Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 411 (GAU)

Shibani Das Gupta v. Union of India

2009-06-12

UTPALENDU BIKAS SAHA

body2009
JUDGMENT U.B. Saha, J. 1. The petitioner is an unfortunate lady who is now out of service after having served for more than twenty years continuously. Aggrieved by, she has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing/getting aside the orders dated 4.5.2007 and 2.9.2007, Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition respectively and also to take her back in service in the same status. The order dated 4.5.2007 was issued by the Assistant Commandant (ADMN), Frontier HQ, BSF, Tripura whereby and whereunder the petitioner was appointed as Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in the Frontier Hospital, Salbagan, Agartala on consolidated salary of Rs. 4,500/- p.m. out of Special Relief Fund (SRF) on purely temporary contract basis for a period of one year w.e.f. 14.6.2007 to 13.6.2008. The order dated 2.9.2007 was issued by the Dy. Commandant (ADM), HQ, Tripura Frontier, BSF with the same contents. 2. Considering the nature of the case and as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the motion stage. 3. Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant SG appearing for the respondents. 4. A brief narration of facts necessary for appreciating the contentions raised by the petitioner may be set cut. The petitioner was dependent on her cousin brother, one Sri Champak Das Gupta who was in ASI/LDC under 81 Bn. BSE When she was living with him at Am-bicapatti, Silchar, she attended a course of instruction as prescribed by the Indian Nursing Council there. She passed the final examination in the year 1985-86 and became qualified to manage case of normal labour. Subsequently, when the TC & M. Frontier, BSF, Agartala invited application from the eligible dependents of the BSF employees for appointment in the post of ANM in the Frontier Hospital, Salbagan, the petitioner applied for the post of ANM and appeared in the interview. She got selection and by an order dated 5.2.1987 she was appointed to the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in the said frontier hospital on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 600-25-800 per month. The petitioner joined the said service on 1.3.1987 and was serving as such till 13.6.2007. She got selection and by an order dated 5.2.1987 she was appointed to the post of Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in the said frontier hospital on temporary basis in the pay scale of Rs. 600-25-800 per month. The petitioner joined the said service on 1.3.1987 and was serving as such till 13.6.2007. Thereafter, from 14.6.2007 she was provided on contract job for a period of one year on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month vide order dated 4.5.2007 (Annexure-2). Another order dated 29.9.2007 with the same contents was also served on her. As such, her service had come to an end with effect from 14.6.2008 after the aforesaid period of one year with effect from 14.6.2007 to 13.6.2008. The petitioner thereafter filed a representation to the Inspector General (HQ), Tripura Frontier BSF, Salbagan, Agartala, West Tripura, the respondent No. 3 herein, on 16.6.2008, but she was not given any reply by the said respondent in disposal of her representation. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with certain prayers as aforenoted. 5. In reply to the writ petition, it is submitted by the respondents that that the petitioner was engaged purely on temporary basis out of BSF Special Relief Fund and the post which was held by the petitioner was not permanent in nature, rather a contractual one. And she was appointed on the conditions that her services are liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. Since the petitioner was temporarily appointed out of Special Relief Fund, she is also not entitled to other Government facilities from Government fund and her pay and allowances are also not received from PAD BSF, New Delhi, although her salary is being received from FHQ (Adm Dte.) New Delhi as they maintain the accounts of Special Relief Fund. As such, she is also not covers under the CCS (pension) Rule, 1972. The respondents also stated that as per revised orders issued by the FHQ (Adm Dte.) dated 8.6.2006, her services were further made contractual out of Special Relief Fund on 4.5.2007 and 2.9.2007. 6. Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of ANM through a selection process conducted by the respondents. She appeared in the interview and got selection. 6. Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was selected for the post of ANM through a selection process conducted by the respondents. She appeared in the interview and got selection. Accordingly, the respondents appointed her to the post of ANM, which she joined on 1.3.1987 and the respondents were utmost satisfied with her service as an ANM. As such, she was allowed to continue for more than twenty years though on temporary basis and her salary was also increased from time to time and lastly she was paid Rs. 4,500/-per month. Mr. Bhattacharjee further submits that the petitioner was also appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 600-25-800/- per month on temporary basis and after serving for more than twenty years, when she expected that her service might be regularized, she was served a fresh appointment on contract basis. Initially the petitioner could not understand the consequence of he fresh appointment. When she was asked not to report for duty from. 14.6.2008, then she came to know about her ill fate. According to the learned senior counsel, both the orders dated 4.5.2007 and 2.9.2007 are illegal, arbitrary, unilateral and liable to be quashed. Drawing attention to Annexure-R/3 to the counter affidavit, learned senior counsel also submits that it is an order that all staff Nurse/ANM/Sweepers appointed temporarily shall continue and Rs. 4,500/- will continue to be paid to them as per old contract till the fresh contract is finalized. But the respondents did not allow the petitioner to continue after the old contract period i.e. after one year and the respondents are going to fill up the post of the petitioner by other persons depriving her. Therefore, it would be proper for the Court to direct the respondents to take the petitioner back in service in the same status, if the respondents are going to fill up the said post of ANM by other person. Finally, Mr. Therefore, it would be proper for the Court to direct the respondents to take the petitioner back in service in the same status, if the respondents are going to fill up the said post of ANM by other person. Finally, Mr. Bhattacharjee submits that by now the petitioner has become overaged to apply for any Government job and by the impugned orders dated 4.5.2007 the respondents authorities changed the nature and status of her initial appointment to the post of ANM and converted her as an ANM in the Frontier Hospital, Salbagan, Agartala on purely temporary contract basis for a period of one year with an oblique motive to terminate her even from the contractual service after completion of the said period which the respondents authorities did by an order dated 2.9.2007, Annexure-3 to the writ petition. On perusal of the aforesaid orders, it would be evident that the respondents authorities had taken such an ulterior motive to provide the benefit to some other persons in place of the petitioner. Thus both the orders are violative of Articles14 and 21 of the Constitution of India as the actions of the respondents authorities had taken away the right to a public employment of the petitioner. As a result, the right to livelihood of the petitioner is also affected. He also contends that the impugned orders visit with civil consequence of jeopardizing not only her livelihood, but also her career and livelihood of dependents. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on the case of D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd. (1993) 3 SCC 259 and the case of Olga Tellis and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 180 . He further contends that the last salary of the petitioner under the first service was reached up to Rs. 4,500/- which she drew even in the month of January to March, 2007 i.e. before she was appointed on contract service vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 180 . He further contends that the last salary of the petitioner under the first service was reached up to Rs. 4,500/- which she drew even in the month of January to March, 2007 i.e. before she was appointed on contract service vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The respondents without issuing any show cause notice upon the petitioner and also without issuing any formal termination order asked the petitioner on 13.6.2008 not to come for duty on and from 14.6.2008 as she was informed that her service came to an end on and from 13.6.2008 in view of the orders dated 4.5.2007 and 2.9.2007 (Annexures-2 and 3 to the writ petition respectively) which itself is a violation of principle of natural justice. Thus the impugned orders 4.5.2007 and 2.9.2007 being unfair, unreasonable, arbitrary and unilateral are liable to be quashed and cancelled and the respondents authorities should be directed to allow the petitioner to continue in service in the same status what she was enjoying prior to the issuance of the aforesaid orders dated 4.5.2007 and 2.9.2007 and also to regularize her service to the post of ANM. 7. Mr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant SG appearing for the respondents submits that the instant writ petition is not maintainable only on the ground that the Tripura Frontier Hospital is not a 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and the petitioner is also not holding any civil post under the respondents-Border Security Force. She was engaged purely on temporary basis out of BSF Special Relief Fund which is run by the BSF personnel privately, on condition that her service will be terminated even without any notice. He also contends that on 21.9.2007 the petitioner accepted her anointment on a consolidated salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month out of BSF Special Relief Fund on purely contractual basis for a year on the following terms and conditions that she can be terminated without assigning any reason before expiry of terms on contractual period due to any administrative reason or likely paucity of fund or if her performance is not found suitable for the job by giving one month's notice. And that her appointment does not confer any right to her to claim for regular service or to count for regular service or pensionary and financial benefits. And that her appointment does not confer any right to her to claim for regular service or to count for regular service or pensionary and financial benefits. Not only that, in her case, house rent allowance or residential accommodation etc. will also not be admissible which would be apparent from her undertaking dated 21.9.2007, Annexue-R/4 to the affidavit in opposition. Learned Assistant SG further contends that the salary of the petitioner was paid from the BSF Special Relief Fund which is purely a private fund and as per revised instructions/policy of the BSF Special Relief Fund, fresh widows/wards of BSF candidates would be given opportunity for appointment on temporary contractual basis. Therefore, in no point of time, the question of petitioner's regularization of service arose as she was appointed on purely temporary basis. As such, she does not have any right to claim for continuance in service after completion of contractual period and her contractual engagement/appointment was automatically ended with effect from 13.6.2008, no show cause notice or any specific termination order is called for, and it was within her knowledge that her service would be automatically ended after the contractual period i.e. after one year. He further submits that the salary of the petitioner was paid from the special relief fund of the BSF Frontier Head Quarter and the frontier hospital is managed by private body with the private fund. On that count also, the present petition is not maintainable. In support of his aforesaid contention, he relied on a judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Narayan Singh v. Central Education Committed for BSF, Schools and Ors. in WP No. 1288 of 1994, which was upheld by a Division Bench of the said High Court in LPA 60 of 1995. He also contended that the service of the petitioner on the basis of the first appointment letter has lost its force after the subsequent engagement/appointment letter was issued. Therefore, even if the impugned orders are quashed by this Court, then also the petitioner's service cannot be regularized as sought for. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court has given anxious thought to the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the record available before this Court. Therefore, even if the impugned orders are quashed by this Court, then also the petitioner's service cannot be regularized as sought for. 8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, this Court has given anxious thought to the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties as well as the record available before this Court. On going through the records, it transpires that the initial appointment letter of the petitioner, Annexure-1A to the writ petition, was on temporary basis in the consolidated pay scale of Rs. 600-25-800/- out of the Special Relief Fund of BSF (private fund) on condition that her service is liable to be terminated at anytime without assigning any reason thereto and the petitioner accepted the same though it is the admitted position that she continued in the said capacity for about twenty years and discharged her duties. All on a sudden vide order dated 4.5.2007 and 2.9.2007, the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner have been changed and she was appointed for a period of one year on consolidated salary of Rs. 4,500/-per month out of Special Relief Fund but purely temporarily on contractual basis on further conditions that her service can be terminated without assigning any reason before expiry of the contractual period due to any administrative reason or likely paucity of fund or if her performance is not found suitable for the job by giving one month's notice and the appointment does not confer any right on her to claim for regular service or to count for regular service or pensionary and financial benefit with other conditions which were mentioned in her initial appointment letter. 9. It would be profitable if the orders impugned (Annexures-2 and 3) are reproduced hereunder: Annexure-2 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL BSF: SALBAGAN: AGARTALA, TRIPURA No. IGA/Adm/01/05/2007/11410-12 Dated, the 4 May, 2007 ORDER Smt. Sivani Das Gupta W/o Mr. H. Dutta, VIII & Post Salbagan, Hatipara Tripura (West) is hereby appointed as ANM in the Frontier Hospital, Salbagan, Agartala w.e.f. 14.6.2007 to 13.6.2008 on consolidated salary of Rs. H. Dutta, VIII & Post Salbagan, Hatipara Tripura (West) is hereby appointed as ANM in the Frontier Hospital, Salbagan, Agartala w.e.f. 14.6.2007 to 13.6.2008 on consolidated salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month out of SRF on purely temporary contract basis for a period of one year on the following germs and conditions: (a) Service can be terminated without assigning any reasons before expiry of terms of contractual period