High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. The state of relangana, Rep. by its Principal secretary, #altn, Medical and Family Welfare Department, Secretariat Birildings, Hyderabad.

2. The District Collector, Suryapet District. 3. The District collector and chairman, District outsourcing Committee, Suryapet, Suryapet District.

4. The District Employment officer, District Employment E*change, suryapet District.

5. The Assistant commissioner of Labour, Suryapet, suryapet District. 6- The Medical superintendent, Government General Hospitar, suryapet, Suryapet District.

7. The scheduled Caste Development officer, suryapet, suryapet District. 8. The District coordinator, Hospital services, suryapet, suryapet District. L The District Panchayat Officer, Suryapet, Suryapet District.

10.The Chief Engineer, lrrigation and CAD Department, Suryapet, Suryapet District.

11.The District Panchayat Raj, Engineering Department (PlU), Suryapet, Suryapet District, Rep. by Executive Engineer- l2.Mahatma Jyothibha Phule B.C. Welfare Residential lnstitutions, Suryapet District, Rep. by District Coordinator.

13. The Asst. Pay and Accounts Officer, Accounts Department, Suryapet District.

14.The District Fisheries Officer, Suryapet, Suryapet District-

15. The T.G. Social Welfare Residential Educational lnstitutions, Suryapet District, Rep. by District Coordinator.

16.The District Medical Health Officer, Suryapet, Suryapet District. . ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly, in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing lVtemo No.C5/2052-3t2025, dated 03.09.2025 directing the official respondents not to prepare the bills in respect of the salaries of the petitioners outsourcing agencies, who are working in various Government Departments of Suryapet District since 01.04.2025, as illegal, arbitrary and against to the principles of natural justice and violation of guidelines framed under G.O.Rt.No.4459, dated 27.122006 as well as G.O.Rt.No.4271, dated 01.11.2008 and violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21of the Constitution of tndia and consequently totet aside the Memo No.C5/2052-312025, dated 03.09.2025 of the 2nd respondent in respect of the petitioners outsourcing employees salaries from 01.O4.2025, thereby direct the official respondents to release the budget payable to the petitioners employees forthwith. * i. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition underSection 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the Memo No.C5/2052-312025, dated 03.09.2025 of the 2nd respondent in respect of the petitioners agencies employees salaries from 01.04.2025, thereby direct the official respondents to release the budget payable to the petitioners agencies forthwith, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Gounsel for the Petitioner: SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel for the Respondents No.1,6,8&16: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW Counsel for the Respondents No.2 : GP FOR REVENUE Couniel for the Respondents No.3TO5 : GP FOR LABOUR Counsel for the Respondents No.7 : GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE Counsel for the Respondents No.9 : GP FOR PANCHAYATH RAJ Counsel for the Respondents No.l0&11 : GP FOR IRRIGATION Counse! for the Respondents No.12&15 : SRI M.JANGAIAH, SC FOR BC WELFARE Counsel for the Respondents No.l3 : GP FOR FTNANCE Counsel for the Respondents No.14 : GP FOR FISHERIES The Court made the following: ORDER g ,l r"i HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO. 26925 OF 2O25 ORDER: Petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the 2"d respondent - District Collector, Suryapet District in issuing Memo No. CS]2O52-312O25, dated O3.O}.2O25, directing the official respondents not to prepare or process the salary bills pertaining to the outsourcing employees engaged through petitioners who are working in various Government Departments of Suryapet District. Petitioners contend that such action is illegal, arbitrary, violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the guidelines framed under G.O.Rt.No.4459, dated 27.L2.2OO6 and G.O.Rt.Nct.427 1, dated O 1. 1 1 .2OO8 as well as Articles 14, 19 and 2l of the Constitution o[ India.

2. Petitioners submit that they are registered outsourcing service providers, each holding valid and subsisting registrations issued by the competent authorities under the relevant statutory enactments governing employment, labour and establishment activities. The 1st petitioner is a registered cooperative societ5r bearing Registration No. 7O8|TH, the )ttd registered under No. petitioner is a SEA/SURIALOISP/53293 l2OL7 and the 3'd petitioner is a 2 proprietary concern registered under No. SEA/SUR/ALO/SP I OL59747 l2Ol9. All the petitioners possess valid licences to undertake manpower and outsourcing services and have periodically renewed the same without default.

