Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 200644 (ALL)

UMESH SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

SPLA/948/2025 · 2025-10-14

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 948 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Devesh Vikaram, who appears on behalf of respondent no. 2. 2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against order of learned Single Judge dated 18.9.2025 by which Writ - A No. 14144 of 2025 filed by the petitioner-appellants challenging the order dated 29.8.2025, issued by respondent no. 2 to the outsourcing agency, through whom they were engaged, to transfer the petitioner-appellants to some other Division, as complaints were being received against their working, has been dismissed. 3. The learned Single Judge has observed that since the petitioners are outsourced employees and therefore writ petition is not maintainable. Additionally, it has also been held that by transfer of the petitioners from one Division to another Division, no such prejudice has been caused as may warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-appellants tried to submit that as per the order of Managing Director dated 19.4.2023, a person is entitled to remain posted in a particular Division for five years. The said period has not been completed by the petitioner-appellants and therefore direction for their transfer was bad. 5. The order of Managing Director dated 19.4.2023 is only in nature of guidelines in relation to transfer and posting of outsourced employees. The same are not of a binding nature, nor confer any indefeasible right in favour of any employee to continue at a particular place. It is well settled by a catena of judgments that in case there is any violation of transfer policy, the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sanjeev Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Devesh Vikram Umesh Singh And Another .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) employee concerned has remedy of making representation. The same can always be availed by the petitioner-appellants, if so advised. 6. We find no good ground to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. October 15, 2025 Jaideep/- SPLA No. 948 of 2025 2 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- JAIDEEP BANERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad