Mahendra S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal V. Union Of India and Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), N.C.R. Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur and Director of Income Tax, (CIB), N.C.R. Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur

CW/6169/2010

AI Insights

The case involves Mahendra, the petitioner, against the Union of India and various income tax departments as respondents. The core issue was the potential removal of casual employees by the respondents to replace them with outsourced labor, purportedly to curtail expenses. The court referenced a prior decision (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1924/2011) which set a precedent against such practices, highlighting the arbitrary nature of removing long-serving casual employees without just cause. The court's decision reinforced the protection of these employees under similar circumstances, ensuring they are not replaced under the guise of cost-cutting when they have been in service for many years without seeking regularization.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803017 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1924/2011, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6360/2010
• Laws Referred To: General Finance Rules
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: NIKHIL SIMLOTE
• Assessee Lawyers: K S RAWAT
• Keywords: Casual Labourers; Outsourcing; Remuneration; Service providers; Contract appointed employees; Economic burden; Arbitrary removal
• Section: 178

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6169 / 2010 Mahendra S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal, aged about 27 years, Barodia Basti, Behind Railway Dharamshala, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Of India, through the Secretary to the Govt. of India, Minister of Finance Department of Revenue, New Delhi. 2. Director General of Income Tax (Investigation), N.C.R. Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. 3. Director of Income Tax, (CIB), N.C.R. Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur. ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.S. Rawat on behalf of Ms. Naina Saraf For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nikhil Simlote on behalf of Mr. R.B. Mathur _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Order 02/11/2017 1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly state that the issue of contract appointed employees under the respondents has been set to rest by a decision dated 19.03.2015 in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1924/2011 decided at Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur and thus instant writ petition be disposed of passing pari- materia directions. We thus note the operative part of the decision dated 19.03.2015. It reads as under:- “True it is, the Government of India under the office memorandum dated 23.11.2005 desired to curtail unwarranted expenses and further emphasised not to regularise casual labourers, but that cannot be a reason to (2 of 3) [CW-6169/2010] terminate the original applicants from service who are working on casual basis only and not claiming for regularisation of their service. The continuance of such employees shall in no case put any extra economic burden upon the employer. The persons who shall be employed through service providers shall also be entitled for same remuneration and the service provider too shall claim its commission, therefore, that will in no manner satisfy desire of the petitioner respondent to curtail expenses. On the other hand, removal of the respondent original applicants who are in service of the petitioners from several years shall be quite arbitrary as they will be thrown out of employment without any wrong on their part. The position would have been different if the petitioner would have been going to have regular recruitment against the posts occupied by the original applicants but that is not the case of the petitioner. The petitioner want to remove the original applicants from service just to have labour through contractor with a view to reduce expenditure but that object, as already stated, cannot be served as the applicants too are working on casual basis only. So far as Rule 178 of the General Finance Rules is concerned, suffice to mention that the mode of utilising services through outsourcing is always available to the petitioners but merely on that count services of the casual labourers already working are not required to be dispensed with. In our considered opinion, the Central Administrative 4 Tribunal, thus, rightly directed the petitioner respondent not to remove the respondent original applicants from service by another substituted employees under any guise or cover. The petitions for writ hence are dismissed. It is made clear that the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal shall be applicable only for those employees who were working with the petitioner on casual basis on the date of disposal of the original applications. No order to costs.” 2. We note that a batch of writ petitions lead matter being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6360/2010 was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur on 20.07.2015 incorporating the directions issued by the Division Bench at the Principal Seat at Jodhpur on 19.03.2015. (3 of 3) [CW-6169/2010] 3. The instant petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. (DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),C.J. JKP/M-55 "