JUDGMENT M.P. Singh 1. Adivasis and other backward people living within the jungle of Mirzapur District used the forest area as their habitat and made use of forest produce. They had been residing there for the last many generations. 2. The State Government issued notification under section 20 of the Forest Act, 1927 declaring some land in Tehsils Robertsganj and Dudhi as reserved forest. Regarding other areas notification under section 4 of the Act was also issued. Adivasis living in the said jungle got a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court through Banwasi Sewa Ashram of Mirzapur in the form of public interest litigation. 3. The Supreme Court was of the tentative view that the State Government should work out a formula for regularisation of their possession in the said area. 4. In order to assist the Court the State Government constituted a high powered committee which became busy in identifying the claim and to find out the ways and means to regularise the possession of Adivasis living in that area. The committee had identified 433 villages lying South of the Kaimur Range of the District Mirzapur for settlement of Adivasis, out of those villages 299 were in Dudhi Tehsil and remaining 134 in Robertsganj. The total area of land involved was 9, 23, 293 acres, out of which in respect of 58, 937.42 acres notification under section 20 of the Act has already been issued . It has been declared as reserved forest. About 182000 acres of land were under unauthorised occupation of the Adivasis at that time. 5. In accordance with the direction of the Court for completion of Survey and Record Operations a special Agency known as "Kaimur survey Agency" was constituted in 1986. For its effective working the State Government sanctioned temporary posts for the different classes. Five Survey Units were established by it. The Survey and Record Operations were conducted by them. They were working under the Commissioner and the Record, Officers, Kaimur Survey and Settlement Agency, Sonbhadra. 6. A large number of Class III and IV employees were also appointed. According to the load of working from time to time, number of posts were increased. Petitioners have been appointed on different dates within a period ranging from 1986 to 1991. Their different dates of appointments are not -relevant. 6. A large number of Class III and IV employees were also appointed. According to the load of working from time to time, number of posts were increased. Petitioners have been appointed on different dates within a period ranging from 1986 to 1991. Their different dates of appointments are not -relevant. The Kaimur Survey Agency itself was a temporary one. Obviously the employees appointed for the assistance of Survey work were also temporary. 7. With the passage of time the Record operation in Kaimur area was gradually coming to an end, As per requirement of the shrinking work the number of employees was also to be reduced. Steps were simultaneously taken for their absorption in some other deparments/offices of the Government of the State. Letters were sent on 3-5-1991 and on 16-2-1993 by the Commissioner/Record Officer to the Secretary, Board of Revenue for the absorption and regularisation of extra employees. The Government started working on the said recommendation. The Board of Revenue sought the details of the persons required to be so absorbed vide its letter dated 3- 5 1993. The details were supplied by the Survey Agency. But as usual the Government could not take any final decision as yet on account of the so called complicated machinery. It is really very unfortunate that either the files are lying uncared for in a corner of room or they keep on travelling from one desk to another only with "nothings," as no body is prepared to take responsibility of taking a decision. 8. In the meantime on 28-11-1993 orders have been issued by the Collector, Sonbhadra terminating the services of the petitioners. They have been directed to hand over charge to the Record Officer. The said order is under challenge in the present writ petition. This Writ petition is confined to the claim of only Class-III and IV employees. Prayers made by them are for quashing of the termination order dated 28-10-1993 and also to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to absorb them in the alternative employment on the equivalent post. 9. Petitioners case is that the said order is based on incorrect facts, in as much as no direction has been issued by the Supreme Court on 4- 10-1993 to terminate their services. The Court has directed to reduce the number of units. 9. Petitioners case is that the said order is based on incorrect facts, in as much as no direction has been issued by the Supreme Court on 4- 10-1993 to terminate their services. The Court has directed to reduce the number of units. The exact direction issued runs as follows : "We direct the closure of the Kaimur Survey Agency with effect from October 15, 1993. Two Survey Units instead of 5 units may keep on functioning till further order to complete the residual work. These two units shall from October 15, 1993 onwards, function under the control of Collector, Sonbhadra. We direct the revenue Secretary Government of U. P. and Collector of Sobhadra to create a separate Branch under the administrative control of Collector, Sonbhadra to look after the records which shall be surrendered as a result of the closure of the Kaimur Survey Agency. The Collector shall secure the records the Collector Sonbhadra and Revenue Secretary shall send a compliance report to this Court by November 15, 1993. The Collector Sonbhadra shall further send the progress report regarding the functioning of two units by first week of December, 1993. The five Additional District Judges, who are hearing the appeals, shall continue to function till further order. The Revenue Secretary shall send a report to this Court before November 30, 1993 stating the number of appeals pending on that date to be disposed of by the Additional District Judges." 10. It may be that in pursuance of the said direction the staff is to be reduced. Consequently some termination orders may be passed. The Government passed order as if there was a direction of the Supreme Court. While passing the impugned orders the Government was bound to consider the recommendations dated 3-5-1993 and 16-2-1993 sent to the Board of Revenue for their absorption in the revenue department. IT has also lost sight of the fact that some of the persons have spend about 7 or 8 years of their life working in the said Scheme. Some of them have become average and they will not be eligible for a new appointment. IT has also lost sight of the fact that some of the persons have spend about 7 or 8 years of their life working in the said Scheme. Some of them have become average and they will not be eligible for a new appointment. In view of the admission made by the State Government that some persons, who have been appointed directly in the Agency, have been absorded either in revenue department or in some other departments of the Government the petitioners were also entitled to be absorbed but no steps have been taken for their absorption/regularisation. 11. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the question to be considered now, is whether these petitioners are entitled to be absorbed in some other departments or not. Connected with this question another question arises whether there exists any vacancy in the revenue department for their absorption. 12. In paragraph no, 47 of the writ petition it has been stated that there exists a large number of substantive vacancies in the revenue department of the State Government against which the petitioners can easily be absorbed. This fact has not been denied in the counter affidavit. Thus, admittedly the vacancies are there but the exact number is only in the knowledge of the State Government. 