Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20012 Court No. - 3 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3699 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pardeep Narayan Alias Pradeep Narayan Shukla And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Housing And Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Mishra,Mool Shankar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sampurna Nand Shukla Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Shri Mool Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Sri Pankaj Shukla, holding brief of Shri Sampurna Nand Shukla, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 6. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to opposite party no.7 is hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed the following relief:- "I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the petitioners transfer placed at serial no. 3 & 5 in order dated 21.02.2025 (contained in annexure no. 1) issued by the opposite party no. 5 and order dated 27.03.2025 (contained in annexure no. 2) issued by opposite party no. 6, in the interest of justice. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding/directing the opposite parties to quash the transfer of petitioners in any office of U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad situated in Gaziabad." 4. At the very out set, Sri Pankaj Shukla has raised an objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition by submitting that the petitioners are outsourced employees of their Outsourcing Agency i.e. opposite party no.7 and the outsourced employees may not seek execution of their rights by filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Shri Shukla has further submitted that there is no service agreement/contract of the petitioners with the State or the State instrumentality and the petitioners may raise their claim to their Outsourcing Agency. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the specific guidelines being issued by means of Government Order dated 25.08.2020 by the Additional Chief Secretary of the concerned department providing the service conditions of outsourced employees wherein the condition in Para-2 (3), it has been categorically indicated that the place of outsourced employees may not be changed by the Outsourcing Agency, unless such outsourced employee commits any misconduct. The condition 2 (4) further provided that the continuity of service of the outsourced employee shall be maintained.The copy of Government Order dated 25.08.2020 is taken on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure no.3, which is an order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the Assistant Housing Commissioner, U.P. Awas Evam Vikas Parishad, Lucknow shifting the petitioner no.1 from Ghaziabad to Meerut and petitioner no.2 from Ghaziabad to Bagpat. 7. Learned counsel has stated that since the aforesaid order dated 20.02.2025 could not have been passed by the Assistant Housing Commissioner as that order could have been passed only by Outsourcing Agency, therefore, subsequent letter dated 21.01.2025 (Annexure no.1) has been issued by the Chief Administrative Officer to Outsourcing Agency, asking to change the place of 16 outsourced employees including the petitioners. 8. Learned counsel has stated that the list of 16 employees is the same which has been issued on 20.02.2025 ( Annexure no.3). Pursuant to aforesaid the letter, the Outsourcing Agency has issued a letter dated 21.02.2025 (Annxure No.1) whereby the direction of Chief Administrative Officer has been accepted as it is. 9. Leaned counsel has stated that the Government Order dated 25.08.2020 (supra) protect the interest of outsourced employees then no order changing the place of the petitioners could have been passed either by the Department itself or by the Outsourcing Agency. 10. Learned counsel has also submitted that since the petitioners are discharging their duties at Ghaziabad for the last three years,therefore, if they are transferred in a mid-session, their family members may suffer irreparably. 11. Learned counsel has further submitted that the grievance of the petitioners may be reconsidered particularly in the light of fact that mid-sessions transfer may likely to effect the petitioners. 12. Be that as it may, the law is trite that the outsourced employees has got no legal rights to approach the writ court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as the rights of outsourced employee may not be executed by writ jurisdiction. However, the Government Order has been issued by the Additional Chief Secretary of the concerned department on 25.08.2020, protecting the interest of the outsourced employees and if such protection is violated by the Outsourcing Agency at the behest of the department where those employees are discharging their duties, the remedy available to the petitioners is to approach such Outsourcing Agency and that Outsourcing Agency may take appropriate steps protecting the interest of the petitioners in the light of the Government Order dated 25.08.2020. 13. In the present case, the petitioners have been shifted from one place to another place by their Outsourcing Agency, though at the behest of the department but there is no direct agreement/contract of the petitioners with the department in question, therefore, the department may not be directed to protect the interest of the petitioners, but if the petitioners approach their Outsourcing Agency, seeking protection in terms of the Government Order dated 25.08.2020 and their Outsourcing Agency makes correspondence with the department, any appropriate decision may be taken.Though, shifting from one place to another place may be an incident of service but if there is any specific mobility/condition to that effect for shifting or not shifting outsourcing employee from one place to another place that mobility/condition should be taken into account. Besides, shifting of any employee in mid-session may also create some difficulties ,therefore, such grievance of the petitioners may be considered in a positive manner. 14. Therefore, without entering into the merit of the issue, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage giving liberty to the petitioners to approach their Outsourcing Agency by moving representation for seeking protection in terms of the Government Order dated 25.02.2020 (supra) within a period of 15 days from today, taking all pleas and grounds and enclosing therewith copies of relevant document etc. which are necessary for disposal of the grievance of the petitioners. Such grievance of the petitioners would be considered by their Outsourcing Agency, which may be forwarded to the competent authority of the department, so that any appropriate decision may be taken in the case of the petitioners with expedition, preferably within a period of one month. It is needless to say that since the merits of the case has not been considered and this order has been passed considering the Government Order dated 25.08.2020 (supra), therefore, Outsourcing Agency may take appropriate steps independently strictly in accordance with law. . (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Order Date :- 9.4.2025 dk/ Digitally signed by :- DEVENDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench