ORDER Arun Mishra, J. 1. The petitioner was appointed for 89 days as Laboratory Attendant in the establishment of M.P. Pollution Control Board as per order Annexure A dated 14-3-1988. He was appointed on daily wages for a period of 89 days on the monthly wage of Rs. 416/- and his service was terminable without any notice. It appears that the petitioner rendered service till 14th June, 1989. petitioner submits that since he has served for more than 240 days, he is entitled for absorption in the service of M.P. Pollution Control Board. The termination of his service as per verbal order is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. petitioner claims regularization and backwages and full salary for the period 17-3-1988 to 14-6-1989. According to him, he was paid less wages as compared to regular Laboratory Attendant. petitioner further contends that three persons, namely, Arun Kumar Nayak, Babulal and Sunder Sahu were also appointed as Laboratory Attendants. These persons were junior to the petitioner, but they were retained while petitioner was removed. 2. Respondents in return contend that appointment was on consolidated pay of Rs. 416/- per month; tenure was extended time to time upto 14-6-1989 and was not extended any further. It is further pointed out that there is no work during rainy season as such Laboratory Attendants are idles during this season, that is why the petitioner was removed; his services were no more required. Since the petitioner was not appointed on regular basis, he is not entitled to the pay scale attached to the post. He was paid wages as fixed by the Collector. Respondents did not dispute that three persons named by the petitioner were appointed subsequent to the petitioner. The principle of junior and senior would not apply in the case of daily wage employees as they do not hold the post; their employment is of casual nature. 3. Rule of "last come first go" is ante thesis to arbitrariness in action and is salutory rule which should have been observed by the respondents. Juniors were retained and senior employee was removed. If there was no requirement of service, firstly the junior person should have been removed and not the person who was working from earlier point of time. Rule of "last come first go" is ante thesis to arbitrariness in action and is salutory rule which should have been observed by the respondents. Juniors were retained and senior employee was removed. If there was no requirement of service, firstly the junior person should have been removed and not the person who was working from earlier point of time. It is totally fallacious contention advanced, that since daily wagers do not possess right to post, rule of junior and senior is not applicable. The rule of "last come first go" should have been observed. It is also provided under section 25-G of Industrial Disputes Act that ordinarily the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category has to be removed, unless for the reasons to be recorded the employer retrenches any other workman. In the instant case, the respondents have not given any special reason to retrench the services of the petitioner who was senior. Even if he was not governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, the action is clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In K.C. Joshi v. Union of India and others AIR 1985 SC 1046 , the Supreme Court held as under:-- If it is discharge simpliciter, it would be violative of Article 16 because number of store keepers junior to the appellant are shown to have been retained in service and the appellant cannot be picked arbitrarily. He had the protection of Article 16 which confers on him the fundamental right of equality and equal treatment in the matter of public employment. 4. In Om Prakash Goel vs. The Himachal Pradesh Tourism AIR 1991 SC 1490 it was held by the Supreme Court that:-- In this context, the learned counsel also questioned the termination order from another angle. In that order it is mentioned that the services of the petitioner are no longer required therefore, they are terminated. But from the record it is clear that juniors to the petitioner are retained and they are continuing in service. In the affiavit it is clearly mentioned that juniors whose names are given, they are retained in service in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. But from the record it is clear that juniors to the petitioner are retained and they are continuing in service. In the affiavit it is clearly mentioned that juniors whose names are given, they are retained in service in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. In Jarnail Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others AIR 1986 SC 1626 , it was held that:-- In the instant case, ad hoc services of the appellants have been arbitrarily terminated as no longer required while the respondents have retained other Surveyors who are juniors to the appellants. Therefore, on this ground also, the impugned order of termination of the services of the appellants are illegal and bad being in contravention of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. The termination of the petitioner is, thus, held to be arbitrary. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner. However, without backwages. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed. Cost to be borne by the respondents.