ORDER : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. 1. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions challenging the orders of their transfer. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows: 3. The petitioners are all working as a Grama Vidyut Prathinidhi (" GVP ") in the respondent-Bangalore electric supply Company Limited (" BESCOM ") for the last 23 years on consolidated payment. The petitioners filed the writ petitions seeking for regularisation of their services and payment of salary on par with the regular employees. The writ petitions were allowed. The respondent-BESCOM, aggrieved by the order passed by the Writ Court, preferred the writ appeals. The Division Bench partly allowed the writ appeals and set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge and directed the State Government to consider the case of the petitioners as they are all discharging the statutory duties, within a period of four months. Though four months has lapsed, the State Government has not recognised the status of the petitioners. In the meantime, respondent No.4, on the basis of the Circular issued by respondent No.3, passed the impugned orders changing the place of work of the petitioners within the Sub-Division. 4. It is contended that respondent No.4 has no right to pass an order of transfer on the ground that the respondents are not paying salary, including Travelling Allowance, Dearness Allowance and other allowances for discharging the duty by the petitioners. Hence, on these grounds, pray to allow these writ petitions. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed a statement of objections contending that the petitioners have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (for short 'MOU') with respondent No.4, and their appointment is contractual employment and they are contract employees. It is contended that respondent No.4 has jurisdiction to transfer the petitioners and the order of transfer is in accordance with law. It is relevant to note Clause 4.1.9 of the MoU, which reads as follows: " 4.1.9. A one-time payment of Rs.3,000/- will be given to Micro Feeder Franchise (MFF) if he/she is transferred from his/her original Grama Panchayat to another GRAMA PANCHAYAT." 6. It is contended that there is a contract between the petitioners and respondent No.4 and the petitioners, having admitted the terms and conditions of the MOU, signed the same. Now, the petitioners cannot contend that respondent No.4 cannot pass the orders of transfer. It is contended that there is a contract between the petitioners and respondent No.4 and the petitioners, having admitted the terms and conditions of the MOU, signed the same. Now, the petitioners cannot contend that respondent No.4 cannot pass the orders of transfer. The orders of transfer are in accordance with the MOU. Hence, on these grounds, pray to dismiss these writ petitions. 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 filed a Memo stating that the petitioners are appointed as Contractual Meter Readers on a contractual employment. In view of the memo filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4, respondents admitted that the petitioners are appointed as contractual Meter Readers on contractual employment. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.4 has admitted regarding the petitioners were appointed as contractual Meter Readers on a contractual employment and he submits that before the filing of this memo, respondent Nos.2 to 4 have denied that the petitioners were not the employees of respondent Nos.2 to 4, and respondent No.4 has no authority to transfer the petitioners from one place to another place. He submits that in view of the memo filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4, the writ petitions may be disposed of. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 submits that as the petitioners were appointed as contractual Meter Readers on a contractual employment, there exists a relationship of employer and employees between the respondent No.4 and petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners individually executed a MoU with respondent No.4 and there is a Clause in MoU regarding the transfer of the petitioners from one place to another place. Considering Clause 4.1.9 of the MoU, respondent No.4 transferred the petitioners from one place to another place. He also submits that the petitioners are bound by the terms and conditions mentioned in MoU. Hence, the action of respondent No.4 in transferring the petitioners is in accordance with law. Hence, on these grounds, he prays for dispose of these writ petitions. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were appointed as Grama Vidyut Prathinidhi in the respondent-BESCOM from the last 23 years on consolidated payment. The petitioners approached this Court by filing the writ petitions seeking for the regularisation of their services. 11. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 12. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were appointed as Grama Vidyut Prathinidhi in the respondent-BESCOM from the last 23 years on consolidated payment. The petitioners approached this Court by filing the writ petitions seeking for the regularisation of their services. The Writ Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents to regularise the services of the petitioners. The respondents aggrieved by the order passed in the said writ petitions, preferred the writ appeals, challenging the order passed in the writ petitions before the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.34 of 2021 and other connected matters, disposed of on 24.01.2025. The writ appeals were partly allowed and the direction issued by the writ Court, was set aside. It was further held that the respondents are duty bound to consider the recommendations of the High level Committee and to frame a proper scheme for fair wages and proper working conditions of GVPs engaged pursuant to its policies. It is useful to extract the relevant paragraph No.27 of the judgment passed in W.A. No.34 of 2021 and other connected matters, which reads as follows: "27. In the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeals can succeed only to the limited extent of stating that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge shall not be understood as directing regularization of GVPs/MFFs (Micro Feeder Franchisees) in sanctioned post to which they may not be qualified as per the Recruitment Rules. However, we are of the opinion that the State is duty bound to consider the recommendations of the High Level Committee and to frame a proper scheme for fair wages and proper working conditions of GVPs engaged pursuant to its policies. The question whether the contract employees have the eligibility to be continued as against the existing posts since they were admittedly carrying out the statutory duties assigned to them shall also be specifically considered. The needful shall be done by the State Government within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. The order of the learned Single Judge is sustained in all other aspects." 13. The needful shall be done by the State Government within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgement. The order of the learned Single Judge is sustained in all other aspects." 13. Subsequently, the petitioners and respondents have entered into a MoU and according to Clause 4.1.9 of the said MoU, a one-time payment of Rs.3,000/- would be given to Micro Feeder Franchise (MFF) if he/she is transferred from his/her original grama panchayat to another grama Panchayat. 14. Thus, there is a Clause in the MoU that respondent No.4 can transfer the employees from original gram panchayat to another gram panchayat. The petitioners, having admitted to the terms and conditions of the MoU, now they are estopped from challenging the orders of their transfer passed by respondent No.4. The said orders of transfer are in terms of Clause 4.1.9 of the MoU and further, in view of the Memo filed by the learned counsel for respondent No.4 that the petitioners are the contractual employees and they were appointed as contractual Meter Readers on a contractual employment, there exists a relationship of employer and employees between respondent No.4 and the petitioners. Respondent No.4 by exercising the power under Clause 4.1.9 of the MoU has rightly |transferred the petitioners from their original Town Panchayat to another Panchayat. 15. I do not find any error in the impugned orders and hence, the writ petitions are liable to be disposed of in view of the memo dated 24.11.2025 filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4. 16. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petitions are disposed of. ii. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed off.