Full Text
Through: None.
Through: Mr. Saqib, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Ranjan Mazumdar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking employment with the respondent No.1/Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, Government of India. Further relief prayed in this petition is that respondents be directed to pay back wages with interest and all consequential benefits to the petitioner. 2013:DHC:1844
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner pleads that he was working with respondent No.1 since 6.6.2000, though the salary was being paid by the respondent No.2/M/s. National Informatics Centre Services Inc. Petitioner claims that he has worked for about ten years and he has received appreciation for his work. Petitioner claims that he was wrongly arrested by the CBI but ultimately the case against him was dropped and therefore the petitioner claims that he should be re-employed with back wages and consequential benefits.
3. Respondents have filed their counter affidavits. Counter affidavit filed by respondent No.2 shows that the petitioner was not employee either of respondent No.1 or respondent No.2, but of the contractor appointed by the respondent No.2 M/s. G.A. Digital Web Word Pvt. Ltd. Respondent No.2 has also annexed as Annexure-E the salary statement issued by the said M/s. G.A. Digital Web Word Pvt. Ltd. showing payments to the petitioner as its employee.
4. A reference to the documents filed with the writ petition shows that there is no employment letter filed by the petitioner or having been employed either by the respondent No.1 or respondent No.2. Merely because the petitioner was working with the respondent No.1 through the respondent No.2 is not sufficient to hold that petitioner was employee of respondent No.2 inasmuch as he was really the employee of contractor of respondent No.2.
5. In view of the above stated facts which show that petitioner was never an employee either of the respondent No.1 or of the respondent No.2, the reliefs as prayed for cannot be granted, and the petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J APRIL 11, 2013 Ne