Termination of regularized employees without notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice and is legally unsustainable.

The 39 applicants served as "Farm Hands" (casual laborers) in Military Farms under the Northern Command for 15–20 years

In a previous litigation (O.A. No. 2787/2016) before the Principal Bench, the respondents stated that the applicants’ services had been regularized

Consequently, regularization orders were issued in January 2017, placing applicants on probation

Following a "Court of Inquiry" and a "Board of Officers" initiated due to separate litigation by third parties, the respondents concluded that the applicants did not meet the mandatory criteria for regularization—specifically, lacking "Temporary Status" and failing to meet service requirements prior to 10.04.2006

On 02.07.2019, the respondents summarily terminated the applicants' services without prior notice or a hearing

1. Whether the respondents could unilaterally rescind the regularization of the applicants and terminate their services without adhering to the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the respondents were bound by their prior categorical statement made before a judicial forum (the Principal Bench) regarding the applicants' regularization

The court applied the principles of Natural Justice, specifically audi alteram partem, which dictates that no person should be condemned unheard when facing adverse civil consequences

It relied on the constitutional mandates of Articles 14 and 16, ensuring fairness, non-arbitrariness, and transparency in public employment

The court also invoked the doctrine of finality of judicial statements, noting that a public authority cannot casually retract a statement made before a Tribunal that a benefit has already been conferred

Furthermore, the court referred to the regularization standards set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi and State of Karnataka v. M.L. Kesari regarding long-term casual employment

The Court reasoned that while the respondents alleged technical ineligibility under the 2015 policy, they failed to provide the applicants any opportunity to contest these findings.

The "Court of Inquiry" was an internal departmental exercise conducted behind the applicants' backs, which cannot justify the loss of livelihood

The Tribunal emphasized that the respondents had specifically informed the Principal Bench in 2018 that the applicants were regularized; allowing the respondents to unilaterally revoke this status without a show-cause notice would permit "arbitrariness"

Since there were no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation by the applicants, they could not be penalized for alleged "faulty recommendations" made by the respondents' own internal officers

It held that the applicants must be treated as continuing in service as "Farm Hands" with full continuity for seniority and pensionary benefits

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicants and release admissible service benefits within three months

The court granted the respondents the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if they still believe specific applicants are ineligible, provided they follow due process by issuing show-cause notices and passing reasoned orders after a fair hearing