JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The respondent No. 1 was appointed on 1-8-1950 in the service of the Central Government in I.T.I. Rampur as medical Officer on temporary basis. The post on which the petitioner was appointed in the Central Government was abolished and his service was disposed with, but the State Government took over the service of the petitioner vide notice dated 25-7-1956, Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition. Therefore the petitioner continued in service till 1975 but his service was terminated by order dated 6-10-1975. He filed a claim petition before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal which has been allowed by the impugned order dated 29-11-1983. Aggrieved the State Government has filed this Writ Petition in this Court.
3. Although the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition of the petitioner on a different point, we are of the opinion that the termination of service is bad in law on another ground which we are dealing with in this judgment and it is not necessary for us to go into the ground mentioned by the Tribunal.
4. Admittedly the petitioner was in service of the U.P. Government from 1-11-1956 to 6-10-1975 i.e. for about 19 years. Even assuming that the petitioner was a temporary employee the question which arises is whether the termination of the petitioner's service was valid.
5. The traditional concept has been that a temporary employee has no right to the post vide State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore. 1991 (2) FLR 350 (SC) and Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State, 1992 (64) FLR 330 (SC) etc. However, in our opinion, this traditional concept has now to stand modified in the light of the new interpretation of Article 14 to the Constitution given by the Supreme Court in the Seven Judge Constitution Bench decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, AIR 1978 SC 597. It has been held in that decision that Article 14 is not only directed against discrimination but also aganist arbitrariness. Hence, in our opinion, the traditional concept that a temporary employee has no right to the post now stands modified in view of the new interpretation of Article 14 in Maneka Gandhi's case and it can no longer be treated as an absolute concept. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Kaushal Kishore's case, Triveni Shcmker Sexena's case etc. cannot be read in isolation but must be read alongwith the seven Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court, in Maneka Gandhi's case where it was held that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. No doubt Maneka Gandhi's case docs not relate to service law, but the principle laid down therein that all Government action must be non-arbitrary is of universal application.
6. In the present case the petitioner had worked from 1956 to 1975 i.e. for 19 years in U.P. Government service. in our opinion, even if he was a temporary employee, a person who has worked for such a long period cannot be suddenly asked to go for no rhyme or reason. The position may have been different if the service of a temporary employee is terminated only after two or three years of appointment, and in that case the termination order may not be arbitrary. However, where a person has worked in a temporary capacity for say, 10 to 20 years, in our opinion, the termination of his service without opportunity of hearing would certainly be arbitrary because such an employee would ordinarily have got married and have had children, and is overage for other employment, and has settled down in life with reasonable expectation, that ordinarily he will be continued in service till the age of retirement. A similar view has been taken by one of us (Hon'ble M. Katju J.) in Satya Deo Misra v. State of U.P., 1996 (28) ALR 66. which is endorsed by us.
7. In the present case the petitioner was 54 years of age and at this stage the termination is certainly arbitrary. Hence the impugned order dated 6-10-1975 is arbitrary and illegal and it has rightly been quashed by the Tribunal though for a different reason. Thus there is no force in this petition and it is dismissed.
8. The money deposited by the State Government shall be released in favour of the respondent No. 1.