The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a temporary employee must adhere to the principles of natural justice and the relevant service rules, and the length of service should be considered in decisions regarding regularization.

1. Admittedly, petitioner has been enrolled as Safai Karamchari in Station Headquarter Nagrota of 16 Corps C/o 56 APO on 10.11.1982. When his juniors were regularized, he filed SWP No. 1793/2001 seeking regularization of his services on completion of five years of his enrolment particularly, from the date his juniors have been declared permanent. Said writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 13.05.2008. In the reply filed by the respondents in the above referred two writ petitions, SWP No. 1793/2001 has been stated to be pending which is not correct.

2. Petitioner has filed one more writ petition, SWP No. 755/2005 with the same prayer as made in the disposed of writ petition, SWP No. 1793/2001. It is during the pendency of the said writ petition, order impugned dated 22.12.2007 has been passed, in terms whereof, his services have been terminated. As against the said termination order, petitioner has filed another writ petition, i.e., SWP No. 2266/2007, seeking quashment of the order of termination and reinstatement as Safai Karachari with effect from 22.12.2007 with all consequential relief as well as damages.

3. It is projected that the order of termination has been passed without holding any departmental enquiry or serving any charge sheet ignoring the fact that the petitioner by rendering 25 years of continuous service is deemed to have acquired the status of a permanent employee. The order is in violation of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service), Rules. Neither notice of one month, as required under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules nor any pay and allowances has been paid in lieu of one month's notice.

4. It is further projected that the petitioner was the President of the Union under the name and style of M/s. Civilian Defence Workmen Union Nagrota, Jammu. His activities for ensuring welfare of the Civilian Defence Workers irked the respondents and in turn with the object of wrecking vengeance, so many methods have been adopted to deprive the petitioner of his livelihood. Rendering of twenty five years service has been set at knot in a manner which is not only illegal but unconstitutional as well.

5. Respondents in the reply, as filed, have stated that the petitioner was engaged as Conservancy Safaiwala (Casual Worker) with effect from 10.11.1982. Government of India, vide Office Memorandum No. 51016/2/90-Estt (C ) dated 10th September, 1993, formulated a Scheme for grant of temporary status and regularization of casual workers, copy of the Office Memorandum is placed on record.

6. On the basis of said Office Memorandum, case of the petitioner was considered but not recommended by the Board of Officers held on 16.09.2012 because of unsatisfactory shoddy antecedents. Case of the petitioner was considered for regularization again by the Board of Officers on 20.11.1996 and 12.03.2005 respectively. The petitioner was arrested by the Joint Interrogation Centre, Jammu under TADA on 16.9.1992. Since no incriminating evidence had emerged against him as confirmed by TADA Court, his suspension was revoked on 02.07.1996. In the year 1996, case of the petitioner for regularization was turned down on the plea of he being of casual status and that he should have been discharged from service immediately on his arrest instead of placing him under suspension, which needs to be regularized under the orders of the competent authority.

7. Board proceedings held on 28.01.2004 for his conversion into regular temporary were forwarded to Headquarter Northern Command by HQ 16 Corps GS (SO) on 12.03.2005 for obtaining sanction of the competent authority. The case was under process. Meanwhile, petitioner filed writ petition seeking regularization which is pending adjudication. It is further stated that the petitioner has been paid pay and allowances for one month period.

8. The star question which emerged for consideration is as to whether order of termination impugned is valid or not. The respondents being discipline

Click Here to Read the rest of this document