Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

BRIJESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Brijesh Kumar, a contract employee of Zila Panchayat Inter College, Prayagraj, filed a writ petition alleging that he was asked to return to the outsourcing agency without notice, violating Clause 10(4) of a Government Order dated 19‑09‑2025 which prohibits removal of outsourced staff without departmental permission. The petitioner claimed that the institution’s instruction amounted to an unlawful removal, while the respondents argued that the institution merely expressed dissatisfaction and asked him to revert to the agency, which does not constitute removal. The Court examined the language of Clause 10(4) and the factual matrix, concluding that the institution’s action did not amount to a removal by the outsourcing agency. Consequently, the Court found no ground to interfere with the order dated 30‑06‑2026 directing the petitioner to return to the agency. The petition was held to be without merit and was dismissed without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

  • Whether the institution's direction for the outsourced employee to return to the agency constitutes a removal prohibited under Clause 10(4) of the Government Order dated 19‑09‑2025.
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief against the institution's action under the said Government Order.

Subjects

  • outsourcing
  • contract employment
  • government order
  • removal of employee
  • procedural fairness
  • writ petition
  • administrative law

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                          WRIT - A No. - 15415 of 2026

Brijesh Kumar
                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Anil Kumar Yadav, Ashutosh Kumar,
                                     Raj Kishore Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : C.S.C.

Court No. - 6
                   HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Yadav, Advocate appearing on behalf of
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, without any
notice or opportunity, while he was working as an outsourced employee at
Zila Panchayat Inter College, Ugrasenpur, Prayagraj, he has been asked to
revert to the agency, since his services are no longer required. He has
placed reliance on Government Order dated 19.09.2025, wherein under
Clause 10(4), it has been provided that the outsourcing agency shall not
remove or change the employee, except with the permission of the
concerned department or Institution and Nigam. For ready reference
Clause 10(4) is reproduced herein below:-

"(4) आउटसोर्सिंग कार्मिक को आउटसोर्सिंग एजेन्सी द्वारा स्वयं बदला/हटाया नहीं जा सकता
है। अनुशासनहीनता तथा दण्डनीय अपराध आदि की स्थिति में सम्बन्धित विभाग/संस्था एवं
निगम की सहमति के पश्चात ही हटाया जा सकेगा।"

3. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has not
been removed by the outsourcing agency, but it is the Institution in
question, which having found that the functioning of the petitioner was
not satisfactory; and have asked him to go back to the outsourcing
agency, which does not amount to removal.

4. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has been removed by the
outsourcing agency, and merely because the Institution in question not
                                                                                         WRIA No. 15415 of 2026
                                                                  2


                                    being satisfied with his working, and having asked him to go back to the
                                    outsourcing agency, it cannot be said that Clause 10 (4) of the
                                    Government Order dated 19.09.2025, has been violated.

                                    5. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is required with the order
                                    dated 30.06.2026; however, it is provided that in case the outsourcing
                                    agency requires dispensation with the services of the petitioner, it shall
                                    adhere to the Government Order dated 19.09.2025, as indicated
                                    hereinabove.

                                    6. In view of the aforesaid, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed,
                                    subject to the observations made, hereinabove. However, there shall be no
                                    order as to costs.



                                                                                      (Siddharth Nandan,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    piyush




Digitally signed by :-
PIYUSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.