M/s. Bharathi Human Capital Resources (OPC) PW.LTD v. The State of Telangana

Order

Respondents Pctitioner is a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2O13 and is an empanelled outsourcing agency authorized to provide manpower services to various Government depar[mcnts on contractual basis. It is their specihc case that it has been entrusted with the responsibility of providing outsourcing manpower to various ESI Dispensaries functioning under the Insurance Medical Services Department in Sangareddy District commencing ftom 2023'

2024. Thc said engagemenl \\'as rencwed for the subsequent 2 year 2024-2025, and Petitioner continued to ren( -r services unintern-rptedly during the entire period.

1. 1 . [1. is asserted that throughout ils tenu -, , Petitioner discharged its contractual obligations diligently arr efficicntly; no complaints \ rere raised either by thc r I partmcntal authorities or by the outsourced employees regarcli rg payment of salaries, statutory deductions, or quality o[ scn i :cs. On the contrary, tht' record demonstratcs that Petrtio r:r cnsured prompt paynrent of wages as well as timell r nittancc of statutory contributions towards Employees' Provick r t Fund and Employees' Slate Insurance, thcreby safeguardin1 lte interests of the outsourced workforce.

7.2. PeLitioner slates that prior to expin' r I (:ontractual period for 2024 25, it made a lormal App]i,' tion dated

20.O3.2025 sceking renewal of its outsourcing scn,,t rs frrr 2O25-

26. Along u'ith the said Application, Petitiorrr:r t:n<'loscd a Sr:rvice Satisfaction Certilicate issued by the .l : nt Director (Medical), insurance Medical Services, Hyderabad tertifying in unequivocal terms that the services rendered I ,r Pctitioncr durir.g 2024-25 were satisfactory and that thr'-r: u'ere n<r outstanding dues towards salaries, ESI or EPF cot r ributions as on the date ol issuance of the certificaLe. -) ,l It is further contended that upon consideration of

1.3. thc renewal application and taking note o[ the services rendered by Petitioner during the previous years, the District Employment Officer, Sal-rgareddy, r'vho is the Convener of the District I-evel Outsourcing Committce, issued proceedings dated 26.04.2025, recording that as per the note orders approved by the District Collector, Sangareddy, Petitioner was renewed for providing outsourctng scrvices in the District for 2025-26, subject to the terms and conditions specificd therein According to Petitioner, issuance of tl-re said proceedings created a legitimate expectation that its services would be continued for the ensuing year. Petitioner furthcr places reliance on the letter clated |a.O2.2025 issued by the Joint Director (Medical)' Insurance Medical Services, Hyderabad, addressed to the District Employment Ofhcer, Sangareddy, specihcally recommending continuation of Petitioner agency for the next three years. The recommendation rvas founded on practical and administrativeconsiderations,namelythatfrequentchangeof outsourcing agencies was causing disruption in payment of salaries and statutory contributions such as ESI and EPF to employees, and that continuity of Petitioner Agency wo.uld avor4 -"'/ 4 such hardships. It was also noted therein that l), t itioner had expressed its willingness to continue its services.

1.4. In support of its claim for continrr 1,., F,etirioncr relies upon G.O.Rt.No.3969 dated O9.OZ.2OO7 i;,ued b-v rhe: General Administration (SU.IV) Department, u.Lri.. r prescribes guidelines for outsourcing of supporting services irr (io,",ernment departments. According to Petitioner, Clause g(c) ( olttemplates engagement of outsourcing agencies lcrr a minirr L nr lteriocl of three years, and these guidelines continue to lr. tbllowe<l by Government departments even after formation rr] thc Statr. of Telangana. Petitioner contends that notwithstartrl rg tlte:rbove material on record, including the Service Satisfact r n Ccrtifit:ate issued by the 4th Respondent, reneu,al proct.:, lrngs dat tecl

26.04.2025 issued by the 3.a Re spondent u,ith rlLr approv:rl of the 2"a Respondent, and the recommendation I raclt, bv the Joint Director (Medical), the 2n.l Respondent a I rr rptly issue<1 the impugned proceedings dated 30.OS.2O2S r llott,ing the outsourcing contract for 2025-26 in favour. of the 5rl, Respondent. It is specihcally alleged that r lr, impugned proceedings were issued without issuing any notic,I to petitioner and without affdrding any opportunity of hea r ng, thcrcb-r, violating the principles of natural justice. \:corcling to 7 f Petitioner, the impugned action is arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia. Petitioner further states that even after formal I.5. expiry of the contract period on 3l .O3.2O25, it continued to provide outsourcing services in the interest of public admrnistration and to ensure that essential medical services were not disrupted. lt is asserted that Petitioner paid salaries and remitted EPF and ESI contributions lor the outsourced employees for April and May 2025 as well. According to Petitioner, this conduct evidences its bona fides and commitment, which ought to have bee n takcn into consideration by the 2"d Respondent while taking a dccision regarding conl inuation of outsourcing services.

