Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5318 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1032 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Verma And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Deptt. Lko And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Madhavan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Kumar Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 & 2 and Sri Ram Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 07.01.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition passed by the District Magistrate, Ayodhya so far as it pertains to the petitioners whose names find placed at Serial Nos. 1, 17, 19 & 20 of the order impugned whereby they have been transferred from one block to other block within the district. The order indicates that three of the petitioners have been transferred on the basis of financial irregularities and the 4th petitioner has been transferred on account of having continued for more than four years at one place. 3. Admittedly, the petitioners are all contractual employees. Their transfer is governed by the Government order dated 23.08.2023, a copy of which is annexure 4 to the writ petition. 4. The aforesaid Government order provides that the outsourced employees, to which the petitioners admittedly belong, can be transferred in special circumstances within the district by the District Magistrate. 5. Earlier the petitioners had been transferred within the district vide order dated 23.11.2024, a copy of which is part of annexure 2 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved, the petitioners had filed Writ-A No. 12090 of 2024 Inre; Ashish Kumar and 4 Ors Vs. State of U.P and Ors on the ground that in terms of Government order dated 23.08.2023, the competent authority to transfer them within the district in special circumstances is the District Magistrate and the said transfer order having been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Self Employment, Ayodhya has been passed by the incompetent authority. 6. Considering this, this Court vide order dated 18.12.2024, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the writ petition quashed the order impugned dated 23.11.2024 leaving it open to the competent authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and the relevant rules. In pursuance thereof, the order impugned dated 07.01.2025 has been passed by the competent authority i.e District Magistrate spelling out the special circumstances on which, the District Magistrate has found feasible to transfer the petitioners within the district. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed. 7. The grounds raised to challenge the said order are that in terms of the 20th meeting dated 19.03.2024 held by the Commissioner Agriculture Production, Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow, a copy of which is annexure 5 to the writ petition, there is an absolute bar of the transfer of the outsourced employees. Reliance has also been placed on various office orders dated 26.07.2021, 27.12.2021 & 17.03.2023, copies of which have cumulatively been filed as annexure 6 to the writ petition pertaining to there being an alleged bar in transfer of the said persons. 8. The aforesaid ground is not found to be feasible and a ground to quash the order impugned considering that a meeting which has been held by the Commissioner Agriculture Production and the office orders cannot and will not supersede the Government order dated 23.08.2023 per which the District Magistrate has been authorized to transfer such outsourced employees like the petitioners spelling out the special circumstances within the district. Thus, the said ground is rejected. 9. Another ground which has been taken by the petitioners is that the impugned transfer order is punitive and no such punitive order of transfer can be passed keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and Ors- (2009) 2 SCC 592 more particularly when as per the specific averment made in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, no Show Cause Notice pertaining to the allegations as levelled in the impugned order of transfer was ever served upon the petitioners. 10. The aforesaid ground as raised by the petitioners is also found to be not tenable in the eyes of law keeping in view the various judgments of the Apex Court as have been considered by this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Mishra Vs. Inspector General of Police- (2018) 5 AWC 4920 ALL wherein after considering the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra), Registrar General High Court Vs. R.Perachi reported in (2011) 12 SCC 137 and certain other judgments it has been held that a punitive transfer is not completely barred and a person can be transferred. 11. Even otherwise, the petitioners are all outsourced and contractual who employees do not have any right to the post and in case they have been adjusted within the district from one block to other after spelling out the reasons as to why it has been found feasible and tenable to post them within the district and the Government order dated 23.08.2023 itself having not been challenged consequently, no error is found in the order impugned. 12. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observation made in the case of Ajay Kumar Mishra (supra) after considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) are reproduced below:- "22. So far as the judgment in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) over which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner suffice to state that subsequent to the said judgment of the year 2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the matter in the case of R. Perachi (supra) in the year 2011 as well as in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) in the year 2009 and as such the aforesaid subsequent judgments would prevail. Even otherwise the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) was as to whether the High Court while quashing the order of transfer passed against the employee was correct in directing that he would not be entitled to the salary for the period after the modified order of transfer till the date he joined at the original place of transfer and was not a question pertaining to punitive transfer. Also, the order of transfer in the case of Somesh Tiwari (supra) is not reflected in the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently it cannot be said whether the said order itself reflected any allegation or insinuation or complaint against the employee concerned so as to have rendered it a punitive order of transfer." 13. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and the pronouncement of law in this regard, no interference is required in the order impugned dated 07.01.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Pachhere/- Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench