SH.VIKAS KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER or not the writ petitioner is an employee of National Informatics Centre (NIC), a Department of the Ministry of Information and Technology, is a question of fact and as long as the decision dated October 12, 2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, deciding said question of fact, has taken into account all relevant facts and has ignored none which is relevant; as also has not taken into account an irrelevant fact, the said decision would be immune to a challenge under writ jurisdiction inasmuch as it is not permissible for a Writ Court to re-appreciate the evidence pertaining to the facts determined by the Tribunal subordinate to the High Court.

(2.) ALL documents i.e. the evidence on which petitioner places reliance upon has been considered by the Tribunal to return a finding of fact that the National Informatics Centre had required Mass Placement Consultancy Services to provide a driver on contractual basis to drive a staff car and that the petitioner was an employee of said Mass Placement Consultancy Services to whom NIC was paying the money as per the contract, and as regards the petitioner he was receiving salary from Mass Placement Consultancy Services.

(3.) THE contention urged before us that said communications would evidence that NIC appointed the petitioner as a driver, is premised on a non-appreciation of the communications between NIC and Mass Placement Consultancy Services. Now, if a man takes on hire a driver from a placement agency under a contract it is not that the man concerned would let any driver come and drive his vehicle. The suitability of the driver would be assessed by the man concerned, and said assessment cannot be read as an evidence of a direct Master-Servant relationship between the driver and the man concerned.