1.6. With regard to the allegation relating to

unauthorized absence of one ou[sourced employee, namely Smt. S. Navneetha, Staff Nurse u,'orking at ESI Dispensary, Patancheru, Petitioner disputes the said allegation. It is contended that Smt. S. Navneetha had submitted a written application seeking maternity leave commencing from

04.1O.2024, and that the monthly attendance certificates issued by the In-charge Medical Officer for the relevant period recorded 6 her status as on maternity leave' It is asserted, thr: allegation of unauthorizetl absence lrom 29.O7 .2024 is conlrarl I record'

1.7. tt is also stated that upon receipt o[ ttLr letter d:rtcd

16.O5.2025 issued by the Joint Director (Mcci:rtl) allcgirrg unauthorizerl abscnce and calling for an explan€lti' n within 48 hours, Petitioner promptly submitted its ex I anation on 2l .O5.2025. In ztccordance with the contra( t lal clauscs governing rt'placcment of manpower, Petitioncr t placed t he said emplol ee to ensure that there was no r isruption o[ services. The replacement proposed was a(l(l( I ted by the authorities on 23.05.2025, thereby conhrming tl^ -rt the issuc stood resolvr:d. Petitioner therefore, states that th: zLllegation of unauthorizerl abscnce is factually-incorrect, leg'r lv-untenztble and could not have been relied upon to dcrr rencrt'al ttf outsourcing serviccs. By order dated 18.06.2025, this ( r r'lrt direr:tcd 2. suspension of proccedings dated 30.05.2025 issrLr cl bl Lhc 2n(r respondent - District Collector allotting outsoul irlg servit es and activities in favour of the 5d respondent. Respondent No.2 - District Collector Sangart'ddy 3. District, wlio is also the Chairman of thc I istrict lrcvel Outsourcing Committee, filed a detailed cot l ter afficiavit Y/ 7 opposing the Writ Petition. It is stated, the impugned proceedings were issued strictly in accordance wrth the prevailing Government guidelines, Circulars and instructions governing outsourcing of services at the district level, and only after due scrutiny of the applications submitted by all empanclled outsourcing agencies.

3.1. It is contended that Petitioner does not possess any vested or indeleasible right to seek renewal or continuation o[ thc outsourcing contract merely on the basis of its carlier engagement. The power to allot outsourcing agencies vests with the Distnct Collector as Chairman of the District l,evel Outsourcing Committee, who is required to exercise discretion based on administrative necessity, verihcation of credentials and compliance with applicable guldelines. It is further contended fhat although proceedings dated 26.O4.2O25 were issued in favour of Petitioner renewing its empanelment for 2025-26, no specific department or establishment u'as allotted to Petitioner under the said proceedings. According to Respondenl No.2, issuance of the said proceedings did not confer any finai right of allotment, as the process of verification of documents and scrutiny of compliance was still in progress. 8

3.2. During the course of such verificir k-ln, certain irregularities came to light with respect to the 1r nctioning of Petitioner agency, particularly relating to unauthor zed absencc of one outsourccd employee, namely Smt. S. Nir,, rr:etha, Stalf Nurse working at ESI Dispensary, Patancheru. It is :rlleged that the said employee remained unauthorisedly abser.t lrom duties for a prokrnged period commencing from 29. i. I .2024 and continuing till May 2O25, which, zrccording to Resp, ndenrs, ha<l the potential to adversely affect the functioning r I lhe Medical and Health services at the ESI Dispensary. 3-3. ln support of the above allegatior, reliancc is placed on the letter dated 16.05.2025 issued lv the Joint Director (Mcdical), Insurance Medical Service.s , Nachar:rm, Hyderabad, calling upon Petitioner agenc]. lo submit cxplanation rvithir.r 48 hours regarding the r nauthorized absence of the said employee. It is further stirr --d that thc District Employment Officer had sought thc r:xplanation submilted b\. Petitioner, but reply was awaited a. the rclevanl time. lt is further contended, petitioner has wrong., relied upon G.O.Rt.No.3!i69 dated 09.O7.2OOZ issued by hc General Administration (SU IV) Department. The said Gove- rment Order is applicablt. only to Secretariat Departments :r r c1 Heacls of 7 9 Departments located at Hyderabad and does not govern outsourcing at the district level. It is asserted that outsourcing services at the district level are govemed by G O'Rt'No'4459 dated, 27 .12.2006 and subsequent Government Orders' which clearly stipulate that outsourcing agencies must renew their licenses every year and that contracts are to be considered on an annual basis. It is therefore, contended that there is no statutory

