THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD W P No. 16534 of 2000 and W P No. 10691 of 2001 COMMON ORDER: (Per Justice B Prakash Rao) Since virtually the question involved runs on the same lines, hence both the writs are taken up together for disposal. In these two writ petitions, the petitioner is the Union of India through its Railway wing. The challenge in W P No. 16534 of 2000 is against the orders passed in O A No.812 of 1999 dated 6.1.2000 and in W P No. 10691 of 2001 the challenge is against the orders passed in O A No. 530 of 2000 and R A No. 1 of 2001 dated 3.11.2000 and 1.3.2001 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bench. Briefly the facts are that the respondent/applicants before the Tribunal were initially engaged as Bunglow Peons on 31.12.1998 and 26.9.1996 respectively and subsequently their services were sought to be terminated by orders dated 25.5.1998 and 11.12.1998 respectively, which orders were under challenge in the applications filed by the respective applicants before the Tribunal. After contest and after hearing both the sides, the Tribunal allowed the first case in O A No. 812 of 1999 dated 6.1.2000 rejecting the objections raised by the petitioners on the ground that such termination is not valid, since even though it has been the case of the petitioner that the said applicant’s name has been kept alive in the register to be accommodated as and when his turn comes up, and the applicant is entitled for appropriate regularization having regard to the nature of the services at later stage. It was directed that he should be re-engaged at least in a casual post. In the second case, the applicant’s services were sought to be terminated in pursuance of a complaint given by one Mr K Samba Murthy alleging that the performance of the said applicant as Bunglow Peon is not satisfactory and his services were no longer required. These proceedings were found fault with by the Tribunal on the ground that the casual labour are entitled to the benefits as that of a temporary employee, therefore when such termination effected with an imputation and in pursuance of a complaint, it calls for a notice and an enquiry, without which, any termination is bad, hence allowed the application. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the petitioners, sought to raise several questions as to the very right to which the applicant is entitled to or not and same being not enforceable in a Court of law, especially in view of the subsequent pronouncement of the Apex Court and therefore such direction to bring them back as casual labour, is wholly unsustainable. Repelling the aforesaid contentions, the case of the respondent/applicants was that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly directed the authorities to take them as casual labour and therefore there is nothing wrong. On consideration of the submissions from both the sides and on perusal of the material, it emerges that admittedly the respondents have been engaged as casual labour viz., Bunglow Peons , though it was stated to be an appointment at the sole option of the respective officers, however, nothing is shown to the effect that any such similar treatment has been given to all such Bunglow Peons. Even otherwise, once appointment is made as Bunglow Peon, which is casual in nature, the question of termination straight-away, be it a simplicitor as one in the first case or as imputation in the other, it cannot be said that either of them can be treated in a light manner without providing reasonable opportunity and considering their case for entitlement for regularization and continuance. It is never been the case of the petitioner that there are no such vacancies nor any regular appointments are being made. The policy of the authorities ‘to hire and fire’ has been deprecated all along by the Courts, more so after such long service. Once an employee gets into the service, be it as a casual or temporary, necessarily the other consequences will have to apply until and unless, there is no such requirement under the law. Nowhere it has been stated by the petitioners that the services of the applicants are not required and further in the other case it is virtually a disciplinary action against the said applicant having observed that his service is not satisfactory. Be that as it may, an employee with all its guarantees as provided for under the law, should have to be treated in the manner in which it is known to law, whereas the same is not being followed up nor paid any attention. It is also to be reiterated that even in respect of a temporary or casual employee due honour has to be given by following the procedure basically known to law, apart from the principles of natural justice as reiterated by the Apex Court in Chandraprakash Shahi Vs. State of UP[1], Narsingh Pal Vs. Union of India[2], Central Coop Consumer Stores Limited Vs. Labour Court, H.P. Shimla and another [3], V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab[4], Management of M.C.D. Vs Premchand Gujta and another[5], Prabhudayal Birari Vs. M P Rajya Nagrik Hasspurtho Nogam Ltd[6], Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd Vs Girija Shankar Pant and others[7] and also by Division Bench of this Court in Union of India Vs. D Narasimihiulu[8] In the circumstances and having regard to the nature of service of the respondents/applicants and direction being that of taking them on casual basis, we do not find any reason to interdict the same nor there is any valid ground made to warrant such interference. Hence, there are no merits in either of the writ petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. No costs. _______________ B PRAKASH RAO,J __________________ G BHAVANI PRASAD,J DATE: - -2010 TVK THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD W P No. 16534 of 2000 and W P No. 10691 of 2001 Date: - -2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B PRAKASH RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G BHAVANI PRASAD W P No. 16534 of 2000 and W P No. 10691 of 2001 P D Judgment for perusal of Hon’ble Sri Justice G Bhavani Prasad [1] 2000 (5) SCC 152 [2] AIR 2000 SC 1401 [3] AIR 1994 SC 23 [4] AIR 2000 SC 1080 [5] AIR 2000 SC 454 [6] AIR 2000 SC 3058 [7] AIR 2001 SC 24 [8] WP No. 16381 of 2007 dated 2.8.2007