due to any administrative reasons or likely paucity of fund of if her performance is not found suitable for the job by giving one month notice. (b) The appointment does not confer any right on her to claim for regular service or to count for regular service or pensionary and financial benefit. (g) HRA or residential accommodation will not be admissible. (h) On appointment, only 20 days leave is admissible per Calendar year. (i) She will be liable to abide by terms and conditions promulgated by the Special Relief Fund and Frontier Head Quarter, BSF Tripura. (j) She will be liable to render night duties/emergency duties in the Frontier Hospital, Salbagan. Authority : FHQ (Adm-I) Letter No. 34/55/2007-Adm- I/BSF/8307-09 dated 17.4.2007. Sd/- (Kumar Abhoy) Asstt Commandant (Admn) For Inspector General FTRHQ BSF, Tripura Distribution : *** Annexure-3 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE : SALBAGAN : AGARTALA : WEST TRIPURA DISTRICT : TRIPURA-799012 No. IGA/ADM/01/05/2007/28753-55 Dated 2 September, 2007. ORDER Smt. Sibani Das Gupta W/o Mr. H. Dutta, VIII & Post. Salbagan, Hatipara, Tripura (West) is hereby appointed as ANM in the Frontier Hospital, Salbagan, Agaratala w.e.f. 24.6.2007 to 13.6.2008 on consolidated salary of Rs. 4,500/- per month out of SRF on purely temporary contract basis for a period of one year on following terms and conditions: (a) Service can be terminated without assigning any reasons before expiry of terms of contractual period due to any administrative reasons or likely paucity of fund or if her performance is not found suitable for the job by giving one month notice. (b) The appointment does not confer any right on her to claim for regular service or to count for regular service or pensionary and financial benefit. (g) HRA or residential accommodation will not be admissible. (h) On appointment, only 20 days leave is admissible per Calendar year. (i) She will be liable to abide by terms and conditions promulgated by the Special Relief Fund and Ftr. HQ BSF, Tripura. (g) HRA or residential accommodation will not be admissible. (h) On appointment, only 20 days leave is admissible per Calendar year. (i) She will be liable to abide by terms and conditions promulgated by the Special Relief Fund and Ftr. HQ BSF, Tripura. (j) She will be liable to render night duties/emergency duties in the Frontier Hospital, Salbagan. Authority.-FHQ (Admn. Dte-I) L/No. 34/55/2007- Adm-I/.3SF/21293-96 dated 9th August, 2007. Sd/- (Manoj Painuli) Dy Commandant (ADM) For Inspector General HQ Tripura FTR BSF Distribution: *** 10. It also appears that after receipt of the impugned orders, the petitioner made representation to the Inspector General (HQ), Tripura Frontier BSF, Salbagan, Agartala, West Triputa, the respondent No. 3 herein, for reconsideration of the decision and also to regularize her service in the Frontier Hospital, Salbagan as she rendered service as ANM for more than twenty years. 11. This Court has also gone through the letter dated 8.6.2006 written by one P.K. Mishra, DIG (Adm), Dte. of General Border Security Force (Administration Directorate) Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India (Annexure-R/3 to the affidavit in opposition) to all Frontier Head Quarter and others wherein it has been stated that" I am directed to inform that Staff Nurse/ANM/Sweepers appointed temporarily on contract basis out of SFR in various hospitals as authorized and being paid from SRF of PHQ fund will continue working on temporary basis in the old contract system till the new terms and conditions which is now being finalized very soon as has been received vetted from law branch. It is further to add with reference to letter No. 34/12/2004-Adm I/BSF/1269-1568 dated 4 January, 2005 that the salary of widows employed out of BSF Pvt. fund both skilled and unskilled which were earlier paid Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,700/- respectively will get Rs. 4,500/- w.e.f. 1st November, 2005 which was circulated vide out letter No. 26/25/2005/Adm I/BSF/22129-22478 dated 31 October, 2005 and 8031-8380 dated 5 April, 2006. Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 2,700/- respectively will get Rs. 4,500/- w.e.f. 1st November, 2005 which was circulated vide out letter No. 26/25/2005/Adm I/BSF/22129-22478 dated 31 October, 2005 and 8031-8380 dated 5 April, 2006. Rs. 4,500/- will continue to be paid to them as per old contract till the fresh contract is finalized" meaning thereby the authority also wants that an employee like the petitioner appointed temporarily on contract basis out of Special Relief Fund in various hospital should continue till the new terms and conditions are finalized by the authority and the aforesaid letter is issued prior to the issuance of the subsequent appointment letter of the petitioner as in Annexure-2 to the writ petition which was followed by Annexure-3 to the writ petition. There is no doubt that an employee is bound by the terms and conditions of his service and he or she cannot claim something more beyond the terms and conditions of his/her service contract including the regularization of his/her service as sought for in the instant case. But at the same time, it cannot be ignored