Reinstatement cannot be ordered without documentary proof of appointment and termination.

The petitioner claimed that he had been engaged as a Safai Karmi/Sweeper at the Block Office, Bahadurganj, Kishanganj, from 3 February 2006, initially on monthly remuneration of ₹500, subsequently enhanced to ₹9,828.

He relied on payment-related documents and an Experience Certificate issued by the Block Development Officer recording his work as a Sweeper from 3 February 2006 to 1 July 2022.

The petitioner alleged that he was orally removed from service on 14 August 2025 through a telephonic communication by a clerk, without notice or a formal termination order.

He submitted representations to the authorities and the Labour Commissioner, but received no relief.

He sought reinstatement, back wages, quashing of the alleged termination, regularisation, compensation and costs.

The State contended that there was neither any appointment letter nor any document evidencing the petitioner’s termination.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a writ directing reinstatement when he had produced neither an appointment letter nor a formal termination order.

Whether the petitioner could obtain back wages, regularisation and consequential reliefs on the basis of his asserted long-term engagement and an Experience Certificate, in the absence of documentary proof of appointment and termination.

Whether the principles of natural justice, “last-come-first-go” and Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, relied upon by the petitioner, could be applied when no order of termination or retrenchment was placed on record.

The Court applied the principle that a writ of reinstatement cannot ordinarily be granted without proof of an existing service relationship and a legally identifiable termination or discontinuation order.

The petitioner relied on the constitutional requirements of non-arbitrariness and equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16, the principles of natural justice, and the “last-come-first-go” safeguard under Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act, as discussed in Madhwi Jha & Ors. v. Patna University through its Registrar & Ors., 2026 (1) BLJ 584.

He also relied on Union of India & Ors. v. Baliram, Civil Appeal No. 13783 of 2015, for the proposition that procedural technicalities should not defeat equitable relief in writ jurisdiction.

However, those principles presuppose proof of the relevant employment action being challenged; they do not dispense with the need to establish appointment and termination.

The Court found that the petitioner had not annexed any appointment letter or other conclusive document establishing his appointment to the post of Sweeper.

Although an Experience Certificate and some payment documents indicated that he had performed work for the department, they did not, by themselves, establish the legal terms or status of his engagement.

More importantly, the record contained no termination or removal order; the allegation of termination rested only on the petitioner’s assertion that he was orally informed through a telephone communication.

In the absence of a documented termination, there was no identifiable impugned order for the Court to quash and no established basis for directing reinstatement.

The decision in Madhwi Jha was therefore held inapplicable because that case involved a specific termination order that had been challenged.

Consequently, the Court did not examine the alleged violation of natural justice or Section 25-G on merits.

The writ petition was dismissed for lack of merit, and any pending application was also disposed of.