3.1. or administra[ive mandate to continue the same outsourcing agcncy for a minimum period of three years at the district level' and Petitioner's claim to such continuation is misconceived' Respondent No.2 further asserts that the District Level Outsourcing Committee reserves the right to accept or reject any Application or tender without assigning reasons and also retains the discretion to enter into parallel contracts' as pcr the appllcable guidelines. Respondent No.3 - District trmployment Officer'

4. Sangareddy District, who is also the Convener of the District Level Outsourcing Committee, has frled a separate counter affidavit substantially supporting the stand taken by Respondent No.2. Respondent No 3 contends that all the actions taken by him were strictly in accordance with the instructions of l0 the District Collector and in conformity with thr Government guidelines governing outsourcing. It is ass(l ted, though Petitioner was initially renewed uide proce ( lings dated

26.04 .2025, further verihcation revealed irregu ii rities in the functioning of Petilioner Agency, particularl.r relating to unauthorized absence o[ the outsourced nployee, as = communicated by the Joint Director (Medical). Res rondent No.3 contends that such irregularilies warranted reccr sideralion of the allotment and j ustified the subsequent isr;' Lance of the impugned proceedings.

4.7. Respondent No.3 also reiterates, ) :titioner has violated the terms and conditions of the agreem: rt.as well as the tender conditions and that in such circu:r stances, the District Collector, as Chairman of the Commit t :e, was well within his authority to issue the impugned pro; ,edings. it is contended that Wril Pctition is devoid of merit anr s liable to be dismissed.

5. Respondcnt No-S the successful outsourcing agency, has also filed a detailed counter afhdavit rpposing the Writ Petition. It is asserted, it is a duly-empanellc r oursourcing agency with all requisite statutory registrations, ' -rch-rding PF, ESI, Professional Tax and GST, and that it has lrr en providing {,' outsourcing services to various Government departments in the State for several years. It is contended, the impugned proceedings dated 30.O5.2025 were issued after due scrutiny of all Applications submitte d by empanelled agencies and after following the procedure prescribed under the applicable Government Orders. Respondent No.S submits that it was selected on merit and eligibility and that no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the decision,making process.

5. i. Rcspondent No.5 further contends that continuation of Petitioner for multiple consecutive years would be contrary to the Government Orders mandating annual renewal of outsourcing licenses and contracts, and would result in denral of equal opportunity to other eligible and empaneiled agencies, including Respondent No.5. It is asserted that outsourcing contracts are not meant to be monopolized by a single agency and that fair competition must be maintained among empanelled agencies. Respondent No.5 disputes the applicability ol G.O.Rt.No.3969 dated 09.O7.2OO7 relied upon by Petitioner and asserts that the said Government Order was neither adopted by the State of Telargana after bifurcation nor continues to be in force. According to them, outsourcing at the district level is governcd by G.O.Rt.No.4459 dated 27.12.2006, t2 G.O.Rt.No.4271 dated 01.11.2OO8, G.O.Ms.l'l r.13 dated Ol.O7 .2014 and other subsequent Government '-' :ders, a1l of which contemplate annual renewal and do not provide for automatic continuation of an agency for three years

5.2. Respondent No 5 al r recommendations made by Respondents 3 and '; in favour of Petitioner demonstrates favouritism and collusi:: r, and that such recommendations werc issued ignoring the cl ims of other equally-eligible empanelled agencies.

6. To the counter hled by Respondent Nc 5, Petitioner filed a detailed reply traversing and denying t'-t : allegations made therein. The assertion that Petitioner has been continuously providing outsourcing services for ' rree years is denied. It is clarified that Petitioner was clr rusted with outsourcing services only for 2023-24 and 2O2'l 25 and had applied for renewal for 2025-26. The allegation 11 at Petitioner enjoyed a continuous three-year tenure is slated t : be lac tually- incorrecl ald misleading.