by the Court of law that the petitioner was allowed to work as ANM in the Frontier Hospital for about more than twenty years and all of a sudden, she was made to accept subsequent contractual appointment for a period of one year. 12. Before examining the relevant submission of the learned Counsel for the parties on merit, it would be proper for this Court to consider the question of maintainability of the writ petition as raised by Mr. Biswas, learned Assistant SG. Mr. Biswas has also placed a copy of the Border Security Force Special Relief Fund Rules, the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: 4. Biswas, learned Assistant SG. Mr. Biswas has also placed a copy of the Border Security Force Special Relief Fund Rules, the relevant portion of which is reproduced herein below: 4. Objects of the fund.-The objects of the fund shall be (1) Rehabilitation of widows and orphans, schemes for which may be in the nature of establishment and running of widow homes, providing suitable employment opportunities, sanctioning stipends for educational and vocational training, providing housing facilities and assistance in developing agriculture as a means of livelihood; (2) Sanction for grants for education establishment of BSF Schools and matters connected with education in the Force; (3) Meeting legal cost of suits on behalf of widows, disabled personnel and their dependents; (4) To provide refundable advance to Unit Welfare Centers to enable expansion in their programmes of providing work for the families; (5) To provide assistance to families of BSF personnel in education, vocational training, medical relief or any welfare measure which would benefit the women and children of the members of the BSF; (6) To establish creches for children in the Units; (7) Setting up of hospitals for women and children at selected places and to give financial assistance in case of prolonged hospitalization; (8) To give assistance byway of loans at an interest of 2% and grants for house building and purchasing ready built houses and housing plans and improvement and renovation of existing houses owned by beneficiaries for the same purpose from public institutions by giving guarantees where necessary. Till such time as the beneficiary has not acquired a house, the fund may hire a suitable house for such beneficiary to pay the rent of a house by the beneficiary. (9) To set up agricultural colonies for beneficiaries and purchase or acquire land for the same purpose; (10) To give reasonable grants for performing obligatory social functions; (11) To undertake any other welfare measures which the Governing Body approves. (5) Relief to be given.-All types of relief mentioned in Rule 4 may be given to a beneficiary. 13. From the above, it is clear that the Government grant is available as a source of income if such grants becomes necessary for development of the BSF Special Relief Fund. (5) Relief to be given.-All types of relief mentioned in Rule 4 may be given to a beneficiary. 13. From the above, it is clear that the Government grant is available as a source of income if such grants becomes necessary for development of the BSF Special Relief Fund. Not only that, the administration of fund is also within the control of Governing Body and an Executive Committee in which the Director General, Border Security Force is the Ex-officio President and a representative of the Prime Minister's Scett and some other officers of BSF will be the members. The Assistant Director (Administration), BSF will act as the Secretary of the Fund, meaning thereby over this Fund, the Union of India has some control. Not only that, the respondents are discharging the public duty relating to development of health through Tripura Frontier Hospital which is managed by the Governing Body and/or an Executive Committee which is actually the duty of the 'State' as right to health is a fundamental right of the citizen. Therefore, it cannot be said that the BSF Special Relief Fund is totally under the control of the private body. If the said fund is run by the private body, the same shall not come within the meaning of 'State' as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 14. This Court has gone through the order of the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which was upheld by the Division Bench of the said High Court wherein it is specifically stated that it is neither given grant in aid by the State Government nor it is getting any assistance from the Central or State Governments. And it is also not clear from the said order whether in the Central Education Committee, Government nominees were members or not and whether the said committee was guided by the Rules and Regulations as well as order(s) issued by the Government of India. Therefore, according to this Court, the said decision would not help this Court to decide the dispute in question as well as the case of the respondents. Therefore, according to this Court, the Frontier Hospital, Salbagan is run by the Governing Body or the Executive Committee as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and thus present writ petition is maintainable. 