- (1.) V. M. Sahai, J. The petitioner was appointed as Beldar on 1-10-69. He con tinued to work without any break in ser vice on fixed salary of Rs. 1,675 p. m. He worked continuously till 30-6-94. The Ex ecutive Engineer, Irrigation, Division (1st), Deoria, by order dated 29-6-94 ter minated the services of the petitioner treating him to be a temporary employee under the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Services) Rules, 1975 (in brief Rules ). The petitioner chal lenged the order dated 29-6-94 by means of the present writ petition.
(2.) THE respondents have filed counter-affidavit wherein it was stated that the petitioner was appointed on tem porary basis. THE work of the petitioner was unsatisfactory which has been marked in his character roll. THE petitioner was work charge Beldar and there is no re quirement for continuing the petitioner as the work is over. THE services of the petitioner was rightly terminated under the Rules. I have heard Shri H. K. Misra learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Gautam Chaudhary learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner has worked for about 25 years as Beldar and the petitioner's services have been terminated by the respondents without giving any oppor tunity of hearing to him. The termination of the petitioner's services under the Rules is an abuse of the Rules. The post on which the petitioner was working is still existing and it has not been abolished. He further argued that the termination order is liable to be set aside on humanitarian grounds. The learned Standing Counsel argued that since the petitioner was a temporary employee, his services could be ter minated under the Rules by giving one month's notice and there is no illegality in the termination order dated 29-6-94.
(3.) THE argument of the respondents that there is no work or post available for the petitioner cannot be accepted. THE main concern of the Court in such matters is to ensure the Rule of Law and to see that the executive acts fairly and gives a fair deal to its employees consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16. It also means that the State should not exploit its employees nor it should seek to take ad vantage of their helplessness. THE State must be a model employer. The apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Piara Singh, AIR 1992 SC 2130, observed as under: "where a temporary or ad hoc appoint ment is continued for long the Court presumes that there is need and warrant for a regular post and accordingly directs regularisation. The prin ciples relevant in this behalf are stated by this Court in several decisions, of which it would be sufficient to mention two decisions having a bearing upon the issue involved here. They are Dharwad District P. W. D. Literature Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka, (1990) 2 SCC: 396: AIR 1990 SC 883 and Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority, 1990 Suppl. (1) SCR 562: AIR 1990 SC 2228. In the first case, it was alleged that about 50,000 persons were being employed on daily-rated or on monthly-rated basis over a period of 15 to 20 years, without regularising them. It was contended that the very fact that they are continued over such a long period is itself proof of the fact that there is regular need for such employment. In that view of the matter, following directions were given, after reviewing the earlier decisions of this Court elaborately (at pp. 890-91 of AIR):";