6. 1. With regard to the allegation of rnauthorized absence of one outsourced emPlovI :, namely Smt. S. Navneetha, Staff Nurse, Petitioner categ'r ically denies the same. Il is stated that the said employee h,t 1 applied for // r maLernity leave commencing from 04.IO.2024, and the monthly attendance certificates issued by the In-charge Medical Offtcer for the relevant period recorded her status as being on maternity leave. [t is contended that only the certificate dated

05.05.2025 shows her as absent and that the allegation of unauthorized absence from 29.O7.2024 is contrary to record.

6.2. Petitioner further states that upon receipt of the Ietter datcd 16-O5.2025 issued by the Joint Director (Medicat) allcging unauthorized absence and calling for an explanation within 48 hours, the Petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 27.05.2025. It is asserted that despite repeated efforts, the said employee was not responding and was untraceable, thcrefore, in accordance with the contractual terms, Petitioner replaced her with another candidate. When the first replacement candidate met with an accident, Petitioner proposed a second replacement, and the same was accepted by thc authorities on 23.05.2O25. Thc issue stood resolved and closcd and cannoL be treated as a subsisting irregularity. Petitioner relies upon the relevant clauses of the

6.3. Agreement governing outsourcing services, which permit maternity leave, deduction of remuneration for non-attendance, and replacement of manpower in cases of unavoidable t4 circumstances or unsatisfactory service. Petit:( ner strictly complied with the contractual obligations rt,rl cnsured unrntern-rpted services at the ESI Dispensary. Fc.itioncr also places reliance on subseqltent correspondenc:t l t}.rc Joint Director (Medical), including the letter datcd 13.06.2025, wherein it u'as stated that Rcspondent No.S hzrd rt:en allotted outsourcing scrvices in Medchal District for 2O').1 25 and t.hat outsourcing employees in that district had submit,r rl gt'icvance s alleging that thc services of Respondent Nr. r \\'cre not satisfactory. They refer to the earlier letter dal(( 11.06.2024 addressed by thr: Joint Director (Medical) to the District Collector, wherein it was stated Lhat employee5 rv rrking under Respondent No.5 in Medchal District had comp.t ir-recl of non- payment of salaries for several months and nor rredit of ESI and PF contributions, and hacl requested cr tngc of the outsourcing agency.

6.4. Petitior-rer lurther allcges lhat thcr-r are malerial discrepancies in the proceedings dated 30.05.2() 2 i reliecl upon by Responclents 3 and 5. It is stated that copre ; of the said proceedings filed by Responden ts 3 and 5 cli lle . in material particulars, including the number of terms :rr d con<litions mentioned and the manner of attestation. \ccord ing to r! ) I Petitioner, these inconsistencies cast serious doubt on the genuineness and authenticity of the impugned proceedings and indicate collusion be tween Respondents 3 and 5. 6.5. Petitioner denies the allegation of favouritism or monopoly and asserts that it has acted responsibly, ensured timely payment of sararies and statutory contributions, a'd continued services even beyond the contractual period in the interest of pubtic service. It is contended, thc action of the 2,d respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings without notice, despitc renewal proceedings dated, 26.04.2O25 and acceptance of replacement of manpower, is arbitrary and unsustainable. Petitioner therefore, reiterates its prayer that the impugned proceedings dated 30.O5.2025 be declared illegal and that the Petitioner bc continued as the outsourcing agency for providing manpower to ESI Dispensaries in Sangareddy District for the year 2025-2026.

7. Heard Sri Raja Sripathi Rao, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Thaduri Srikanth, rearned counsel for petitioner, learned Government pleaders for Labour on behalf of Respondents I ro 3, learned Government p]eader for Medical and Health on behalf of Respondent No. 4 and Sri V. Ravi Krishna, Iearned counsel for the 5d respondent. l6

8. Having considered the entire materierl i) r record:rnd having heard learned counsel on either side, it i:, :l.idcnt that the core issue that arises for consideration is whet I rr tltc action of the 2"d Respondent in issuing the impugnt:rL l)roccedings allotting outsourcing services for the ESI Di.,1 (.ns.rries in Sangareddy District for 2025-26 rn favour of Rcsp ,ndent No.5, can be sustained in law, having regard to the l: -ior reneu.al proceedings dated 26.O4.2025, recommendario.; madc by Respondents 3 and 4 and the manner in which .t. irnpugned decision has been taken.

