JUDGMENT : M. Katju, J. Petitioner was appointed in August, 1979 as Nate on daily wage and he continued working till 1-10-88 He was again appointed on adhoc basis vide appointment order dated 1-10-88 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition and thereafter also the Petitioner kept working until the impugned order dated 18-2-89 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) was passed cancelling his appointment. Aggrieved the Petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 18-2-89 cancelling his appointment on adhoc basis. I have perused the record and also heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. There is no dispute that the Petitioner has worked continuously for almost 10 years from 1979 to 1989. The Petitioner's work has also been found to be good as is evident from the certificate of the Executive Engineer dated 2-6-88 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition). In the counter affidavit it has been alleged in para 5 that there is no vacancy and hence the Petitioner's service was terminated. I am not prepared to accept the bald allegation that there is no vacancy particularly since the Petitioner was working for almost 10 years continuously and no G.O abolishing the post has been produced. Moreover, the allegation in para 5 of the counter affidavit is that there was no necessity to continue the Petitioner's adhoc appointment, and not that there is no vacancy. The impugned termination order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing end in an arbitrary manner There is no allegation in the counter affidavit that the work of the Petitioner has not been good In my opinion when a person has worked for a long period it will be wholly arbitrary to terminate his services without affording any opportunity of hearing to the employee or without a proper justification for such termination. 3. No doubt the Supreme Court has held in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, (1991) 1 SCC 691 and Triveni Shanker Saxena v. State 1992 (1) SLR 359 , that a temporary employee has no right to hold the post-However, even in the case of temporary employees the State cannot act arbitrarily, for arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution vide Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1991) 1 SCC 212 . 4. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1991) 1 SCC 212 . 4. There are a large number of departments where unfortunately employees are kept in a temporary capacity for long years after appointment and sometimes they even retire without even being confirmed. This is a wholly undesirable state of affairs since a man must have reasonable job security to function efficiently. To keep a damocles sword hanging over a person's head for years after appointment is hardly the way to bring the best out of him. 5. The time has now come to do some social engineering in this filed In my opinion the broad principle to be laid down in such matters is that if a temporary employee's service is terminated within a short time (say one or two years) after appointment such a termination simpliciter does not ordinarily require opportunity of hearing or much justification (unless there is some violation of law) However where the temporary employee has put in many years of service, the situation is different. Such an employee would ordinarily have got married and had children. He may have become overage for other service, and would have settled down in life with the reasonable expectation that if he works properly he will be continued in service. Hence to abruptly terminate the service of such an employee will certainly have civil consequences. The words civil consequences as used in State of Orissa v. Bineapni De AIR 1967 SC 1267, should be given a realistic meaning. Nowadays in these hard times to take away a man's job is almost to take away his life no doubt it has been held that a temporary employee has no right to the post but this concept should not be stretched beyond limits, and it should be construed in a reasonable manner. 6. In Triveni Shanker Saxena's case (Supra) the termination of service of a temporary employee who had put in 18 years service was upheld although no opportunity of hearing had been given to him. A close perusal of this case, however, reveals several distinguishing features. Firstly, the contention that the impugned order was punitive was raised in arguments although there was no pleading to that effect and hence all that the court could do was to see whether the order was innocuous on its face. A close perusal of this case, however, reveals several distinguishing features. Firstly, the contention that the impugned order was punitive was raised in arguments although there was no pleading to that effect and hence all that the court could do was to see whether the order was innocuous on its face. Secondly, in that case the Supreme Court had summoned the character fell of the employee and found that there were several adverse entries against him and his work had been" unsatisfactory throughout. Thirdly, the distinction between a temporary employee who has put in only a short term of service and one who has put in a long term of service (as mentioned above) was not brought to the notice of the Supreme Court, and fourthly, the validity of the termination order was considered from the point of view of Article 311 only and not from the point of view of Article 14 and 16. In Triveni Shanker Saxena's case the Supreme Court dealt with the meaning of the Word lien also whether the order was violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The Court was not called upon to consider, and did not consider, the question of arbitrariness and violation of Article 14. A termination order may not violate Article 311, but it may violate Article 14. Hence the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court is distinguishable. 7. In Kaushal Kishore's case (supra) no doubt Articles 14 and 16 were considered, and it was held that the service of a senior temporary employee could be validly terminated while retaining his junior if the senior was found unsuitable. It may be noted in that case that there was an adverse entry and complaint against the respondent regarding unauthorised audit of the Boys Fund Account and unauthorised collection of fees. In the present case, however, there is nothing against the Petitioner. Hence Kaushal Kishore's case too distinguishable. 8. Considering all aspects of the matter I lay down the broad rule that in the case of a temporary employee of the State who has put in long service either (1) opportunity of hearing must be given before terminating his service or (2) if no such opportunity is given then if the termination order is challenged in a Court or Tribunal the burden will be on the State to properly justify such termination and show that it is not arbitrary. As to the meaning of long service' that will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, but in my opinion a continuous service of more than 3 years (ignoring artificial breaks for a day or two) should ordinarily be construed as long service since 3 years service entitled an employee to be considered for regularisation under various regularization rules e.g. Uttar Pradesh Regularization, of Adhoc Appointments Rules 1979. 9. I may clarify that I am not holding that 3 years service automatically entitles an employee to regularization. Regularization depends on the relevant rules of service. The decision of the Supreme Court in Bhagwati Prasad Vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361 , where it was observed that 3 years continuous service ignoring artificial breaks entitles an employee to regularization, has been considerably watered down by subsequent decisions of the Court e.g. State of Punjab v. Surendra Kumar 1991 (4) SULR (Lab 163 where it was held that the earlier decisions of the Court directing regularization but without giving reasons should not be regarded as precedents because no question of law has been decided therein. All that I am holding is that where the service of a temporary employee who has put in long service is terminated then unless there is good reason for termination mentioned in the order itself there will be a rebuttable presumption that the termination is arbitrary, and the burden will be on the State to rebut this presumption. This view is an consonance with the observation in para 33 of Shrilekha Vidyarthi's case (supra) where it has been held that "if no plausible reason or principle is indicated nor is it discernible and the impugned State action appears to be exfacie arbitrary the initial burden to prove the arbitrariness is discharged shifting onus on the State to justify its action as fair and reasonable. 10. In the present case neither opportunity of hearing was given to the Petitioner nor is there a good justification for the termination. Hence the impuned order is arbitrary and illegal. 11. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of termination dated 18-2-89 is quashed The Petitioner will be reinstated within one month of production of certified copy of this order before the concerned authority. There shall be no order as to costs.