Termination of services of a temporary employee without notice is arbitrary and unsustainable if the employee has been working in the organization for a long period of time.

ORDER :

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed seeking the following relief :

“… to issue order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned proceedings issued vide Rc.No.To/14/16 dated 30.03.2019 as highly illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to Principles of Natural Justice with all consequential benefits and by setting asie the proceedings in Rc.No.To/14/16 dated 30.03.2019 in orally terminating the services issued by the 3rd respondent and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to continue the petitioner as semi-skilled Analyst in the office of Assistant Director of Agriculture (SOIL Conservation), Arakuvally with all consequential benefits and pass such other order or orders …”

2. Petitioner was appointed as Semi-skilled Analyst in the year 2003. Subsequently, posts were sanctioned by the Government and respondent No.2 vide Rc.No.1577/05/To dated 26.12.2005 permitted respondent No.3 to appoint one semi-skilled Analyst. Therefore, petitioner was continued in the said post. While petitioner was rendering his services, basing on oral instructions of Chief Conservator of Forests, Visakhapatnam Circle, Visakhapatnam, circular vide Rc.No.TO/14/16, dated 30.03.02019 was issued by Assistant Director of Agriculture (Soil Conservation), Arakuvalley, instructing Agricultural Officers (Soil Conservation), Arakuvalley, Hukumpeta and Asst. Engineer (Soil Conservation), Pedaguda centres/ranges not to engage any lab or field persons along with drivers on petty contract basis w.e.f. 01.04.2019 for maintenance of silt/Sediment Monitoring Stations and services of respective persons have been dispensed with in the division on the afternoon of 31.03.2019. As per the averments in the affidavit, petitioner was orally informed not to attend the duties. However, said notice/memo was displayed in the notice board. Assailing the said notice/memo, above writ petition is filed.

3. Counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent No.3. In the counter affidavit, it was contended, inter alia, that petitioner was appointed as Silt Analyst on petty contract basis on daily basis during 2003. Though petitioner was engaged, he was not continuously engaged for the entire month and he was engaged only for 26 days in a month. Petitioner was continued in the work till 30.03.2019 on petty contract basis/outsourcing. As there was no necessity in the absence of required work, the services of petitioner was dispensed along with four other workers w.e.f. 30.03.2019.

4. Wages were paid to the petitioner treating him as skilled person from the budget under 272-Maintenance under work charged component. Rs.2,27,604/-, Rs.38,922/- and Rs.38,922/- were deposited in the account of individual on 04.03.2019 and 25.03.2019 towards wages on petty contract, for the period from April 2017 to March, 2019. Petitioner refused to receive discontinuation orders and hence, the order was kept in notice board. There is no illegality in the proceedings impugned. There is no requirement of work of the petitioner and hence he was discontinued w.e.f. 30.03.2019. Though petitioner worked for 16 years on daily wages, he was not engaged continuously and there was break in service. Eventually, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Heard Smt. Jayanthi, learned counsel representing Smt. K. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I.

6. This Court by way of interim order dated 09.08.2019, directed respondents to continue services of the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without issuing any notice, by impugned proceedings, dated 30.03.2019, petitioner was directed not to attend the office. She would also submit that petitioner has been working as Semi-skilled Analyst since 2003. After lapse of nearly fifteen years, authorities orally directed petitioner not to attend the office and the said acti