9. At the outset, it is not in disputt: I I I r peritioner has been providing outsourcing manpower to ESI )ispensaries in Sangareddy District during the years 2023-211 L nd 2024 25. It is also not in dispute that the Joint Dircr t rr (Medi<:al), Insurance Medical Services, Hyderabad, issrr,,, a Service Satisfaction Certificate certifying that the scrvicc; r-cndered by Petitioner for 2024-25 were satisfactory and th:lt r lcre \r,ere no pending dues towards salaries, ESI or EpF contrilr trions. Thcse facts stand admitted on record.

10. It is further an admitted position th r thc Disrrict Employment Ofhcer, Sangareddy, who is the Cr r vcner of the District Level Outsourcing Committee, issued pror.r cdinqs dtrtcd {' .) t7

26.04.2025 stating that, as per the note orders approved by the District Collector, Petitioner was renewed for providing outsourcing services for 2025-26. The said proceedings were not withdrawn or cancelled by any separate order prior to issuance of the impugned proceedings.

11. The contention of Respondents that proceedings dated 26.04 .2025 did not allot any specific department to Petitioner and that verification was stil1 in progress does not dilute the legal effect of the said proceedings. Once the competent authority records renewal of an agency based on approval of the District Collector, such renewal cannot be rendered otiose by a subsequent unilateral decision without affording an opportunity to the affected party, particularly when the renewal order itself emanates lrom the same authority.

72. The principal justihcation put forth by Respondents 2 and 3 for issuing the irripugned proceedings is the alleged unaulhorized absence of one outsourced employee, namely Smt. S. Navneetha, Staff Nurse. Hou'ever, the material placed on record demonstrates that the said issue was not only explained by Petitioner but was also acted upon by the departmental authorities. Petitioner has placed on record attendance certiltcates indicating maternity leave, explanation ) t8 f dated 21.05.2O25 submitted in response to ttL, letter dated

16.05.2025, and the subsequent replacement of he employee, which replacement was accepted by [he competcrr authority on

23.Os.2025.

13. It is aiso to be noted, the contrrr:tual clauses SOvernlng outsourcing services, as referred to rv petitioner, specihcally remu neration contemplate maternity Ieave, c:duction of for non-attendance, and rel acement of manpower tn cases of unavoidable circ l r rs[ances or unsatisfactory service. The record shows t1t Lt. Petitione r complied with these clauses and ensured continul ! of serwices. In such circumstances, the allegation of unauLhot ized abscnce cannot be treated as a subsisting or unresolvr:, irre gularity u,arranting deniai of renewal, particularly witlrorr a rcasoncd determination or adverse hnding communlci: .ed to the Petitioner.

14. This Court is mindful of the settled por ition thzrt an outsourcing agency does not acquire an indefera: Lble right to renewal or continuation of contract. Equally, it I that administrative discretion, even in contracl must be exercised in a fair, transparent and r manner, consistent with Article 1 4 of the Constitr l well settled lal mattcrs, on-arbitrary .on of Ind ia. /' l9 When an authority grants renewal and thereafter, reverses its position, the minimum requirement is adherence to the principles of natural justice.

15. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that no notice was issued to Petitioner before issuing the impugned proceedings dated 30.05.2025. No opportunity of hearing was afforded, despite the existence of renewal proceedings dated

26.O4.2025, Scrvice Satisfaction Certiflcate, and acceptance o[ replacement of manpower. The impugned proceedings also do not disclose any independent reasoning as to why petitioner was found unsuitable, except a general reference to verification and alleged irregularities.

16. As regards the rival submissions on applicability of G.O.Rt.No.3969 dated 09.O7.2OO7 vis-d vis other Government Orders governing district level outsourcing, this Court is of the view that even assuming Respondents' contention that annual renewal applies at the district level, such annual regime does not dispense with the requirement of fairness in decision- making. The issue in the present case is not whether petitioner was entitled to automatic continuation for three years, but whether the process adopted to displace petitioner after granting renewal meets the constitutional standard of reasonableness. I 20 ,1'.

