The petitioner lacked standing to challenge the lawful termination of a temporary work order.

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)

The petitioner is before this Court challenging an office order bearing No.H.D.M.C/01/25-26 dated 22.09.2025 (Annexure-E) issued by the respondent No.2 and the consequent notice bearing No.H.D.M.C/Va.Ka.No.12/ /2025-26 dated 25.09.2005 issued by the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner was granted a work order dated 17.08.2011 by the respondent No.2 for undertaking cleaning work in Ward No.16 lying within the Zone No.12 of the respondent No.2, on temporary basis by engaging 15 laborers and a tractor at a total cost of Rs.24,000/- per month. This work order was to be in force for a period of one month i.e., between 17.08.2011 to 15.09.2011. However, the petitioner’s services were availed even thereafter until the State Government issued an order dated 17.08.2011 for direct appointment of the workers engaged on contract basis and to pay their wages directly to their accounts. A meeting was thereafter held by the respondent No.2, whereat a resolution was passed to the above effect. The respondent No.2 then addressed a letter to the State Government seeking appropriate orders to enable it to make direct payment to the outsourced employees. The respondent No.2 then passed an order dated 22.09.2025 for direct payment of the wages to the outsource laborers with effect from 30.10.2025. Following this, the respondent No.2 issued an order dated 25.09.2025 terminating the work order issued to the petitioner and issued a notice intimating the petitioner about the cancellation of his services. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been taking care of the employees right from the year 2011 and he has been paying their salary, ESI and EPF regularly. He contends that the respondent No.2 without issuing any notice to the petitioner has terminated the work order issued to him and has passed the impugned order for payment of the wages to the contract employees directly. He submits that this amounts to short circuiting the petitioner and depriving the petitioner of an opportunity of earning his livelihood.

4. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this Writ Petition, as the petitioner was entrusted with the work for a temporary period of one month, but has continued ever since then, on one or the other reason. He contends that the respondent No.2 has taken a policy decision to regularize the services of the outsourced employees and also credit their salaries into their accounts directly. He submits that this is in the best interest of the employees who are serving the respondent No.2 on outsourced basis. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the respondent No.2.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1.

6. As rightly contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the work order issued in favour of the petitioner was temporary and was to be in force for a period of one month commencing from 17.08.2011 till 15.09.2011. It may be that the petitioner’s services were continued from 2011 till the impugned order was passed, by which his services were terminated and the respondent No.2 took a policy decision to henceforth credit the wages payable to the outsource employees who were engaged for cleaning Ward No.16. It is not known as to how the petitioner is affected by such an order as the work order issued in his favour had come to an end long back and the continuation of the outsource employees of the petitioner was a stop gap arrangement. In that view of the matter, there is