ORDER

Per: Justice K Haripal, Judicial Member The applicant claims that she was a casual labourer attached to the office of the third respondent, Postmaster General, Central Region Kochi from 1986 onwards. She joined the Department as a part-time tea maker, -2- then she was called for an interview on 10.03.1987. While working as part- time tea maker, a vacancy of a post in 'Group D' arose, she also applied for the post and was invited for the interview. Whatever it may be she continued as a part-time sweeper. After working as a casual sweeper for six years, she requested the respondents to appoint her as full time casual labourer with temporary status. But she was replied as per Annexure A4 that it is under examination. Then she applied for making her full time casual mazdoor which was also under consideration, going by Annexure A5.

Meanwhile, by Annexure A6 order dated 04.04.2000, on account of the increase in the workload she was asked to work eight hours a day from that day. This arrangement continued till 05.09.2003 till her working hours was reduced to seven hours a day. Again by Annexure A10 order dated 02.01.2004 her working hours was revised and enhanced to eight hours a day and by Annexure A11 order dated 31.05.2004 it was reduced to six hours but again by Annexure A12 order dated 01.07.2004 her hours of working were revised to eight hours and she continued to work for eight hours a day from 01.07.2004 onwards. While so she moved Annexure A13 representation for granting her permanent status but instead of granting her any relief, by Annexure A1 order dated 30.08.2019 her service was abruptly retrenched with immediate effect. Thus, her services were terminated which is illegal, unjust and unauthorised. She has approached this Tribunal seeking to cancel Annexure A1 to the extent terminating her service and for a direction to reinstate her with backwages with adequate -3- compensation, the termination being illegal, arbitrary and violative of the natural justice. She also seeks a declaration that she is entitled to be conferred with temporary status regularisation of service, recognition 32 years of service and that too for long time as full time casual labourer putting in eight hours work daily.

2. According to the applicant even though she had put in more than 32 years of service, on the verge of attaining sixty years her services were terminated without following the principles of natural justice. She was not even served with a show cause notice and her services were terminated abruptly to the utter shock of the applicant. She has also understood that from the next day onwards a person who was working as gardener in the residence of the third respondent was engaged in her place. In other words, she was purposely avoided to appoint person of choice of the respondents.

3. She has worked in the office in different capacities as tea maker, as casual labourer, as scavenger and all types of odd works were done by her for over 32 years. All her representations for granting temporary status and regularisation were not considered seriously and her abrupt termination is illegal and liable to be interfered with.

4. The applicant also relied on the decisions reported in Olga Tellis v Bombay Municipal Corporation [AIR 1986 SC 180], A. K. Kriapak and Ors v Union of India & Ors [1969 (2) SCC 262], State of Orissa v Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors [AIR 1967 SC 1269], D.K Yadav v J M A Industries Ltd [1993 (3) SCC 258], Secretary, Ministry of Communications v Sakkubai and -4- another [1997 (11) SCC 224] and Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors v Umadevi & Ors [2006 (4) SCC 1]. 5. The respondents have filed a reply statement describing the contentions of the applicant not maintainable and mischievous. According to them, the applicant was never appointed as a casual labourer but she was engaged in the office of the Postmaster General, Kochi for three hours a day and wages were paid on h