2.L. Petitioners state that they have been continuously providing outsourcing and contract manpower to various Government Departments within Suryapet Disirict for several years including the offices of the District Collector, District Medical & Health oflicer, Government General Hospital, Panchayat Raj Engineering Department, Fisheries Department and other district-level offices. Their performance has been consistently satisfactory and no adverse remarks or complaints have ever been recorded against them. They assert that their Iirms have discharged their duties diligently and in strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the .o.rtrrlt" executed from time tq time. It is stated, petitioners were duly empanelled by the

2.2. 4th respondent under the aegis of the District Employment Officer, Suryapet District Outsourcing Committee, for providing outsourcing services during the financial year 2024-25. The said empanelment was made after following due procedure, including scrutiny of documents, verification of statutory registrations and approval by the District Level Selection Committee, in \ S:- ffi:"" J accordance with the guidelines issued under G.O.Rt.No-4459, dated 27.L2.2OO6 and G.O.Rt.No 4271 dated 01.11.2OO8. Pursuant thereto, petitioners were allotted various outsourcing works in different Government Departments of Suryapet District and they executed the said services up to the expiry of the contract period on 31 .O3.2O25.

2.3- Petitioners further state that prior to expiry of the said period and also immediately thereafter, they submitted several representations to Respondents 2 and 4 requesting that their contra.cts be extended for the succeeding financial year 2025-26, in view of their satisfactory performance and the continued need for the services rendered by their employees. They specifically requested the authorities to release the monthly salary budget for the employees deployed by them, pending formal extension of the contract period, so ds to avoid disruption of essential services in hospitals, welfare hostels, and administrative offices.

2.4. According to petitioners, though no formal proceedings extending their contracts were issued, the departments concerned orally instructed them to continue deploying their existing workforce and to ensure uninterrupted services. Acting on such instructions, petitiohers continued to maintain their manpower and discharge duties across all 4 departments without any interruption from OL.O4.2025 onwards. The employees engaged through petitioners have, therefore, been continuously working for respondents, but their salaries and bills have remained unpaid since April 2025. It is asserted that they have been repeatedly pursuing the matter with the respondents through representations dated

26.07.2025, 3O.O8.2O25 and other subsequent communications, but no response or budget sanction was made, thereby placing them under severe financial hardship and operational distress. 2-5. It was further stated by petitioners that while these representations were pending consideration, the 2nd respondent issued a fresh Tender Notification dated 13.06.2025, inviting Applications for empanelment of outsourcing agencies for the lrnancial year 2025-26. Petitioners participated in the said tender process, submitted all the required documents and were declared successful bidders in the evaluation process. However, to their shock and dismay, the authorities subsequently issued Proceedings dated 2O.O8.2O25 allotting outsourcing works to certain other agencies, including those alleged to be ineligible and lacking the mandatory qualifications prescribed under the tender conditions. These allotments were given retrospective ) effect from OL-O4-2O25, which petitioners contend is legally impermissible and administratively arbitrary

2.6. Petitioners also submit that being aggrieved by such irregular allotments, they approached this Court by filing Writ Petitions No. 25312 and 26173 of 2025, challenging the proceedings dated 23.07.2025 and 2o.o8.2o25 respectively. The said writ Petitions are presently pending adjudication before this court. It is stated, interim orders were granted in those cases suspending the operation of the impugned proceedings, and respondents were duly served with copies of the same. It is the specific grievance of petitioners that, immediately after receipt of the interim orders in the above two writ petitions, the 2"d respondent, instead of complying with the same, issued the impugned Memo dated 03.O9.2025, directing all the departments under his control not to prepare or frocess the salary bills pertaining to the outsourcihg employees engaged through petitioners. Petitioners assert that the said Memo was issued abruptly, without assigning any reasons and without affording them any opportunit5r of hearing.

2.7. Petitioners further contend that the impugned Memo is actuated by malice and issued in retaliation to filing the earlier writ Petitions. They submit that the action of the 2"d respondent in stalling the salary bills amounts to gross 6 administrative,improprietl, as the services of their employees are being continuously utilized by the departments, yet their wages are being withheld solely due to the pendency of litigation. Such action, it is contended, is not only arbitrary and oppressive but also violative of Articles 14 and 2l of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before law and protection of livelihood. Petitioners submit that the impugned action also runs contrary to the guidelines framed under G.O.Rt.No.4459, dated 27.12.2006 and G.o.Rt.No.427 1, dated

01.11.2008, which mandate that outsourcing agencies duly empanelled and performing satisfactorily shall not be displaced or denied payment without justifiable reasons. It is urged that, pending outcome of the connected Writ Petitions, respondents ought to have maintained sfafus quo wit}:r regard to the existing arrangements, particularly in respect of salary di5bursats for employees whose services continue to be utilized by the departments. Petitioners therefore, submit that lhe impugned 2.8. Memo is wholly arbitrary, devoid of jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. They pray that this Court be pleased to set aside the same and direct respondents to release the pending salary budget from April 2025 onwards thereby l.:. 1 ensuring payment of legitimate wages to the employees engaged through them- r

3. Heard Sri Kadaru Prabhakara Rao' learned counsel forpetitionersaSwellaSlearnedGovernmentPleaderfor Medical,HealthandFamilyWelfareandSocialWelfareon behalf of respondents. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of resPondents. It is not in dispute that the contract period for the 4. financial year 2024-25 expired on 3L.O3.2025 ancl that the 2"d respondenl.thereafter,issuedTend'erNotificationdated

13.06.2025invitingApplicationsforthesubsequentfinancial year2025-26.|tisalsoadmittedthatpetitionersparticipatedin the said tender process and that certain disputes pertaining to empanelment are the subject-matter of writ Petitions No' 25312 and,26LT3of2}21,whicharedismissedbyanotderpassed today bY this Court' The grievance of petitioners is confined to the Memo 5. dated O3.O}-2O25, whereby the 2'd respondent directed that salarybillsinrespectofpetitioners,outsourcingemployees shouldncltbeprepared.However,itisevidentfromtherecord thatpetiti.oners'contractsfor2o24-2Scarnetoaneqdbyefflux of time on 31.03.2025. There is no material to show that any written order was issued extending the said contracts or 8 authorising continuation of work beyond that date. Petitioners' reliance on alleged oral instructions cannot confer any legal or enforceable right. 6 Once the contractual period expired, petitioners cannot, as a matter of right, seek continuation or insist upon release of salaries or budget allocations from public funds. The principle is well settled that contractual or finanbial rights must arise from express terms and not by implication or inference. The impugned Memo, on its face, only restrains preparation of bills in respect of employees whose engagement is not covered by a valid subsistirig contract and appears to have been issued to ensure administrative and financial propriety. Pendency of the connected Writ Petitions challenging the tender proceedings does not, by itself, create any interim entitlement to claim payment under an expired contract. The appropria$ course fo. petitioners, .if aggrieved, would be to pursue their remedies in the pending Writ Petitions, wherein all aspects of the empanelment process are under consideration, This Court, therefore, finds no ground to interfere with the impugned administrative action, particularly when no statutory violation or mala fides have been established on record. 7. Upon a holistic consideration of the matter, this Court is of the view that petitioners failed to establish any *..& - I subsisting contractual or statutory right warranting interference Memo dated' 03'09'2025' issued by the 2'd respondent cannot underArticle226oftheConstitutionoflndia.Theimpugned besaidtobearbirary,illegalorviolativeofanyConstitudonal or administrattve Prtrr\-rvrv" : PrinciPles' Accordingly' the Writ Petidon is dism n rrri^n io ^ismissed' as d'evoid Miscellaneous Petitions' if anY, Pending shall stand

8. of merits' No costs' g. closed i3i,tI^",Hryt?HXf; /,rRuE coPY" sEcnmFFlcER To,

1.One CC to SRI KADARU PRABHAKAR RAO' Advocate' [OPUCI 2.+$.?:;"lif,Ir,'o* MEDTCAL HEALTH Fw' l-rish court for the state of REVEN'-'' *'nn court ror the state or relangana at of Telangana at l}S":""o}ff35doR 3' +x8"35,,,::1,.."r:"1,?r.i33$L

4.1ffi":f:Ji"".ftI"R LAB.UR, High Court for the $tate 5 *ELFARE' H;orr court ror the State or court ror the state or :ish lRRlGAr;oN' Hish court fo5 {he state of relansana at RAJ' +g,:.3;.;,:1 ,fr'."1"?:."'AU?iAYArH T l}S*".:os"f fiti"R B. One CC to SRI M'JANGAIAH' SC for BC Welfare' IOPUCI ; PLANNTNGI *'nn court ror the state or , +H,:,E?i",3,?i.:psJrl\Buir 1O.Two CCs to GPJ.R FISHERIES, High Court for the State of Telangana at u '"'HyJ"i'bad' [oUTl 11.Two CD CoPies' BSK BS t t HIGH COURT DATED il411112025 ORDER WP.No.26925 of 2025 ( otr. THE g 14 .( ? 0 iloy tti ((\ r 2 ,) . ,.r. T c!+il n* DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS v rl