ORDER : NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. Petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the 2 nd respondent - District Collector, Suryapet District in issuing Memo No. C5/2052-3/2025, dated 03.09.2025, 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 27.12.2006 and G.O.Rt.No.4271, dated 01.11.2008 as well as Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of 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 1 st petitioner is a registered cooperative society bearing Registration No. 708/TH, the 2 nd petitioner is a firm registered under No. SEA/SUR/ALO/SP/53293/2017 and the 3 rd petitioner is a proprietary concern registered under No. SEA/SUR/ALO/SP/0159747/2019. All the petitioners possess valid licences to undertake manpower and outsourcing services and have periodically renewed the same without default. 2.1. Petitioners state that they have been continuously providing outsourcing and contract manpower to various Government Departments within Suryapet District for several years including the offices of the District Collector, District Medical & Health Officer, 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 firms have discharged their duties diligently and in strict adherence to the terms and conditions of the contracts executed from time to time. 2.2. It is stated, petitioners were duly empanelled by the 4 th 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 accordance with the guidelines issued under G.O.Rt.No.4459, dated 27.12.2006 and G.O.Rt.No 4271 dated 01.11.2008. 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 31.03.2025. 2.3. 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 31.03.2025. 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 contracts 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 as 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, petitioners continued to maintain their manpower and discharge duties across all departments without any interruption from 01.04.2025 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, 30.08.2025 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 2 nd respondent issued a fresh Tender Notification dated 13.06.2025, inviting Applications for empanelment of outsourcing agencies for the financial 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 20.08.2025 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 01.04.2025, 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 20.08.2025 respectively. The said Writ Petitions are presently pending adjudication before this Court. 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 20.08.2025 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 2nd respondent, instead of complying with the same, issued the impugned Memo dated 03.09.2025, directing all the departments under his control not to prepare or process the salary bills pertaining to the outsourcing employees engaged through petitioners. Petitioners assert that the said Memo was issued abruptly, without assigning any reasons and without affording them any opportunity 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 nd respondent in stalling the salary bills amounts to gross administrative impropriety, 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 21 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.4271, 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 status quo with regard to the existing arrangements, particularly in respect of salary disbursals for employees whose services continue to be utilized by the departments. 2.8. Petitioners therefore, submit that the impugned 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 ensuring payment of legitimate wages to the employees engaged through them. 3. 2.8. Petitioners therefore, submit that the impugned 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 ensuring payment of legitimate wages to the employees engaged through them. 3. Heard Sri Kadaru Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for petitioners as well as learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare and Social Welfare on behalf of respondents. No counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondents. 4. It is not in dispute that the contract period for the financial year 2024-25 expired on 31.03.2025 and that the 2 nd respondent thereafter, issued Tender Notification dated 13.06.2025 inviting Applications for the subsequent financial year 2025-26. It is also admitted that petitioners participated in the said tender process and that certain disputes pertaining to empanelment are the subject-matter of Writ Petitions No. 25312 and 26173 of 2025, which are dismissed by an order passed today by this Court. 5. The grievance of petitioners is confined to the Memo dated 03.09.2025, whereby the 2 nd respondent directed that salary bills in respect of petitioners' outsourcing employees should not be prepared. However, it is evident from the record that petitioners' contracts for 2024-25 came to an end by efflux of time on 31.03.2025. There is no material to show that any written order was issued extending the said contracts or 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 financial 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 subsisting 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. 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 appropriate course for 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 subsisting contractual or statutory right warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned Memo dated 03.09.2025, issued by the 2 nd respondent cannot be said to be arbitrary, illegal or violative of any constitutional or administrative principles. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. 9. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.