Oral termination of long-serving casual workers without written orders or due process is arbitrary and legally unsustainable.

The original applicant, Mukesh Kumar Patel, was engaged as a Staff Car Driver-cum-Peon on 25.01.1995

He claimed to have been granted temporary status and was continuously engaged against a sanctioned vacancy

In 2009 and 2010, departmental communications identified him as a casual worker who had completed over ten years of service for the purpose of regularization consideration under the Uma Devi mandate

However, on 27.09.2011, the respondents orally discontinued his services and stopped his wages without issuing a written order or assigning reasons

The applicant initially approached the High Court, which directed him to the Tribunal

During the pendency of the OA, the applicant died on 09.03.2022, and his legal heirs were substituted to prosecute the matter

1. Whether the oral discontinuance of the applicant’s services after 16 years of engagement, without a written order or due process, was legally sustainable

2. Whether the deceased employee was entitled to be considered for regularization on par with similarly situated employees whose names were included in the same departmental communications

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, which mandate fairness and non-arbitrariness in public employment

Principles from State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, which allowed for a one-time regularization of irregularly appointed employees who completed ten years of service in sanctioned posts

The "model employer" obligations established in Jaggo v. Union of India

Dharma Singh Ors. v. State of U.P., emphasizing that the State cannot indefinitely maintain workers on a daily-wage basis for perennial work

The parity principle from the Principal Bench decision in Raj Kumar v. Union of India

The Tribunal found that the respondents’ own records (dated 01.10.2009 and 04.01.2010) explicitly acknowledged the applicant’s continuous service since 1995 and his eligibility for regularization consideration

The Tribunal reasoned that the abrupt, oral termination of a long-serving employee without a formal order or a hearing was inherently arbitrary and violative of procedural safeguards

Applying the Jaggo and Dharma Singh precedents, the Tribunal observed that the perennial nature of the work and the applicant's 16-year tenure precluded the State from treating him as a transient worker without vested interests

The Tribunal identified a breach of the equality principle, noting that the respondents failed to explain why the applicant was denied regularization while others on the same 2009 list were purportedly benefited

The respondents were directed to: (i) consider the deceased employee's case for regularization or appropriate relief in light of the 2009-2010 communications and relevant Supreme Court precedents; (ii) ensure parity with similarly situated employees to avoid discrimination under Articles 14 and 16; and (iii) compute and pay all admissible arrears and terminal/retiral dues to the legal heirs (Applicants 1/1 to 1/5) within three months via a reasoned and speaking order.