Rajasthan High Court: In a bunch a writ petitions seeking various reliefs including continuation in service, declaration of continuous service, entitlement to minimum pay scale, and regularization as Airport Authority of India (AAI)’s permanent employees, a single-judge bench comprising of Sameer Jain, J., held that no employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and the respondent-AAI. The Court dismissed the petitions but encouraged the petitioners to apply for consideration in any future scheme for regularization/absorption considering their15 years long service, leaving the decision to the discretion of the AAI.
In the instant matter, the petitioners were rendering menial yet integral services to the AAI through a placement agency/contractor for a substantial period. The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs including continuance in service, declaration of continuous service, entitlement to minimum pay scale, and regularization. The matter was heard jointly with other petitions involving similar questions of fact and law. The petitioners claimed to have a vested right of employment due to their long-term engagement. On the other hand, the respondents contended that there was no direct employer-employee relationship between the petitioners and the AAI. It was argued that the absence of appointment letters and contractual agreements indicated the petitioners’ lack of standing in the matter.
The Court relied on K.K. Suresh v. Food Corpn. of India, (2018) 17 SCC 641 and Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1417 and observed that contractual engagement through a placement agency does not create a vested right of employment. The Court emphasised on the importance of formal documentation to establish employment relationships. The Court asserted that no backdoor entries for regularization can be permitted, and the decision to absorb or not rests with AAI. The Court stated that “Airport Authority of India is an extended hand of the Government of India and therefore, whilst absorbing and regularizing workers, no backdoor entries can be permitted. Rather, a due selection process in the public domain by way of an advertisement ought to be carried, in light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.” The Court observed that the petitioners’ considerable period of 15 years’ service could be considered if a scheme for regularization/absorption is introduced in the future and left open the possibility of future consideration for regularization with AAI.
The Court dismissed the petitions and held that:
-
No employer-employee relationship existed between the petitioners and the Airport Authority.
-
The absence of appointment letters and reliance on placement agencies/contractors indicated a lack of legal entitlement to regularization.
-
The decision to absorb or not, shall purely be of the discretion of the AAI, to be arrived at in exercise of “their own voice or freedom”.
-
Acknowledged the petitioners’ long service and left open the possibility of future consideration for regularization by the AAI.
[Hari Shankar Sharma v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Raj 746, order dated 14-02-2024]
*Judgment by Justice Sameer Jain
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Arvind Gupta with Mr. Sohan Sharma, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. C.S. Sinha with Ms. Kanika Wadhwani for Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ASG Mr. Krishna Verma for Airport Authority, Counsel for the Respondents
Buy Constitution of India HERE