15. Therefore, according to this Court, the Frontier Hospital, Salbagan is run by the Governing Body or the Executive Committee as a 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and thus present writ petition is maintainable. 15. Now let us see whether the order dated 5.2.1987 i.e. the initial appointment letter of the petitioner is in force in view of the subsequent appointment letter dated 4.5.2007 followed by the order dated 2.9.2007 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was appointed as ANM in the Frontier Hospital, Salbagan for a period of one year on consolidated salary of Rs. 4,500/- out of BSF Special Relief Fund even though the earlier appointment letter dated 5.2.1987 was not made cancelled nor was the service of the petitioner terminated in terms of the said appointment letter after continuation for a long period of about twenty years. Perused the Disbursement Register and the relevant records placed by the learned Assistant SG. It is a settled law that even for continuation of a long period on the basis of a specific appointment letter, it does not charge the nature of the appointment. It is also settled that when in the appointment letter some terms are envisaged, then an employee has no right to ask the employer to provide some benefit out of the terms. Contractual appointment/engagement does not create any right for regularization of service as the person concern entered into service knowing future consequence of his service. But at the same time, the employer also should not take benefit of hardship as well as ignorance of the employee concern. In the instant case, though the petitioner was engaged in the year 1987 on a particular scale, and without terminating her service by a specific order, she was provided purely temporary contractual job for a period of one year vide impugned orders. But those orders were not issued in superseding the earlier appointment letter as there is no mention in the subsequent orders. Therefore, it can be easily said that her earlier appointment was deemed to have been terminated. Now question is whether the petitioner can claim for extension of her service even after the contractual period. It is also settled position that the service of an employee comes to an end after completion of the contractual period of service. Therefore, it can be easily said that her earlier appointment was deemed to have been terminated. Now question is whether the petitioner can claim for extension of her service even after the contractual period. It is also settled position that the service of an employee comes to an end after completion of the contractual period of service. Therefore, it can be said that the petitioner has no right to continue in service on the strength of the appointment letter issued in favour of her. But at the same time, it appears that after termination of service of the petitioner, the respondents recommended appointment of fresh candidates being wards/widows of the deceased of the BSF personnel in her place when she was also appointed as a dependent of the BSF personal Sri Champak Das Gupta, ASI considering her provisional certificate issued by one Sivasundari Narisikshasram affiliated in the Indian Red Cross Society, she being the cousin sister of the BSF personal. 16. After her termination, she made a representation onl6.6.2008 to the Inspector General (HQ), Tripura Frontier BSF, Salbagan, Agartala which has admittedly not been disposed of by the said authority. 17. Now let us see whether the case of D.K. Yadav (supra) has any application in the instant case. There is no doubt that the Apex Court in the case of D.K. Yadav (supra) while considering the case of the petitioner of that case stated, inter alia, that the procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood must meet the challenge of Article 14 and such law would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or requirement of Article 14. Not only that, fair play in action requires that the procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable. The manner of exercise of the power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Article-21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence. The manner of exercise of the power and its impact on the rights of the person affected would be in conformity with the principles of natural justice. Article-21 clubs life with liberty, dignity of person with means of livelihood without which the glorious content of dignity of person would be reduced to animal existence. But in that case, the nature of employment was not a contractual one and there was also no undertaking from the side of the appellant of that case that his service can be terminated even without a notice which in the instant case has. Rather, in that case, the appellant being workman absented himself from duty continuously for more than eight days without leave or prior information or intimation or previous permission from the management automatically abandon his service and lost his lien on his appointment as per Clause 13 of certified standing order which was challenged by the said appellant of that case before the Labour Court and ultimately the Labour Court upheld the termination of the appellant's service as legal and valid, against which an appeal by