The judgment highlights the importance of regularization of service for employees who have worked for an extended period, the need to consider cases of non-regularization based on individual circumstances, and the requirement for respondents to pass reasoned orders in accordance with the law.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocate, Mr. N. H. Sheth, appearing on behalf of petitioner and learned AGP, Mr. Dabhi, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2.

( 2 ) LOOKING to the facts which are on record, the petitioner was appointed on 12. 5. 1988 as a Sweeper and her term was extended from time to time. Since then, the petitioner has been working with the respondent department without there being any break in service till the date of termination i. e. 27. 3. 2006. The order of termination wherein the service of petitioner was terminated as part time Sweeper by respondent No. 1 herein.

( 3 ) LEARNED Advocate, Mr. Sheth, submitted that petitioner was continuously working with respondent more than 10 years, even though service of the petitioner was not regularized by respondent. He also submitted that looking to the Government Resolution dated 26. 12. 1980, the State Government has decided to consider the case of part time employees after a period of three years, to be regularized their services as a full time employees. He also submitted that this Resolution dated 26. 12. 1980 has been kept in abeyance by another Resolution dated 21. 8. 1995. However, the case of the petitioner was not considered by the respondent after a period of three years as a full time employee. He also submitted that at the time of appointment some sort of procedure was followed by the respondent while giving appointment to the petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner is qualified to the post of Sweeper and also eligible for the post of Sweeper according to Recruitment Rules. He submitted that at the time of making appointment, no procedure was followed by respondent, for that petitioner should not have to be penalized. He also submitted that it is a duty rather legal obligation on the part of the respondents to make appointment as per Service Rules / Recruitment Rules. Not to make appointment as per Service / Recruitment Rules, then, it is not a fault on the part of the petitioner but, it was a fault on the part of respondent. Meaning thereby that respondents failed in discharging legal obligation. Therefore, he submitted that respondents should have to consider the case of the petitioner for regular employee in the post of Sweeper as a full time employee. He also submitted that it is a settled principle of law that in case if any adverse civil consequence is required to be effected to any employee, at least principle of natural justice is required to be followed by respondents. The service of the petitioner has been terminated without following the principles of natural justice which hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that it is not the case of the respondent that termination is result of non-working or no work. He submitted that perennial work is available with the respondent during last more than 10 years but, no work was given to the petitioner. Meaning thereby that work is available with the respondent, even though service has been abruptly terminated by respondent. He also submitted that respondent is now taking some work through agency, therefore, requirement of work is there but, persons will be appointed through agency. Therefore, ultimately, respondent State Government may not have any burden either financial or administrative to continue such employee for a long period. He submitted that it amounts to State Government applying the business brain with colourful device to terminate the service of such employees, those who have continued for more than 10 years with the respondents. He also submitted that if work is available and work is permanent in nature, then to terminate the service of such employee which amounts to unfair labour practice by the state authority, who has acted as a private employer. He relied upon the decision of Apex Court (i) Mineral Exploration Corporation Employees Union v. Mineral Exploration Corporation Ltd. and Anr. also of this Court (Coram : D. H. Waghela