Security Services was introduced so as to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate entitlements. The action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner is wholly arbitrary and unreasonable inasmuch as the work is still there with the JDA. Learned counsel referred to various letters of recommendations issued in his favour by members of the JDA and the certificates of experience recommending his services. It is contended that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Suresh & Ors.-JT 1999 (2) SC 435 and U.P. State Electricity Board vs. Pooran Chandra Pandey & Ors.-2007 (6) SLR 647, the services of the respondents are liable to be regularised because posts are available with the respondents and they actually were working against such posts. Ms. Shweta Pareek, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the fact that petitioner 3 was working through contractor was fully known to the petitioner. He has narrated this fact in para 3 of his writ petition. Learned counsel referred to the documents Annexures-16 to 19 produced by the petitioner with the writ petition to show that petitioner was engaged through various contractors and he was in fact their employee and not that of the JDA. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the judgement of Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi-(2006) 4 SCC page 1, no direction can be issued for regularisation of a contractual employee. Moreover, even that contract of service stood terminated long back and the petitioner was no longer working even through the contractor ever since 1.7.1997. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that the petitioner was engaged through the contractor and the services of the contractors were hired by the JDA. These facts are very much borne out from the record. In that eventuality claiming the relief of reinstatement and at the same time 4 also for regularisation in service is too far fetched. The judgement of Supreme Court in Secretary, Haryana State Electricity Board, supra will now have to be read in the light of the subsequent pronouncement of the constitution bench of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi, supra. No direction possibly can be given for regularisation of services of petitioner. His termination of the services was made because the respondents terminated the contract and no sufficient material data has been placed to show it was actually the JDA, who was his principal employer and not the contractor. I therefore do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/