special leave was preferred before the Apex Court and the Apex Court considering the fact of that case held that before automatic termination under certified standing order, the appellant was not provided any opportunity and the duty to give reasonable opportunity to be heard will be implied from the nature of the function to be performed by the authority which has the power to take punitive, or damaging action. Even executive authorities which takes administrative action involved in deprivation of or restriction on inherent fundamental rights of citizens must take care to see that justice is not only done, but manifestly appears to be done. They have a duty to proceed in a way, which is free from even the appearance of arbitrariness, unreasonable or unfairness. The rule of procedure laid down by law comes as much within the purview of Article 14 of the Constitution as any rule of substantive law. Therefore, the said case has no direct bearing in the case in hand. The case of Olga Tellis (supra) as relied by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has also no application as the fact of that case is totally different than the case in hand. Therefore, the said case has no direct bearing in the case in hand. The case of Olga Tellis (supra) as relied by Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, has also no application as the fact of that case is totally different than the case in hand. More so, that was a case filed by a journalist and two pavement dwellers for protecting the lives and properties of lakhs of persons who live on pavement and in slums in the city of Bombay in relating to employment. There is no doubt that right to life includes right to livelihood, but the livelihood also can be taken away with the sanction of law. In the instant case, the petitioner herself gave an undertaking that she will not claim for regularization. Therefore, the said case has no application. But it cannot be overlooked that in the instant case, the procedure adopted by the respondents to terminate the petitioner to some extent unfair and unjust as the respondents are providing the benefits to some other dependents of the BSF personnel as per their subsequent decision on termination of the service of the petitioner. More so, the said order of termination also affected the livelihood of the petitioner to some extent. However, the petitioner has no right to the post of ANM as her service was wholly guided by the terms and conditions of the service. More so, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Secy. State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (3) (2006) 4 SCC 1 , wherein the Apex Court noted that if it is a contractual appointment, the appointment comes to an end at the end of contract, if it were an engagement or appointment on daily wages or casual basis, the same would come to an end when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary employee could not claim to be made permanent on the expiry of his term of appointment. Not only that, in the aforesaid case, the Apex Court also noted that once a person accepts the employment with open eyes though he is not in a position to bargain-not at arm's length since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. Not only that, in the aforesaid case, the Apex Court also noted that once a person accepts the employment with open eyes though he is not in a position to bargain-not at arm's length since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. But at the same time, the Apex Court in that case taking note of the cases of (1) State of Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa AIR 1967 SC 1071 ; (2) R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah (1972) 1 SCC 409 ; (3) B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka (1979) 4 SCC 507 , held that where the employees are continued to work for ten years or more as a duly qualified persons in duly sanctioned vacant post without intervention of the order of the Courts or tribunals, the regularization of their services may have to be considered on merits in the light of the principles settled by the Apex Court in the cases referred to above. In the instant case, it is the admitted position that the present petitioner worked for a period of about twenty years and she also entered into service on proper selection after facing interview. Therefore, though she may not be entitled to be regularized or get permanency in the service in strict sense of law, but can expect that the authority should act with some humane touch as she was forced to accept the subsequent contractual job having no other alternative. It appears from the record that she made a representation to the authority on 16.6.2008 which has not yet been considered and disposed of by the authority concerned. This Court is of opinion that the respondents should consider the same and dispose of within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if the same was not disposed of earlier, with humane touch as she served to the satisfaction of the employer the prime time of her life for the welfare of the aforesaid frontier hospital. 18. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Writ petition decided accordingly.