13. The State Government has corns forward with a case stating that the petitioners have no legal right to be absorbed. Legally the objection may be correct. But, is it justified in a welfare State ? Is there no obligation on the part of the Government to provide livelihood to its citizen Has the Directive Principle of State Policy been deleted from the Constitution? The law of regularisation/absorption as developed by the Law Courts is not to be respected by the Government? Their aspects are really puzzling the mind of the Court. Any way, it has to be decided in accordance with the law. 14. Now, let me examine whether the petitioners have got any right to be absorbed/regularised in the employment. The framers of the Constitution were alive to the situation that it was the duty of the State to frame policy towards securing all the citizen and the right to adequate means of livelihood. 15. Part IV of the Constitution deals with the provisions of Directive Principles which are not enforceable in any court. The framers of the Constitution were alive to the situation that it was the duty of the State to frame policy towards securing all the citizen and the right to adequate means of livelihood. 15. Part IV of the Constitution deals with the provisions of Directive Principles which are not enforceable in any court. The principles laid down therein are nevertheless fundamental in the governance of the country. The Directive Principle has been added in order to ensure social justice to all citizens as promised by the Preamble of the Constitution and further to guarantee of equality before law. 16. In our welfare State there has been a constant effort on the part of the Government to implement the Directive Principle as far as possible in the interest of the citizens. Law court are not left behind. The law which has been developed now, gives the clear signal that it is the duty of the Court to see that as far as possible, within the permissible parameter of the statute, citizens should be ensured of livelihood. The purpose of Directive Principle is to fix certain social and economic goals for immediate attainment by bringing about a non-violent social revolution. The Constitution provides for the fulfilment of the basic needs of the common man and to change the structure of the society. 17. If it is an obligation on the part of the State Government to provide bread to the citizens then it becomes it's mandatory duty to absorb them in some other department of the Government. 18. Denial of it, or inaction on the part of the Government amounts to working against the Directive Principles of the State Policy. Though the Directive Principles of State Policy does not create a right on the citizen and it can not be said to be enforceable in law courts but at the same time the Court is not debarred from examining the claim and if satisfied can recognise the right of the petitioners to be enforced. In the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2342 , it was held that the State Government is under obligation to provide livelihood and to protect the casual labour/seasonal employed from exploitation. In the case of Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India, AIR 1987 SC 2342 , it was held that the State Government is under obligation to provide livelihood and to protect the casual labour/seasonal employed from exploitation. The same view has been taken in the case U. P. Income Tax Department v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 517 ; Dhanbad District PWD Literate Daily Wagers Employees Association v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1990 SC 833 Bhagwati Prasad v. State Mineral Corporation, AIR 1990 SC 371 . 19. In the case of State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, 1992 (3) JT 179, the question of regularisation has elaborately been considered. A detail guidelines have been framed but they are not exhaustive. It has been held in the said judgment that if casual labourers are allowed to work for a number of years they get a right to be regularised and the authorities are under obligation to consider their cases for regularisation. 20. Since, in the instant cases, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled for regularisation, the next question crops up for consideration is whether this Court should issue direction to the respondents to pass an order of regularisation/absorption or leave it open to be considered by the authority concerned. Normally this Court would have left it open to be considered by the State Government, but in the instant case I am satisfied that if it is done so, the petitioners will be left without jobs for years to come. How they will survive ? 21. The Supreme Court in the case Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, 1989 (4) JT 541 has issued direction for regularisation of 40 senior most workmen with immediate effect. Similar directions have been issued by this Court in the case Bhullar Nath Yadav v. Mayo Hall Complex, 1990 (61) FLR 68. 22. In the case of Karnataka State Private College Stop Gap Lecturers Association v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1992 SC 677 a direction was issued for regularising the temporary appointed teachers. This Court in Writ Petition No. 26925 of 1990 Waheed Ullah v. Conservator of Forest Bundelkhand Circle Jhansi, and others had also issued similar direction which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 16718 of 1993. 23. This Court in Writ Petition No. 26925 of 1990 Waheed Ullah v. Conservator of Forest Bundelkhand Circle Jhansi, and others had also issued similar direction which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition No. 16718 of 1993. 23. In the case of Indrapal Yadav v. Union of India, 1985 (5) FLR 1988 in similar circumstances the Court compelled the Railway Ministry to adopt scheme for absorbing the retrenched employees. 24. In a recent case D. K. Yadav v. M/s J. M. A. Industries Ltd. JT 1993 (3) SC 617 it was observed that the order of termination of service of an employee/workman visits with civil consequences of jeopardising cot only his/her livelihood but also the career and livelihood of dependants. In writ petition No. 44416 of 1993 Kamla Shankar Tripathi v. Indian Railway Construction Company Ltd, and others it was found that the petitioners had been working for 9 years but their services were terminated and were not adborbed in any other department of the Government. This Court had issued a direction to the respondents to absorb the petitioners either at one time or in phases in some other projects instead of throwing the petitioners out of job on the ground that the project, in which they were employed was on the verge of completion. 25. Coming to the validity of the termination orders I am of the view that since the appointment of the petitioners itself was temporary and the termination orders do not cast any stigma on them, they do not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record. Since this court is issuing a direction for their regularisation/absorption in some other departments, no useful purpose would be served by going deep into the matter of termination. 26. Accordingly the writ petition succeeds and is allowed in part. The respondents are directed to pass suitable orders for absorption/regularisation of the petitioners in alternative employment on equal post within a period of three months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the opposite party no. 1: Petition allowed.