Termination after prolonged service on a superior’s dictation without observing natural justice is legally unsustainable.

The applicant was engaged as an Extra Departmental Mail Packer (EDMP, now Gramin Dak Sevak/GDS) on October 3, 1996, on a "purely temporary" basis, with a condition that the arrangement could be terminated without notice

The applicant continued in this position for approximately 19 years until his engagement was terminated via an impugned order dated October 30, 2015

The termination was issued following directions from higher authorities, including the Circle Office, Lucknow, and the Regional Office, Allahabad, which labeled the arrangement as an "irregular arrangement of substitute"

The applicant challenged the termination on grounds of lack of notice, violation of natural justice, and the fact that the order was passed at the behest of higher authorities

1. Whether a temporary arrangement continued for nearly two decades loses its temporary character, requiring the department to consider the incumbent for absorption.

2. Whether the termination order is legally sustainable if passed solely on the "diktat" or instructions of an authority higher than the appointing authority.

3. Whether the termination of a long-term continuous engagement without notice violates the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal relied on the principles of natural justice and the administrative law doctrine that an authority must exercise its own discretion rather than acting under the "diktat" of a superior

It specifically applied the precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors v. Debika Guha & Ors (2000 (J) SC SIJ/132), which established that while substitutes may not have a legal claim to regularization, those who have worked for long periods continuously must have their cases appropriately considered by the Department for absorption

The Tribunal observed that a "temporary arrangement" continued for 19 years loses its temporary nature and demands a higher degree of consideration regarding the length of service

Applying Debika Guha, the Tribunal noted that the respondents failed to show any evidence of "application of mind" regarding the applicant’s absorption despite his long tenure

Regarding the second issue, the Tribunal found that the appointing authority (Respondent No. 6) did not exercise independent judgment but acted under the instructions dated September 17, 2015, from Respondent No. 2; this rendered the order invalid as it was passed at the "behest" of a higher authority

Finally, the Tribunal rejected the respondents' argument that the original appointment letter waived the requirement of notice, holding that after 19 years of continuous service, the principles of natural justice necessitated providing the applicant an opportunity to be heard

The Tribunal allowed the Original Application, quashing and setting aside the termination order dated October 30, 2015, along with the underlying instructions from higher authorities dated September 17, September 28, and October 28, 2015. Consequently, the respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits