2025:HHC:10382 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.5865 of 2025 Date of Decision: 11.04.2025 _______________________________________________________ Satya Thakur …….Petitioner Versus Himachal Pradesh Horticulture Produce Marketing and Processing Corporation Limited ….Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Rahul Gathania, Advocate. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral): Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 07.04.2025, issued under the signatures of Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Marketing and Processing Corporation Limited, whereby petitioner herein, who is working as Computer Operator on outsource basis, has been ordered to be deployed in the office of HPMC, Regional Office, Kullu, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set-aside aforesaid order. 2. Precisely, the grouse of petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Hemant Kumar Thakur, learned counsel representing the petitioner is that petitioner, being outsource employee, could not have been 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2025:HHC:10382 2 transferred from present place of posting to Kullu, which is at the distance of about 250 kilometers. While making this Court peruse copy of agreement dated July 2016, executed inter se petitioner and respondent-Corporation, Mr. Thakur submits that at best, employee appointed on outsource basis can be asked to visit other centers, but in no situation, he/she can be deployed at other centers of respondent-Corporation by way of transfer. 3. Having taken note of the averments contained in the petition as well as afore submission made by learned counsel representing the petitioner, this Court called upon learned counsel representing the respondent-Corporation to have instructions vide order dated 10.04.2025. Pursuant to afore order, Mr. Rahul Gathania, learned counsel representing the respondent-Corporation has placed on record instructions dated 09.04.2025, perusal whereof reveals that though there is no definite policy with regard to transfer/posting of human resources/persons deployed on contract basis/outsourcing basis/part time, but memorandum of understanding has been signed with the agency responsible for supplying manpower and department to whom such manpower is supplied, whereby it has been agreed by agency, which in the case at hand is NIELIT, that manpower supplied by it can be transferred/deployed at some other agency by borrowing entity as per requirement. 2025:HHC:10382 3 4. Since it is not in dispute that petitioner herein is an outsource employee, transfer policy formulated by the State of Himachal Pradesh cannot be made applicable in her case, rather, her services are purely governed by agreement executed inter se agency responsible for deploying the petitioner and department to whom such manpower has been supplied. No doubt, as per agreement executed inter se petitioner and respondent-Corporation, as taken note hereinabove, there is no specific clause with regard to transfer of the petitioner from one station to other, but certainly in terms of aforesaid agreement, she can be asked to visit other stations, if it is so, no illegality otherwise can be said to have been committed by the respondent-Corporation by deploying the petitioner at its office at Kullu. Even if it is presumed that in terms of aforesaid agreement, petitioner could not have been transferred, that question cannot be gone into in the instant proceedings, especially when it is well-settled that issue with regard to enforcement of agreement, if any, arrived inter se parties cannot be considered and gone into the proceedings initiated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In this behalf, reliance is placed upon judgment passed in Kerala SEB v. Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293, whereby it was held as under: “11. A statute may expressly or impliedly confer power on a statutory body to enter into contracts in order to enable it to discharge its functions. Dispute arising out of the terms of such 2025:HHC:10382 4 contracts or alleged breaches have to be settled by the ordinary principles of law of contract. The fact that one of the parties to the agreement is a statutory or public body will not by itself affect the principles to be applied. The disputes about the meaning of a covenant in a contract or its enforceability have to be determined according to the usual principles of the Contract Act. Every act of a statutory body need not necessarily involve an exercise of statutory power. Statutory bodies, like private parties, have power to contract or deal with property. Such activities may not raise any issue of public law. In the present case, it has not been shown how the contract is statutory. The contract between the parties is in the realm of private law. It is not a statutory contract. The disputes relating to interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract could not have been agitated in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. That is a matter for adjudication by a civil court or in arbitration if provided for in the contract. Whether any amount is due and if so, how much and refusal of the appellant to pay it is justified or not, are not the matters which could have been agitated and decided in a writ petition. The contractor should have relegated to other remedies.” 5. Consequently, in view of discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no merit in the present petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is suffering from heart disease, as is evident from the documents adduced on record, this Court deems it fit to reserve liberty to the petitioner to file representation to the respondent- Corporation for her adjustment, if any, at the present place of posting or at the nearby station, within a period of one week, which in-turn 2025:HHC:10382 5 shall be decided by the competent authority expeditiously, preferably, within a period of one week thereafter. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly. While doing the needful in terms of instant order, respondent-Corporation shall take note of the fact that petitioner, who is an outsource employee is getting very meager salary, cannot be expected to move to a station, which is at a distance of 250 kilometers. Needless to say, authority concerned while doing the needful in terms of instant order, shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass detailed order, taking note of observations made hereinabove. Till the time, representation, as detailed hereinabove, is not decided in terms of instant order, order dated 07.04.2025 (Annexure P-2) shall remain stayed. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. p (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 11, 2025 (Rajeev Raturi)