17. This Court has also examined the sr.r pc o[ judicial rcvie'*, in contractual and outsourcing ma[ters r: light of rhe principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supremr judgment reported in Escorts Ltd. vs. Comt 'ou rt in Lhe tissioner of Central Excise, Delhi IIt. The said decision recor3 rize s that the State and its instrumentalities possess a cerl . n rlcgret: of discrction in matters relating to award, reneu.al r r ttott rcnt:u.al of contracts. At the same time, the Hon'ble Supr.r I l,i (l()Ltrt has categorically hetd that such discretion is not ir judicial revicw and that interference under Artir l r m trne from ' 22() of the Constitution is permissible wherc the decision rn r is arbitrary, unreasonable, actuated bv <ing proc:css cxtraneous considerartions or vitiated by violation of thc ,rinr;iples of natural j ustic-c. 1 8. Applying the above principles to thc lact s of the present casc, this Court finds that the impugncrl proceeclings dated 30.05.2O25 do not represent a mere pol t i choicc or administrativc preference exercised at the thn,: hr>ld stage. Petitioner ha<1 already been renewed through procr:, dinqs da [ed

26.O4.2025 rvith the approval of the District Collc.. or, and the ' (2004) 8 SCC it3s 2t said renewal was followed by continued performance of services and compliance with statutory obligations. The subsequent clecision to displace Petitioner and allot the outsourcing services in lavour of Respondcnt No.5, without issuance of notice, without affording an opportunity of hearing, and without recording cogent reasons, falls foul of the standards of fairness and reasonableness emphasized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said judgment. Therefore, cven within the limited p.rrametcrs of judicial review applicable to contractuai matters, t he impugned action warrants inlerference by this Court. lg. The reply affidavit filed by Petitioner also brings on rccord material relating to the functioning of Respondent No.S in other districts, as well as discrepancies in the copies of the proceedings dated 30.05.2O25 produced by different Respondents. While this Court refrains from recording any final tinding on allegations of collusion, the existence of such discrepancies further underscores the necessity lor trzrnsparcncy and procedural fairness in administrative dccisions affecting competing rights of empanelled agencies.

20. It is also relevant to note that Petitioner continued to providc services and paid salaries and statutory contributions for April and May 2025 even after expiry of the formal contract 22 .f period, in order to avoid disruption ofessentiar rn: rrcal services. This conduct reflects bona fides anci was a relcvant consideration u'hich thc 2"d Respondent ougl.rr r hirve trrken into account rvhilc takrng a hnal decision.

21. Vieu,ed cumulatively, this Court fi; rls that the impugned proceedings dated 30.O5.2025 were is.; red in undue haste, without notice, without affording an o1 portunitr,, of hearing, ancl u'ithout proper consideration or lhc renr:rval proccedings clatc'd 26.O4.2025, the Servict Satisfaction Ccrtificatc:rnd thc subsequent compliance by thc petitionr.r in relation to tl-rc alleged irregularity. The decision_n Lr king proccss therelore, suffers from arbitrariness and r.io z tion of the principles ol narural j u st ice.

22. The Writ petition therefore, is :, lovued. The proccedings dated 30.OS.2025 of the 2.d Respond,: rr :rre her.eby set aside. R<'spondcnts 1 to 4 are directed to co,rir ue l)etiti.ner as the outs()urr:ing agcncy for providing manpo\A ( - st.rvices [o the ESI Dispensaries of Insurance Medical Services ir_r Sangareddy District for 2025-26, in terms of t1.r -- proccedings dated 26.04.2025 zrnd subject to compliance with e etpplicLble contractual c.ondit ions and sta[utory requiremen ts .*" 23

22. | . It is, however, made clear that this order shall not prcclude official Respondents from taking appropriate action in luttrre in accordance with law, after due notice and by following thc principles of natural justice, if any genuine deliciency or violation is established. No costs. '23. Pending miscellaneous Applications, if any, shall stand closed. / SD/.P. PONNA KRISHN SISTANT AR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1 . The Principal Secretary Labour and employment Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad. partment, State of

2. The District Collector/ Chairman,, District Level Outsourcing Committee, Sangareddy District.

3. The District Convener/ District Employment Officer, District Level Outsourcing Committee, Sangareddy District.

4. The Joint Director (Medical),, lnsurance Medical Services, Nacharam, Hyderabad.

5. One CC to SRl. THADURI SRIKANTH, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR LABOURS ,High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad . [OUT]

7. Two CCs to GP FOR MEDICAL & HEALTH, High Court for the state of Telangana at Hyderabad. [OUT]

8. One CC to SRI V. RAVI KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC] 9. Two CD Copies DAN GJP Vt' -- :--- - ;r-.0-i\1 '\ll 23ll' 'ct"\ r 2[zr ii , 't' HIGH COURT DATED:1911212025 ORDER WP.No.15572 of 2025 ( ) I 1 .,.-. ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (, -.,(A fw\ (k*g' '^'b\ *s*