Mahendra Singh S/o Amar Singh Tak and Kushal Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh and Daulat S/o Suraj and Surendra Bhati S/o Kishore Lal and Deep Singh Badgujar S/o Bhanwar Singh and Hans Raj Khinchi S/o Tulsi Das and Prem Prakash S/o Puna Ram and Naresh Gehlot S/o Mohan Singh and Jagdish Singh Rathore S/o Mangu Singh and Lalit Mehra S/o Gauri Shankar and Rajendra Gujar S/o Kishan Lal and Hari Ram Meena S/o Badri Prasad and Mahendra Gujar S/o Kishan Lal and Arun Kumar S/o Hans Raj and Raju S/o Bhanwar Lal and Santosh Chandel S/o Tara Chand and Shankar Lal Parmar S/o Mana Ram and Rajendra Kumar Parihar S/o Om Prakash and Praveen Singh S/o Madan Singh and Jitendra Kachwaha S/o Mishri Lal V. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi- 110001 and Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Paota, C- Road, Jodhpur- 342010

CW/3196/2018

AI Insights

The case involves a group of petitioners who were engaged as casual/daily wager labors in various offices of the Income Tax Department in Jodhpur. They were initially not allowed to mark attendance or perform duties after an advertisement was issued for hiring casual labors on a contract basis. The petitioners filed an Original Application (O.A. No.119/2012) which was allowed, stating that they could not be replaced by contractual employees through contractors. However, when reinstated, they made contradictory claims about their employment status and duties performed, leading to the Tribunal's decision requiring them to prove their employment to claim wages. The High Court dismissed their writ petition, agreeing with the Tribunal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 701135 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 09-04-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Assessee Lawyers: T C GUPTA
• Keywords: Contractual employees; Income Tax Department; Reinstatement; Wages; Casual labours

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3196 / 2018 1. Mahendra Singh S/o Amar Singh Tak, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 95A, Abhay Nagar, Magra Punjla, Jodhpur. 2. Kushal Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Maderna Colony, Jodhpur. 3. Daulat S/o Suraj, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ram Bag Scheme, Jodhpur. 4. Surendra Bhati S/o Kishore Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Shiv Mandir, Ratanada, Jodhpur. 5. Deep Singh Badgujar S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Maderna Colony, Jodhpur. 6. Hans Raj Khinchi S/o Tulsi Das, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kalal Colony, Jodhpur. 7. Prem Prakash S/o Puna Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Income-tax Colony, Paota, Jodhpur. 8. Naresh Gehlot S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 112, Baldev Nagar, Jodhpur. 9. Jagdish Singh Rathore S/o Mangu Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Maderna Colony, Jodhpur. 10. Lalit Mehra S/o Gauri Shankar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bakht Sagar, Jodhpur. 11. Rajendra Gujar S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 173, Ist C Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. 12. Hari Ram Meena S/o Badri Prasad, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Ghanti House, Rasala Road, Jodhpur. 13. Mahendra Gujar S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 173, Ist C Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur. 14. Arun Kumar S/o Hans Raj, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Prithvi Pura, Jodhpur. 15. Raju S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sangriya Fatak, Jodhpur. 29, Shankar Nagar, Jodhpur. 16. Santosh Chandel S/o Tara Chand, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kalal Colony, Nagori Gate, Jodhpur. 17. Shankar Lal Parmar S/o Mana Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 141, Shivsagar Nagar, Bhadasia Road, Jodhpur. 18. Rajendra Kumar Parihar S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 37 Years, Chamunda Colony, Mahamandir, Jodhpur. 19. Praveen Singh S/o Madan Singh, Aged About 33 Years, Hemsingh Ka Katla, Mahamandir, Jodhpur. (2 of 3) [CW-3196/2018] 20. Jitendra Kachwaha S/o Mishri Lal, Aged About 33 Years, Dabro Ki Haveli, Ajay Chowk, Jodhpur. All the Petitioners Are Working As Casual Labours At Jodhpur Under the Control of the Respondent No.2. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India, New Delhi- 110001. 2. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Paota, C- Road, Jodhpur- 342010 ----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.C. Gupta _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order 09/04/2018 1. Overlooking the defects notified by the Registry we have heard learned counsel for the writ petitioners. 2. The writ petitioners were directly engaged in different offices of the Income Tax Department in Jodhpur as casual/daily wager on 16.03.2012. The Income Tax Department issued an advertisement to take casual labours on contract basis through contractors. The writ petitioners claimed that though they reported for work they were not assigned any work and not allowed to mark attendance in the attendance register. They filed O.A. No.119/2012 which was allowed holding that contractual employees cannot be replaced by contractual employees through contractors. At that stage the writ petitioners did not press claim for wages to be paid for the period interregnum they were not (3 of 3) [CW-3196/2018] allowed to work and till they were directed to be reinstated by the Tribunal. 3. On being reinstated they filed Original Applications seeking wages to be paid and made contradictory pleas therein. On one hand they stated that they were not allowed to perform duties and on the other hand they claimed that they had worked. The view taken by the Tribunal is that if the writ petitioners were not permitted to perform works when O.A. No.17/2012 challenging termination was filed they ought to have claimed relief for wages as well. Noting the plea that the writ petitioners claimed to have worked the Tribunal has directed that the writ petitioners could submit the proof that they were working in the department by filing representations and if they could prove they had worked wages would be paid. 3. We find no infirmity in the view taken by the Tribunal. 4. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Mohit Tak "