Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Abdul Hamid Mir And Others vs Chairman on 19 May, 2026
Author: Sanjay Dhar
Bench: Sanjay Dhar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
Case No: WP(C) No. 1097/2026,
CM(2871/2026)
Uploaded on:20.05.2026
Abdul Hamid Mir and others
...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Parvaiz Lone, Advocate.
Vs.
Chairman, Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited and others
.... Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Syed Faisal Qadri, Sr. Advocate with Ms.
Sameena Altaf, Advocate
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
19.05.2026
1. The petitioners, through the medium of the present petition, are
seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to continue and
discharge their duties as Security Guards at the establishments of
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL) located at Srinagar
and Sempora, Pampore Depots. A further direction is also sought
commanding the respondents to regularize and continue the services
of the petitioners.
WP(C) No. 1097/2026 Page 1 of 5
2. According to the petitioners, the respondents, in order to meet the
regular and continuous requirement of manpower, including security
services for the smooth functioning of the depots, have been engaging
manpower through authorized security agencies from time to time. It
has been submitted that M/s Iqbal Hussain Rather Security Agency,
has been entrusted with the responsibility of supplying trained ex-
servicemen security personnel and allied staff for the establishments
of Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. It has further been
submitted that the petitioners were engaged through the aforesaid
agency and they have been continuously working under the
supervision and control of the respondents at the respective depots
without any interruption in service since the year 2023. According to
the petitioners, formal appointment orders were issued in their favour
by the authorized agency, wherein the terms and conditions governing
their engagement were specifically stipulated.
3. It has also been contended that 14 similarly situated persons, who
were engaged through the same agency, continue to perform their
duties with the respondent Corporation, whereas the petitioners have
been selectively denied permission to continue their duties, thereby
subjecting them to hostile and arbitrary discrimination. It has further
been submitted that this Court, in a similar matters, has directed the
respondents to maintain status quo with respect to the engagement of
the petitioners therein.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the case.
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have not been engaged by
respondent-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Admittedly, the
WP(C) No. 1097/2026 Page 2 of 5
petitioners have been engaged by M/s Iqbal Hussain Rather Security
Agency which is not even a party to the present petition. A perusal of
the letters of engagement issued in favour of the petitioners, copies
whereof have been placed on record, would reveal that the petitioners
have been engaged by M/s Iqbal Hussain Rather Security Agency and
not by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. As per the terms and
conditions of the letters of engagement of the petitioners their
engagement is valid for a duration of eleven (11) months from the
date of appointment or the date of termination of Security Agency’s
contract with PSU, whichever is earlier. The copies of the identity
cards placed on record would also show that the petitioners are the
employees of aforesaid Security Agency and not the employees of
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited.
6. The question that arises for determination is as to whether the
petitioners can claim a direction for the continuation of their services
against BPCL with a further direction for regularization of their
services.
7. As already observed hereinabove, the averments made in the writ
petition, as well as the documents placed on record, clearly
demonstrate that the petitioners are, in fact, employees of M/s Iqbal
Hussain Rather Security Agency and not the employees of Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited. The petitioners have merely been
deployed at the establishments of the Corporation as outsourced
employees. That being so, there exists no relationship of master and
servant between the petitioners and Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited, against whom the petitioners are seeking the reliefs prayed
WP(C) No. 1097/2026 Page 3 of 5
for in the present petition. Thus, no direction can be issued against the
respondents qua the service conditions of the petitioners.
8. The issue with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition in
respect of the claim of outsourced employees against the State or its
instrumentality, where such employees have been posted, is no longer
res integra. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in Sarbjeet Kaur
vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No. 22534/2020, decided on
25.01.2021, has held that a writ petition seeking relief against a
private outsourcing agency is not maintainable. It has further been
held that the claim of such outsourced employees against an
instrumentality of the State for regularization of their services is not
tenable, there being no relationship of master and servant between the
two, particularly when such persons have been engaged through an
outsourcing agency and are not employees of the instrumentality of
the State. A similar view has been taken by the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana in Joga Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, CWP No.
267 of 2024, decided on 19.01.2024, and in Pardeep vs. State of
Haryana and others, CWP No. 15531 of 2024, decided on
10.07.2024.
9. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on the
judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Union of India and
others vs. Mohammad Ashraf Bhat and others, LPASW No.
128/2018, decided on 25.05.2022, is wholly misplaced. In the
aforesaid case, the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India,
as a special measure, had recommended regularization of employees
working through contractors in NACIL, AAI and Hotel Corporation
WP(C) No. 1097/2026 Page 4 of 5
of India as a one-time measure. This was done keeping in view the
fact that those employees had rendered valuable services while
working during the peak period of militancy at Srinagar Airport. The
petitioners herein do not even claim that any policy has been framed
by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited for regularization of
outsourced employees or that the petitioners are similarly situated
persons entitled to such benefit. Therefore, the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court has no applicability to the facts and
circumstances of the present case.
10.In the present case, admittedly, the services of the petitioners have
been engaged by the outsourcing agency, which is not even a party to
the present writ petition. Merely because the petitioners were
performing their duties at the establishments of Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited does not give rise to a relationship of master and
servant between the petitioners and the said Corporation.
Consequently, the relief claimed by the petitioners in the present writ
petition is, therefore, not legally tenable.
11.In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be not
maintainable and is dismissed as such.
(Sanjay Dhar)
Judge
Jammu
19.05.2026
Madan Verma-Secy
Whether order is speaking? Yes
Whether order is reportable? No.
MADAN LAL VERMA
2026.05.20 17:33
WP(C) No. 1097/2026
I attest to the accuracy and Page 5 of 5
integrity of this document
