Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19587 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3650 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ankur Dwivedi Respondent :- U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (Uppcl) Thru. Its Chairman And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Shukla,Palak Sahai Gupta,Pragati Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Neerav Chitravanshi,Ran Vijay Singh Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Ms. Pragati Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Piyush Kishor, Advocate holding brief of Sri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned counsel appearing for Union of India and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties No. 2 to 4. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for opposite parties has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ petition by submitting that the petitioner is an outsource employee so he may not seek any relief by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further, since the petitioner has not been appointed by any State agency or instrumentality thereof, therefore, there is no relation of employer and employee between the petitioner and opposite parties. 3. On that Ms. Pragati Tiwari, Advocate has stated that the petitioner has preferred a representation to opposite party No.4, which may be directed to be decided. On that learned counsel for opposite parties has stated that since the opposite party No.4 is not an appointing authority of the petitioner, therefore, he could have not decided the representation of the petitioner considering his grievance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the case of the present petitioner may be considered in the light of judgment and order dated 20th December, 2024 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (C) No.5580 of 2024; Jaggo vs. Union of India and others. 5. Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties, this is a trite law the outsource employee may not claim any relief from the State or its instrumentality but his claim may be forwarded by the outsourcing agency, therefore, the prayer prayed in the writ petition to the effect that respondents be directed to absorb the petitioner as permanent Assistant Lineman in the UPPCL, may not be granted. However, for redressal of his grievance, the petitioner may very well approach his outsourcing agency, but no direction can be issued to the outsourcing agency under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But, it is expected that the needful exercise may be carried out by the outsourcing agency. 6. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of finally at the admission stage in view the aforesaid. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Reena/- (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench