The judgment establishes the significance of adhering to natural justice principles in termination cases and clarifies the circumstances under which a writ petition is maintainable despite the availability of alternative remedies.

1. - In the instant writ petition the petitioner has made prayer to quash the verbal termination order dated December 3, 1997 and a further direction to regularise the service of the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) in the Municipal Board, Gangapurcity w.e.f. initial appointment and consequential benefit thereof.

2. The facts as averred in the writ petition depict that the Municipal Board Gangapurcity published an advertisement on January 4, 1992 and the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and after interview he has given appointment vide order dated January 30, 1992. The petitioner worked on the post of Junior Engineer upto August 21, 1995 but he was given salary only upto August 1992. The petitioner requested the authorities to pay the salary of the aforesaid period but he was given only assurance that he will be given salary after approval from the Director. The Chairman Municipal Board, Gangapurcity made recommendation to the Director Local Self Bodies Department to regularise the service of the petitioner as Junior Engineer by his communication dated May 17, 1995. The petitioner further averred that he was allowed to work on the post of Junior Engineer from September 1, 1995 till December 31, 1995 and the payment of the salary was made through muster roll. The petitioner averred that the Chairman Municipal Board Gangapurcity obtained a formal application and he was given appointment on contract basis. The petitioner worked upto June 30, 1996 on daily wages basis @ Rs. 85 per day 'thereafter the petitioner was given appointment vide letter dated July 1, 1996 on the post of junior Engineer on the basis of BSR and the petitioner was allowed to work to December 3, 1997 and thereafter verbally directed not to come on work. The Chairman Municipal Board Gangapurcity issued advertisement on July 22, 1997 in Daily Prajajan for appointment of Junior Engineer from retired persons. On December 3, 1997 one Niranjan Lal, a retired Junior Engineer was appointed as Jr. Engineer in the Municipal Board Gangapurcity. The petitioner averred that before issuing the termination order the principles of natural justice have been violated. The action of the non-petitioners is illegal, capricious, malafide contrary as well as violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India.

3. The respondents filed return and averred that Annexure-5, which the petitioner is claiming to be an appointment letter, is not an appointment letter but it is simply a call letter and by this letter he was asked to present himself at the office of the Executive Engineer Municipal Board Gangapurcity on Feb. 1, 1992 in response to his application to work as a daily wager Junior Engineer under the Nehru Rojgar Yojna. The averment of the petitioner that he has worked upto August 1995 was denied and it was stated that the petitioner was allowed to work under the Nehru Rojgar Yojna upto August 1992. The respondents averred that no termination of services of the petitioner was brought about by any verbal or any other order on December 3, 1997 as the petitioner was not in employment at that time. The respondents further submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable on account of having alternate remedy, lack of qualification and ]aches. Reliance is placed on (1) Delhi Development Horticulture Employees Union v. Delhi Administration (1992) 4 SCC 99.

4. The petitioner submitted rejoinder to the reply to the writ petition reiterating the submissions made in the writ petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and pondered over the material on record.

6. A close look at the material on record reveals that the services of the petitioner were terminated by replacing another temporary employee, a retired junior Engineer Niranjan Lal. While doing so even the principles of natural justice were not followed. In D.D. Horticulture Employees Union's case (supra) workers who were employed temporarily in